No womens mini marathon here

dna_leri

Interesting that "the biggest all women's event of its kind in the world" is being held in Dublin this weekend yet there is no dedicated thread about it here.

In other years there was a lot of discussion about the use of the sacroscant word "marathon" and the general tone was negative towards WMM. It would seem that previous years' attitudes have put women off discussing it here.

I think it reflects badly on this forum that it is not seen as an inclusive site for all running related activities. Have we turned into a chauvanistic, snobbish bunch?

donothoponpop

There is a dedicated thread in Events: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72430348

I'm surprised too and agree with you about the lack of talk about it- perhaps its being discussed more over on the Ladies Lounge? Without wishing to suffer a barrage, or to insult anyone, I think its a sort of mass-participation event thats more suitable to discussion on a social forum (which I think the LL is?), than an exclusively running one.

gerard65

I was just thinking about this earlier, 40,000 athletes running tomorrow and not a mention here, very odd.
I'd like to wish all the women the best of luck in the womens marathon tomorrow.

dedon

Well the fact that the word 'marathon' is included in the name puts proper runners off.

Like it is 10km and if you can't run that then you must be a disgracefully unfit.

Furthermore, the fact that most people seem to walk it and then brag that they did a marathon is pretty disgraceful.

It is not taken seriously by athletes but it does good for charity, which should be its main achievenment beacause finishing it is not an achievement at all.

mloc123

Ireland's fastest marathon perhaps?

shels4ever

dedon wrote: »

Well the fact that the word 'marathon' is included in the name puts proper runners off.

Like it is 10km and if you can't run that then you must be a disgracefully unfit.

Furthermore, the fact that most people seem to walk it and then brag that they did a marathon is pretty disgraceful.

It is not taken seriously by athletes but it does good for charity, which should be its main achievenment beacause finishing it is not an achievement at all.

That's all very harsh and ott, i dont think there is anything disgraceful with people doing a 10k even if they are not up to your elite levels. Might not be everyones cup of tea but fairplay.
I helped out at water stations on this for a few years and its a feel good event . Anything that gets 40,000 people running it good in my books.

I'll put up with the word marathon been used now, have given up correcting people about it now

misty floyd

dna_leri wrote: »

Have we turned into a chauvanistic, snobbish bunch?

No :rolleyes:

dedon

shels4ever wrote: »

That's all very harsh and ott, i dont think there is anything disgraceful with people doing a 10k even if they are not up to your elite levels. Might not be everyones cup of tea but fairplay.
I helped out at water stations on this for a few years and its a feel good event . Anything that gets 40,000 people running it good in my books.

I'll put up with the wod marathon been used now, have given up correcting people about it now

The word Marathon shouldn't be mentioned at all. It is far from it.

shels4ever

dedon wrote: »

The word Marathon shouldn't be mentioned at all. It is far from it.

Yes but I think our inflated egos about marathons can take it, or can they ?

hollypink

dedon wrote: »

Well the fact that the word 'marathon' is included in the name puts proper runners off.

Like it is 10km and if you can't run that then you must be a disgracefully unfit.

Furthermore, the fact that most people seem to walk it and then brag that they did a marathon is pretty disgraceful.

dedon wrote: »

It is not taken seriously by athletes

dedon wrote: »

finishing it is not an achievement at all.

No I can't think of any reason why people might be hesitant about discussing the mini-marathon here at all

yantz

dedon wrote: »

Well the fact that the word 'marathon' is included in the name puts proper runners off.

Like it is 10km and if you can't run that then you must be a disgracefully unfit.

Furthermore, the fact that most people seem to walk it and then brag that they did a marathon is pretty disgraceful.

It is not taken seriously by athletes but it does good for charity, which should be its main achievenment beacause finishing it is not an achievement at all.

wtf is a proper runner,probly similar to a surfer on a boogie board ,eh dedon;)

dedon

I don't care what you say. Finishing a 10km walk is not an achievement and not somehing to boast about.

yantz

i wouldnt come on here slagging off any one ,uv no credibility here(nor have i),maybe pop back to the soccer forum...

donothoponpop

dedon wrote: »

I don't care what you say. Finishing a 10km walk is not an achievement and not somehing to boast about.

It's not something to berate either- from the charter "Don't slag someone else's performance. We all strive to improve our times and hopefully this forum will help people do that. If you scoff at someone who is proud of running 50 mins for a 10k, keep it to yourself. It doesn't matter if someone took 10 hours to cover 26.2 miles or used stabilisers to do a triathlon. They are talking about their achievements and please do not undermine that." <mod>

shels4ever

dedon wrote: »

I don't care what you say. Finishing a 10km walk is not an achievement and not somehing to boast about.

Finishing a 5k for someone can be a great thing, everyone starts somewhere not everyone was blessed with your super talent and athletic ability,

BeepBeep67

I've been helping out with this event for about 15 years now (was up just after 5 this morning) it's a fantastic event, yes there are only a couple of thousand of 'serious' runners but as said above this is as much a social event. It's in it's 29th year now and encourages 1000's of women each year to get out and use exercise as a social medium rather than sitting at home watching the soaps, also ask most major charities and they will tell you that the MM is their primary fundraising event each year - now that is an achievement. Long may it continue.

gerard65

Should be renamed the 'Lovely Girls Race' as not to offend the world class athletes who post here:D

Mint Sauce

Without intending to cause offence but there are some replys on this thread which are showing at least the 2nd or 3rd snobbish or dismissive atitude to this distance that I have seen on Boards today, either it not being an achievment, or you must be unfit if you cant do it, or you dont need to train to do it.

For many 10k is a huge achievment, and for me its the next one I'm aiming for. I never really considered my self unfit, but a couple of months ago I would have struggled to run from here to the shops, dispite being having completing cycling distances over 100k many times over the years, and for many new to running, including my self, its one of those targets.

Good luck to all the woman tomorrow (and the odd fella in drag), hope its a good day for ya's.

Raighne

shels4ever wrote: »

Finishing a 5k for someone can be a great thing, everyone starts somewhere not everyone was blessed with your super talent and athletic ability,

I would take a slightly different perspective on this whole discussion. I don't agree with the quoted poster but I believe we need to change our tact on exercise much more fundamentally as a society.

Personally, even looking at an ultra-event, my opinion on it is that 8-9 hours running is not a superhuman performance. Not too long ago this was not even a full day's hard work.

It is not beyond anyone's able-bodied persons abilities to move at a reasonable pace over a 10k distance. This also applies to 42.2km and most other distances. We were designed for being on the move for huge treks while hunting, gathering, jumping, working and what not over hard and uneven terrain on a daily basis.

The fact that we today celebrate much less daunting achievements is no ill reflection on the people participating. What constitutes a challenge depends on your starting point. That our starting point has fallen so low is the fundamental issue.

I am split over whether we are doing ourselves a favour by celebrating achievements that should be entirely ordinary, and that our not too distant forefathers would have found trivial, or whether we need to open the eyes of the public to what is really possible.

To reiterate, anyone who adopts a proper diet, a truly active lifestyle (and many running programs are decidedly not that) and keeps themselves more active in general, could reach the unprecedented heights for themselves.

Only our grandfathers biked back and from work, worked hard for 8-12 hours (physical labour) and probably still had chores to attend to when they come home. Many of them ran as well. To my mind, this is the standard we need to aspire to again and not the one that sedentarism has foisted upon us.

nerraw1111

Great post raighne.

Stark

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

It's in it's 29th year now and encourages 1000's of women each year to get out and use exercise as a social medium rather than sitting at home watching the soaps, also ask most major charities and they will tell you that the MM is their primary fundraising event each year - now that is an achievement. Long may it continue.

The problem is most of those women pat themselves on the back for completing a "marathon" then go back to sitting on the couch watching the soaps for another year.

I have far more respect for the much shorter Fit4life races, civil service harriers 5k trail races etc. They do what they say on the tin, provide an entry point into the sport.

mloc123

The problem with alot of posters on here is that they see distance as king. 4hour marathon or 33min 10k... I know which I would prefer. Alot on here seemto thinking that slow, long jogs are where it is at.

BeepBeep67

Stark wrote: »

The problem is most of those women pat themselves on the back for completing a "marathon" then go back to sitting on the couch watching the soaps for another year.

I have far more respect for the much shorter Fit4life races, civil service harriers 5k trail races etc. They do what they say on the tin, provide an entry point into the sport.

I fail to see why it has to be perceived as a 'problem', 'most' don't think they have completed a marathon, they have compelted a 'mini' marathon, which has served it's purpose (what will we start calling the half-marathon?). I agree most don't continue with the activity and view this as an annual event, on the other hand I know quite a few who have come into the sport on the back of the MM. The various mini-marathon meet and train groups I'm sure was part of the stimulus that kick started the Fit4Life idea, which was originally funded by the Women in Sport initiative from the Sports Council.

carlybabe1

dedon wrote: »

I don't care what you say. Finishing a 10km walk is not an achievement and not somehing to boast about.

the UTTER CHEEK of you, it bloody well is a wonderful achievement for a survivor of cancer. It also is an achievement for someone who is raising money for a good cause while stumbling around daily life through grief of loss. Or how about people that are practically crippled with arthritis, is it not an achievement for them?? Should they not feel proud of themselves because you deem it not to be an achievement.
how DARE YOU quote what an achievement is or isnt. Im assuming that when you finish a "real" marathon, that you have a sense of achievment, well heres a newsflash, the rest of the world dont consider it a huge achievement, in fact most people wouldnt give a toss. you might get an "oh well done, fair play" from your mates in the pub but I doubt you get an kind of hero worship for your achievement. I have more respect for people doing it to raise money or awareness for IMPORTANT things, and frankly so do most people. And the vast majority of people doing it are doing it for charity. And just as a matter of interest, when was the last time you ran a marathon mini or otherwise, for a good cause rather than for just your own sense of achievement.
I despise snobbery of any kind, it highlights just how many people are so thoroughly self involved that they cant stop and think of things from another persons point of view. Its depressing really, and pisses the t**s right off me

rant over

Stark

carlybabe1 wrote: »

the UTTER CHEEK of you, it bloody well is a wonderful achievement for a survivor of cancer. It also is an achievement for someone who is raising money for a good cause while stumbling around daily life through grief of loss. Or how about people that are practically crippled with arthritis, is it not an achievement for them??

Or for someone made of straw.

carlybabe1

Stark wrote: »

Or for someone made of straw.

Highly intelligent post there, cheers




talk about proving a point

Stark

Well a strawman position is exactly what you've created. No-one claimed walking 10k wasn't an achievement for someone who's undergoing chemo, is decrepid, has bloody stumps in place of legs or whatever. They're talking about your average Joesphine. But feel free to believe that people are personally attacking your granny or whomever if you want to feel indignant.

T runner

dedon wrote: »

I don't care what you say. Finishing a 10km walk is not an achievement and not somehing to boast about.

Some finish that 10k walk in circa 34 minutes.

If you are not used to it and raise money for a worthy cause then its achievement enough.

Im guessing you're a young male. Whats your PB for a 10k may i ask. How much money do you raise annually for worthy causes?

EC1000

If I may try to answer the original poster...

I dont necessarily think the lack of a thread on the main board is sign that people are fearsome of attitudes towards the MM. The country's largest triathlon was on this weekend also and there is not a squeek on here about it either. Sometimes, an event is so well known or so well established that there is nothing to say that hasn't been said before...........

T runner

Raighne wrote: »

I would take a slightly different perspective on this whole discussion. I don't agree with the quoted poster but I believe we need to change our tact on exercise much more fundamentally as a society.

Personally, even looking at an ultra-event, my opinion on it is that 8-9 hours running is not a superhuman performance. Not too long ago this was not even a full day's hard work.

It is not beyond anyone's able-bodied persons abilities to move at a reasonable pace over a 10k distance. This also applies to 42.2km and most other distances. We were designed for being on the move for huge treks while hunting, gathering, jumping, working and what not over hard and uneven terrain on a daily basis.

The fact that we today celebrate much less daunting achievements is no ill reflection on the people participating. What constitutes a challenge depends on your starting point. That our starting point has fallen so low is the fundamental issue.

I am split over whether we are doing ourselves a favour by celebrating achievements that should be entirely ordinary, and that our not too distant forefathers would have found trivial, or whether we need to open the eyes of the public to what is really possible.

To reiterate, anyone who adopts a proper diet, a truly active lifestyle (and many running programs are decidedly not that) and keeps themselves more active in general, could reach the unprecedented heights for themselves.

Only our grandfathers biked back and from work, worked hard for 8-12 hours (physical labour) and probably still had chores to attend to when they come home. Many of them ran as well. To my mind, this is the standard we need to aspire to again and not the one that sedentarism has foisted upon us.

Our forefathers exercised in this way out of necessity not out of pleasure.

We cannot aspire to exercise and work in this manner out of necessity in a first world country. Indeed third world countries aspire to have the working conditions of first world nations.

We can only aspire to step in the direction of leading fitter lives as a choice rather than a necessity.

Therefore coming from a condition of complete inactivity as many of these women do: then getting out and joining a MM group, raising a few bob and completing the event is an achievement that must be encouraged.
Similar to many people's experience completing a marathon: all steps in the right direction.

kingQuez

For some the mini-marathon is a serious race, for some its a fundraiser, and for some its a lark. From my point of view anything that gets this many people out of the house, even if its only once a year, and raises as much money for deserving charities is a good thing.

When racing, the only times I ever care about are my own, so why get upset when someone else is going slower than you? And just because you're raising some cash for a good cause shouldn't give you the impression you need to climb onto a soapbox.

Life is short. Be content with your own achievements, and let others do likewise

G'luck to anyone taking part tomorrow.

Oryx

So its not mentioned here much. Whats the problem with that? It could just be because the regulars here aren't doing it. Triathy was this weekend, usually there is a busy thread for that size event, I didn't see one, but again so what, if I want one I'll start one.

I think everyone has to start their fitness somewhere and that somewhere might be pretty low if they are particularly unfit. I think its rude of anyone to say a 10k run is not an achievement. If I had heard that when I started I might have given up, because I found it hard to achieve. Don't forget not everyone has your level of fitness, big fast men of this thread.

As for doing the 10k as a walk and thinking its a big deal. My only problem with that is that those who do it think it is enough. They chalk up their marathon and never think that maybe they could push themselves more, because hey, they've done a marathon! And thats big! This race doesnt affect us wonderful fit people, so why people here get so snotty over lesser achievements I don't know. The average girl walking tomorrow still won't know what an ultra or triathlon is.

RoyMcC

Three of the best, well thought out posts I've seen on here for ages - Raighne, carlybabe1 and T Runner [URL="javascript:emoticon(':applause:')"][/URL][URL="javascript:emoticon(':applause:')"][/URL][URL="javascript:emoticon(':applause:')"][/URL]

plodder

I think it's fantastic to see so many women out training in the weeks leading up to this. It can only be a good thing. fit4life might be the next logical step for some who want to take it further, though more than likely it'd be the other mass participation events like the DCM series, the GIR etc. that will attract these people.

I do think it was a bit cheeky to usurp the term marathon though. It seems to cause most offence when the important "mini" prefix is omitted But, it certainly doesn't bother me, and I don't think any offence is intended by it. It's also the biggest (and one of the best organised) athletic events in the country by a long shot ....

Best of luck to all running tomorrow !!

carlybabe1

<banned for 7 days for insulting other users>

jb-ski

RoyMcC wrote: »

Three of the best, well thought out posts I've seen on here for ages - Raighne, carlybabe1 and T Runner [URL="javascript:emoticon(':applause:')"][/URL][URL="javascript:emoticon(':applause:')"][/URL][URL="javascript:emoticon(':applause:')"][/URL]

+1

Also just another small observation.

this is an incredibly well organised 10K in the City Centre(ish) with all the 'bells & whistles' and it costs a whopping.........................€17.

with all the bitching that goes on here about Race Entry costs, just wanted to point that out.

So the best of luck to EVERYONE today!


P.S. i do the the Men in drag thing is a little bit 'tired' at this stage though. IMO leave it to the ladies.

Raighne

T runner wrote: »

Our forefathers exercised in this way out of necessity not out of pleasure.

We cannot aspire to exercise and work in this manner out of necessity in a first world country. Indeed third world countries aspire to have the working conditions of first world nations.

We can only aspire to step in the direction of leading fitter lives as a choice rather than a necessity.

Therefore coming from a condition of complete inactivity as many of these women do: then getting out and joining a MM group, raising a few bob and completing the event is an achievement that must be encouraged.
Similar to many people's experience completing a marathon: all steps in the right direction.

Of course our forefathers did this out of necessity, yes. Today we sit eight to twelve hours in front of computer screens, try to fit our work around abstract metrics, and read through email on autopilot while our bodies waste away. Out of necessity.

Our first world life-style has brought with it a whole host of new diseases and ailments as part of the price for "curing the basics". The population wide fitness levels is one of these.

Either way, I am not convinced third world countries are aspiring so much to our standard and working conditions as they are aspiring to get basic democratic rights, reasonable food supply and other necessities. They would be wise to learn from our failures and construct something better than we have.

As I mentioned, I disagree with the earlier posters statements and do not wish to discourage anyone from entering a mini-marathon. Coming from a state of complete inactivity is indeed a great achievement (I have done so itself and the habits our society foists upon us are hard to break).

Yet, my question remains whether we, as a society, need to put the physical capabilities of our species in the proper perspective again. To my mind, the root of the problem is that a walk up a mountain or marathon run is considered an impressive physical feat. The message I would prefer to proliferate is that our lifestyles have made us sick but if we perform the right steps anyone can do "a, b, c". Communicating the incremental steps needed is part of this process, but we need to set the end-goal high.

Yes, we do not work out of necessity, all day, anymore, but there are plenty of things we can do individually and as a society to significantly increase the activity levels of our forefathers. It is unlikely that you need 8-12 hours hard labour to regain our full genetic potential. We need only find our way back to that middle-ground

As a point in case, the time writing this post would probably have been better spent doing some air-squats and push-ups

T runner

Raighne wrote: »

Of course our forefathers did this out of necessity, yes. Today we sit eight to twelve hours in front of computer screens, try to fit our work around abstract metrics, and read through email on autopilot while our bodies waste away. Out of necessity.

Our first world life-style has brought with it a whole host of new diseases and ailments as part of the price for "curing the basics". The population wide fitness levels is one of these.

Either way, I am not convinced third world countries are aspiring so much to our standard and working conditions as they are aspiring to get basic democratic rights, reasonable food supply and other necessities. They would be wise to learn from our failures and construct something better than we have.

As I mentioned, I disagree with the earlier posters statements and do not wish to discourage anyone from entering a mini-marathon. Coming from a state of complete inactivity is indeed a great achievement (I have done so itself and the habits our society foists upon us are hard to break).

Yet, my question remains whether we, as a society, need to put the physical capabilities of our species in the proper perspective again. To my mind, the root of the problem is that a walk up a mountain or marathon run is considered an impressive physical feat. The message I would prefer to proliferate is that our lifestyles have made us sick but if we perform the right steps anyone can do "a, b, c". Communicating the incremental steps needed is part of this process, but we need to set the end-goal high.

Yes, we do not work out of necessity, all day, anymore, but there are plenty of things we can do individually and as a society to significantly increase the activity levels of our forefathers. It is unlikely that you need 8-12 hours hard labour to regain our full genetic potential. We need only find our way back to that middle-ground

As a point in case, the time writing this post would probably have been better spent doing some air-squats and push-ups

Raighne. There are flaws with how we live today (as there are flaws with how our forefathers lived). Society always foist habits on us, that is group culture.

The point about necessity is still relevant. You will not get people (in general) to do physical activity they perceive as unnecessary. This is probably a completely natural position: You conserve precious energy until necessary to expend it.

Despite what people may think, people in Ireland today are as healthy as they have ever been.

Any child born this year can expect to live into the 22nd century.

By education you can convince people that a healthy life style is necessary. We are moving this way with events like teh mini-marathon.

You will not convince people that fulfilling their genetic potential is necessary. You can convince them its possiblebut never that its necessary.

Society may well UP what it considers to be the upper limit of human capability. Society does not consider a mini marathon to be the ultimate achievement. But it does consider it to be a relative achievemnt for some of its participants.

As more and more people (in Irelands huge "middle class") are improving their fitness by meet and train and fit for life and getting fit in the post drinking boom smoking ban society we can expect that more and more ultra achievements sink into societies awareness.

You need Mini marathons to shift a s society to, most importantly, accept a healthy lifestyle as a necessity. Eventually when enough people are healthy socity may become aware of the possibilities of human physical potential.

Relevant for some: but not neccessary for mass groups of individuals to pursue.

That is why participants in the mini marathon should be lauded as achieving: not as a recognition as it as the ultimate physical test-rather as a means to educate society to the benefits of physical health (and camraderie, charity, selflessness and kindness to fellow man)

RoyMcC

T runner wrote: »

Despite what people may think, people in Ireland today are as healthy as they have ever been.

While I like the analysis I am :eek: about the above statement. Increased life expectancy does not = healthier living. Increased life expectancy comes because of advances in medical science and the ability to keep people going for longer, never mind the quality of life. (The increasing inability of the health service to cope with the demands upon it is illustrative of these modern times.)

Worldwide obesity has doubled since 1980 (World Health Org.) I guess Ireland isn't bucking the trend.

Raighne

T runner wrote: »

Raighne. There are flaws with how we live today (as there are flaws with how our forefathers lived). Society always foist habits on us, that is group culture.

The point about necessity is still relevant. You will not get people (in general) to do physical activity they perceive as unnecessary. This is probably a completely natural position: You conserve precious energy until necessary to expend it.

Despite what people may think, people in Ireland today are as healthy as they have ever been.

Any child born this year can expect to live into the 22nd century.

By education you can convince people that a healthy life style is necessary. We are moving this way with events like teh mini-marathon.

You will not convince people that fulfilling their genetic potential is necessary. You can convince them its possiblebut never that its necessary.

Society may well UP what it considers to be the upper limit of human capability. Society does not consider a mini marathon to be the ultimate achievement. But it does consider it to be a relative achievemnt for some of its participants.

As more and more people (in Irelands huge "middle class") are improving their fitness by meet and train and fit for life and getting fit in the post drinking boom smoking ban society we can expect that more and more ultra achievements sink into societies awareness.

You need Mini marathons to shift a s society to, most importantly, accept a healthy lifestyle as a necessity. Eventually when enough people are healthy socity may become aware of the possibilities of human physical potential.

Relevant for some: but not neccessary for mass groups of individuals to pursue.

That is why participants in the mini marathon should be lauded as achieving: not as a recognition as it as the ultimate physical test-rather as a means to educate society to the benefits of physical health (and camraderie, charity, selflessness and kindness to fellow man)

Some excellent points, I'd be in agreement with all that and can see how mini-marathons etc. form part of a long-term strategy of raising public awareness of the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.

I would disagree with the statement that the Irish population is as healthy as it ever was if the marker is average life expectancy. I first came across opposition to this notion when reading Dr. Mike Stroud's "Survival of the Fittest which showed how Stone Age people were physically formidable until very old age and plenty lived into their sixties and seventies. The problem was that infant mortality was massive, life was much more dangerous (and any wound could be fatal) as well as the absence of cures for simple diseases.

It would be interesting to compare the statistics if these factors could be taken out. The second issue with talking about "health" is that no widely accepted definition exists. Sam Harris, author of the "The Morale Landscape" points out that the definitions for health and morale suffer the same problem: There is no fixed standard. Using the example of health, Harris speculates that some day anyone who can't run a marathon in less than three hours may be considered "ill" or "disabled" due to advances in medical science, whereas today they are not. He may well be right, and my own guess is that the elderly stone age people who survived into old age were stronger, fitter, and healthier than our elderly today. There is evidence, if not conclusive, to support that notion.

To reply to a point I see in the thread in general on why there is a certain degree of "hostility" or "bad will" from certain parts of the running community to the mini-marathon, I think it stems from a few factors:

1. The term "mini-marathon" is perceived as demeaning and/or inappropriate in reference to the achievement of completing a full marathon. My view: It's a marketing ploy, some will deplore it for that, others applaud it for its efficacy. Personally, I regret that "10k" no longer has a magic appeal to the masses, for it is a classic distance. In athletics, we possibly have a big job of re-marketing ourselves. This is possible just remember the "Mile Rave" in the days of "the perfect distance" fuelled by the rivalry of Coe and Ovett.

2. "Serious" runners do not connect with "joggers" and are annoyed/irritated by people mixing up their two sports as they see it as demeaning their achievements similar to what a rugby player may think if compared to a tag rugby player and the mini-marathon has become a symbol of what "real runners" don't want to be associated with for some. My take: It's human nature to seek to divide ourselves into "groups" and we are build to think in terms of "us" and "them". Clearly, casual jogging and competitive running are not truly the same sport (different levels of commitment, training, and even running styles are applied) but the the "groups" come together in many races and jogging is usually the entry-ticket to the latter.

I think issue two can be solved from two sides. On the one hand we "serious runners" need to take things in our stride even if someone laughs off our recent cross-country race and points to the jogger next table saying "but he did the marathon". I tell this story because it's been told to me and I know this is the sort of thing that can make some people seethe: the old issue that the general public cannot distinguish that running a hard cross-country race and finishing last may be a greater athletic achievement than running 4 hours for a marathon.

This is obviously no ones fault, because I believe the source of this irritation is a lack of awareness about the athletic discipline of running in the media and in general. Plenty of people are ignorant of plenty of sports. As I see it, we can either just accept it and be happy that we know the ins and outs ourselves and that people with a deep knowledge of athletics will know a performance for what it is, or we must appeal to our governing bodies to try and grow the sport and the knowledge of the sport.

Working with the media will be key as today if you watch the Great North Run or London Marathon on the tv, the athletic performances take the backseat and the majority of screen-time is dedicated to talking to runners, charities and celebrities. As a runner watching, I would obviously want to follow the race, hear about the training of the athletes, and all the other things you would expect to hear during normal sports commentary. For running, you need to watch a Track meet for this sort of media coverage.

Now media need viewers and the average person may be more inclined in the "social coverage" and perhaps here we arrive at the root (finally!) of the problem: Running has moved into a strange domain between competitive sports and social event and this causes a kind of "dual entity" with people trying to associate themselves only with one.

I do not know the answers on how to address this without using the societal benefits of the mass participation events. If cross-country and National events could be marketed better and would always be held on their own (rather than in conjunction with mass participation event), and the media would back them better, this would help re-brand our sport. But perhaps we, in the athletic community, may have to accept that currently there is no interest for this in the population.

In the Perfect Distance, Steve Ovett offers some insightful ideas on why the talent-pool for English running has dried up, saying that when he was young "Running was cool" because your first experience was seeing tough men and women fighting it out in the mud in singlets at a cross-country field. To a young lad this was appealing as a sport. He goes on to say that today many children see people and their parents "running and running poorly" and not looking like they enjoy it too much and this is "not cool" especially compared to the glitz and glamour of soccer, rugby and so on. I think it is an interesting point.

jb-ski

dna_leri wrote: »

Interesting that "the biggest all women's event of its kind in the world" is being held in Dublin this weekend yet there is no dedicated thread about it here.

@dna_leri, bet you're sorry you asked now:D

Faith+1

I will say it's a good event for the women folk in this country but the use of the word "Marathon" in the title is an exaggeration of the highest order.
They should call it a fun run or womens walkie day.

T runner

Raighne wrote: »

I would disagree with the statement that the Irish population is as healthy as it ever was if the marker is average life expectancy. I first came across opposition to this notion when reading Dr. Mike Stroud's "Survival of the Fittest which showed how Stone Age people were physically formidable until very old age and plenty lived into their sixties and seventies. The problem was that infant mortality was massive, life was much more dangerous (and any wound could be fatal) as well as the absence of cures for simple diseases.

It would be interesting to compare the statistics if these factors could be taken out.

They would no doubt show that the small proportion of stone age humans surviving to adulthood were indeed stronger and fitter than a similar proportion of the fittest surviving elederly today from a similar population size.

Physical strenght, stamina, endurance and speed were qualities necessary for survival then. Another physical trait necessary was the ability to digest food ie a large large intestine. Since cooked food meant that more blood could be diverted away from the large intestine and that brain size could be developed into the humans strongest asset. So strong humans now may have different physical makeups to strong humans then. It is a completely differennt environment and thus requires different strenghts to survive.
Medical advances come into the same category as cooked food in human development and the multitude of advances in farming has influenced the genetic makeup we need.

The second issue with talking about "health" is that no widely accepted definition exists. Sam Harris, author of the "The Morale Landscape" points out that the definitions for health and morale suffer the same problem: There is no fixed standard. Using the example of health, Harris speculates that some day anyone who can't run a marathon in less than three hours may be considered "ill" or "disabled" due to advances in medical science, whereas today they are not.

I have grave doubts about M Harris's underlyinga ssumption that a typical modern western man has the genetic makeup to run a 3 hour marathon without a massively unnecessary amount of training unless he is prescribing prosthetics?

He may well be right, and my own guess is that the elderly stone age people who survived into old age were stronger, fitter, and healthier than our elderly today. There is evidence, if not conclusive, to support that notion.

The average elderly stone age person may be stronger and fitter than the equivalent proportion of average western elderly people today. Healthier? I doubt it. Whatever definition you use for health it must be taken with the species and its environment in mind.

Is a grizzly a healthy Polar Bear? Not in the Arctic circle it aint!

To reply to a point I see in the thread in general on why there is a certain degree of "hostility" or "bad will" from certain parts of the running community to the mini-marathon, I think it stems from a few factors:

1. This is possible just remember the "Mile Rave" in the days of "the perfect distance" fuelled by the rivalry of Coe and Ovett.

I would have thought that the American adoption, sponsorship and support of the mile distance both outdoor and indoor with events such as the Wannamaker mile in Madison sqr gardens and athletes such as Walker, Coghlan, O'Sullivan etc. had more of a fuelling effect on mile popularity in the US, Ireland, and Worldwide. Coe or Ovett, (both great athletes) caught the imagination of the British public for sure but their influence might not have been taht much more substantial than this.

2. "Serious" runners do not connect with "joggers" ..........

I think Kingquez's attitude is best. the only time you need a runner needs to be concerned with is their own.

I would see people who train regularly getting upset by mini marathoners as possibly needing to train their ego.

The expansion of ego is ironically a weakness of the modern human who misunderstands his place and importance in the overall scheme of things. In exreme cases this can contribute to modern psycholgical diseases.

You are correct and some of the posters believe the term mini marathon degrades their own performance or more importantly others perception of it (deflates their ego).

Just as an achievement for a particular woman might be to walk 10k continuously an achievement for such a poster might be to evaluate such a womans achievment with humility and without the misguided need to assess how it might reflect on themselves.

A laudable marketing ploy id wager. The "marathon" actually would probably describe its similarity to large scale city marathons (in number of participants and size, not in actual distance) when it was inaugerated originally.

The whole phrase mini marathon thus applies to the huge scale of event and also elegantly is factually correct in that any race smaller in distance than a marathon could be described thus.

T runner

Raighne wrote: »

This is obviously no ones fault, because I believe the source of this irritation is a lack of awareness about the athletic discipline of running in the media and in general. Plenty of people are ignorant of plenty of sports. As I see it, we can either just accept it and be happy that we know the ins and outs ourselves and that people with a deep knowledge of athletics will know a performance for what it is, or we must appeal to our governing bodies to try and grow the sport and the knowledge of the sport.

Working with the media will be key as today if you watch the Great North Run or London Marathon on the tv, the athletic performances take the backseat and the majority of screen-time is dedicated to talking to runners, charities and celebrities. As a runner watching, I would obviously want to follow the race, hear about the training of the athletes, and all the other things you would expect to hear during normal sports commentary. For running, you need to watch a Track meet for this sort of media coverage.

Now media need viewers and the average person may be more inclined in the "social coverage" and perhaps here we arrive at the root (finally!) of the problem: Running has moved into a strange domain between competitive sports and social event and this causes a kind of "dual entity" with people trying to associate themselves only with one.

I do not know the answers on how to address this without using the societal benefits of the mass participation events. If cross-country and National events could be marketed better and would always be held on their own (rather than in conjunction with mass participation event), and the media would back them better, this would help re-brand our sport. But perhaps we, in the athletic community, may have to accept that currently there is no interest for this in the population.
........

I agree 100% with this. I believe governing body need to seriously look at catching up in the the area of communications.

Social media and particular Twitter (where every irish journalist is hanging out it seems) mean that we can simply have an instant conversation with a journalist and tell them what you want them to hear and see.

They (and every athletic organisation/club in the country) can follow you and thus have access to every single update automatically.

It is the single best way to advertise your website to people who are not regular users. Once they follow you they immediately become as well informed as a regular runner or member of that organisation.


Journalists now almost expect a presence on twitter. A case in point was an article by Ian O'Riordan about cheap races in Ireland. IMRA races at 7 euro a go werent mentioned. You can blame O'Riordan: but id look at the use of incompleete modes of communication. Social media is the connection between sports organisations, journalists/clubs etc, and websites.

Bugsy2000

I'm thinking of arranging a mens 5k Ultra Mini Marathon to go alongside the womens race. Any takers?

Stark

Cork city has a 6.5km mini-marathon. Close enough.

Cartman78

Ahh...the annual mini-marathon debate :rolleyes:

To be honest, I find the use of the term 'marathon' being associated with a 10k mildly irksome but nothing worth getting knickers knotted over.

Some of the attitudes expressed above re: 'finishing not being an achievement' are a tad off the mark imo.

If you ever have the misfortune to suffer a serious, running 'career' threatening injury or illness, then you guys might get some persepective on this. Recently finished my first 10k after 6 months out (having had to miss out of 2 marathons I'd entered) and I can deffo confirm that was an achievement.

It's all relative - stand at the finish line of any 10k race in the country and you'll see some coming in effing & blinding for missing their PB by 3.4 secs and some coming in 30 mins later literally drowning in sweat and tears and celebrating like they've won Olympic gold.

ocnoc

I find it very amusing that people are getting so upset that ~40,000 women are taking part in an event that involves running/jogging/walking/crawling.

If even 10% join a club/continue to run, that would inflate numbers. The more people you have involved, the more political clout you hold. The more clout you hold, the better that chance you have of increasing funding.

More funding = more/better facilities

Going from the figures, the AAI have 29,128 members.
More run the Mini marathon than are members of the AAI.
So slaters of the mini marathon, get off your high horse and encourage people.


Just out of interest, would you get offended by the term Mountain Marathon?
Like, they range between 20-80km.... but its split over TWO days :eek:

PaulieC

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

marathon, n.
1. A long-distance running race, usually of 26 miles 385 yards (42·195 km). Also: a race of this length in swimming, etc. Freq. attrib. (esp. in marathon race, marathon run).
2. Any long-distance race, competition, or event calling for endurance, esp. one undertaken in order to raise money or publicize a cause.

Definition number 2 would cover the Women's MM, no ? The only contentious part would be the "long-distance" part, but that is extremely subjective...

ManFromAtlantis

i think its a great event for the serious and the not so serious.
it helps makes running/training a 'normal' activity for women (and men) so long may it continue.

and to quote 'The Quiet man'

'why, even Fr lonergan had a mother.';)

T runner

Bugsy2000 wrote: »

I'm thinking of arranging a mens 5k Ultra Mini Marathon to go alongside the womens race. Any takers?

You'd only get one or two greenhorns id wager. 3 if you ran yourself..