The Rant Thread(a place to dump ur baggage)

Inventive User Name

I don't understand beginners who try running marathons straight away when they can only run about 25:00 minutes for 5km. There's a obsession with slogging miles and increasing distance while the speed required for 1,500m, 3km, 5km is often neglected. Each to their own I suppose!

AK333

Inventive User Name wrote: »

I don't understand beginners who try running marathons straight away when they can only run about 25:00 minutes for 5km. There's a obsession with slogging miles and increasing distance while the speed required for 1,500m, 3km, 5km is often neglected. Each to their own I suppose!

Other runners thinking that all races are only for the elite or established runners -

maybe some of us don't have natural ability or youth on our side but we should still be encouraged to join in and participate - who cares what their motivation is - its their motivation not yours :mad:

DubOnHoliday

I'd love to know what

Inventive User Name wrote: »

...
the speed required for 1,500m, 3km, 5km

is...

Inventive User Name

AK333 wrote: »

Other runners thinking that all races are only for the elite or established runners -

maybe some of us don't have natural ability or youth on our side but we should still be encouraged to join in and participate - who cares what their motivation is - its their motivation not yours :mad:

Trust me, I'm far from elite. The point I was trying to make was I think people should try to maximise their potential at shorter distances before moving up. They'll end up running faster marathons because of it too, win win situation!:D

adrian522

Inventive User Name wrote: »

Trust me, I'm far from elite. The point I was trying to make was I think people should try to maximise their potential at shorter distances before moving up. They'll end up running faster marathons because of it too, win win situation!:D

You could just as easily argue the opposite. It comes down to personal preference.

Personally I have zero interest in running anything shorter than 5K. I don't see why I should maximize potential at shorter distances before running longer events.

And also you'll end up with faster 5k/10K times as a result of marathon training. Also win/win.

pconn062

adrian522 wrote: »

You could just as easily argue the opposite. It comes down to personal preference.

Personally I have zero interest in running anything shorter than 5K. I don't see why I should maximize potential at shorter distances before running longer events.

And also you'll end up with faster 5k/10K times as a result of marathon training. Also win/win.

You will also end up with faster marathon times if you focus on 5/10k times, but people rarely do and prefer to slog from one marathon to another. Try and find one elite marathoner than doesn't include shorter distance specific training in their marathon build up.

pconn062

AK333 wrote: »

Other runners thinking that all races are only for the elite or established runners -

maybe some of us don't have natural ability or youth on our side but we should still be encouraged to join in and participate - who cares what their motivation is - its their motivation not yours :mad:

I think you missed his point, and you're just looking to be offended, he never mentioned natural ability. You don't need natural ability to run 1500m or 3k, the same way you don't need it to run a marathon.

adrian522

I don't think this thread is the right place for this debate but essentially I agree with you and that was just the point I was making. Running the shorter stuff will help improve the longer stuff and vice versa.

Especially in novice/beginner runners.

Pacing Mule

Inventive User Name wrote: »

I don't understand beginners who try running marathons straight away when they can only run about 25:00 minutes for 5km. There's a obsession with slogging miles and increasing distance while the speed required for 1,500m, 3km, 5km is often neglected. Each to their own I suppose!

I will take a swing at this - considering I was one of those

New to running especially if running is what has gotten you off the couch leaves you with a different mindset. What I mean by that is if you have never excercised and start running versus maybe someone with an already fit background in other sports.

You start off on a couch to 5k program. Each week you run a bit further. Success and fitness is built on the progress in distance. You go from zero to 5k no matter how slow - you've ran 5k. Now you look at what can I do next. 10k is the obvious choice. Then when you have hit 10k you start thinking of the holy grail of marathoning. If you can complete a marathon then you are further endorsing and cementing your fitness and off you go into it !

Getting faster at 5k or 10k isn't the obvious choice at all. In fact to some new runners it would appear if not actually be easier to step up to a relatively slower marathon run than get the 5k time down.

To each their own as you say. But I would be inclined to be happy that those people have taken up the running in the first place.

Chivito550

Pacing Mule wrote: »

You start off on a couch to 5k program. Each week you run a bit further. Success and fitness is built on the progress in distance. You go from zero to 5k no matter how slow - you've ran 5k. Now you look at what can I do next. 10k is the obvious choice. Then when you have hit 10k you start thinking of the holy grail of marathoning. If you can complete a marathon then you are further endorsing and cementing your fitness and off you go into it !

My rant would be this attitude to running. Pure tick the box, and the belief that going long is where it is at. Grinding out a sub 20 5k after months or years of dedicated training is far more impressive, both in terms of dedication and athletic accomplishment, than slogging out a 5+ hour marathon. I always get the feeling people go for the latter so they can brag around the office water cooler to their equally clueless co-workers. I don't really care if somebody had to come from being heavily overweight to start with. That's the person's fault for getting into such a state in the first place. This is a sport, and in this sport it is all about competion, whether against others, or against your previous times. Ticking the boxes is not really sport.

AK333

pconn062 wrote: »

I think you missed his point, and you're just looking to be offended, he never mentioned natural ability. You don't need natural ability to run 1500m or 3k, the same way you don't need it to run a marathon.

he mentioned beginners and to me that means the opposite of an established runner - and no I'm not looking to be offended - but please bear in mind just how hard it is for someone (me) to continually front up to races, cos I'm racing my own times as well as others, and to continually come last cos I'm not that good - hands up, I'm useless but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try - God loves a trier, and I'm very trying :P

Pacing Mule

Chivito550 wrote: »

My rant would be this attitude to running. Pure tick the box, and the belief that going long is where it is at. Grinding out a sub 20 5k after months or years of dedicated training is far more impressive, both in terms of dedication and athletic accomplishment, than slogging out a 5+ hour marathon. I always get the feeling people go for the latter so they can brag around the office water cooler to their equally clueless co-workers. I don't really care if somebody had to come from being heavily overweight to start with. That's the person's fault for getting into such a state in the first place. This is a sport, and in this sport it is all about competion, whether against others, or against your previous times. Ticking the boxes is not really sport.

The more experienced and knowledgable me agrees with you in regards to what is a better achievement for what it's worth.

walshb

I have only entered a few races but I always raced against myself and the clock. I mean, when there are hundreds in the race who are you competing against? It's a blur. It's nice to use others as a target. If ahead of you and on your pace they can help motivate you. The smaller races is where people race.

vitani

Inventive User Name wrote: »

I don't understand beginners who try running marathons straight away when they can only run about 25:00 minutes for 5km. There's a obsession with slogging miles and increasing distance while the speed required for 1,500m, 3km, 5km is often neglected. Each to their own I suppose!

I'm one of those. I've been running less than a year and a half and planning a marathon this year. Each to their own, as you say. Personally, I find I enjoy the longer distances more. I feel like I'm suited to endurance rather than speed and I'm even toying with the idea of moving up to ultras in a couple of years.

walshb

Inventive User Name wrote: »

I don't understand beginners who try running marathons straight away when they can only run about 25:00 minutes for 5km.

That would be a pretty big percentage of the runners in a marathon. Falling home in 4 hrs and more! Maybe I am wrong, but of the 14-15 000 runners in the Dublin marathon, how many approximately would be 3 hrs 45 mins and more?

Ron DMC

walshb wrote: »

That would be a pretty big percentage of the runners in a marathon. Falling home in 4 hrs and more! Maybe I am wrong, but of the 14-15 000 runners in the Dublin marathon, how many approximately would be 3 hrs 45 mins and more?

The vast majority.

If the US figures are anything to go by here, then the average time is well over 4:30.

Cabaal

By far the VAST majority in the London marathon finish at the 4hr mark or after based on this detailed breakdown of the 2012 finish

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/apr/20/london-marathon-2012-breakdown-time-occupation

SamforMayo

Chivito550 wrote: »

My rant would be this attitude to running. Pure tick the box, and the belief that going long is where it is at. Grinding out a sub 20 5k after months or years of dedicated training is far more impressive, both in terms of dedication and athletic accomplishment, than slogging out a 5+ hour marathon. I always get the feeling people go for the latter so they can brag around the office water cooler to their equally clueless co-workers. I don't really care if somebody had to come from being heavily overweight to start with. That's the person's fault for getting into such a state in the first place. This is a sport, and in this sport it is all about competion, whether against others, or against your previous times. Ticking the boxes is not really sport.

I think part of it is that when most people take up running they don't believe they will ever be capable of going faster that s why they keep focussing on distance. As the mileage increases the times fall a bit and then you start thinking hmmm I can go faster. If it wasn't for people on this forum I would have no idea of how to approach training for shorter distances. Some people have no interest in time and that s ok too, there is room for everyone;)

barryoneill50

Chivito550 wrote: »

My rant would be this attitude to running. Pure tick the box, and the belief that going long is where it is at. Grinding out a sub 20 5k after months or years of dedicated training is far more impressive, both in terms of dedication and athletic accomplishment, than slogging out a 5+ hour marathon. I always get the feeling people go for the latter so they can brag around the office water cooler to their equally clueless co-workers. I don't really care if somebody had to come from being heavily overweight to start with. That's the person's fault for getting into such a state in the first place. This is a sport, and in this sport it is all about competion, whether against others, or against your previous times. Ticking the boxes is not really sport.

"Going long" as you say might not be for you but for the majority around here it most certainly is "where it is at". As was said previously most people who compete in the shorter stuff have been doing so from a young age.
Now take a 38 year old looking to get into running, what do they target? A 5k! Whether it be a couch programme or just trainning for a local charity run that's the distance they start from and they won't go down in distance unless they discovery a hidden talent deep within themselfs. Now unless someone organises an 800m fun run this won't change.
You obviously love your sport, but it's a two way street. I hope you are not suggesting that someone who is overweight (for whatever reason) not participate in this sport, for that fat dude/doll could be the spark that inspires the next Sonia/ Eamon...... But hey as a wise man once said ( to me) " you are fat what the hell do you know about running"

drquirky

Rant: People who hijack the rant thread! Lads open ur own freaking thread if you wanna discuss this!

Pacing Mule

drquirky wrote: »

Rant: People who hijack the rant thread! Lads open ur own freaking thread if you wanna discuss this!

Rant thread and rant discussion thread like in the cool vids forum

Chivito550

barryoneill50 wrote: »

"Going long" as you say might not be for you but for the majority around here it most certainly is "where it is at". As was said previously most people who compete in the shorter stuff have been doing so from a young age.
Now take a 38 year old looking to get into running, what do they target? A 5k! Whether it be a couch programme or just trainning for a local charity run that's the distance they start from and they won't go down in distance unless they discovery a hidden talent deep within themselfs. Now unless someone organises an 800m fun run this won't change.
You obviously love your sport, but it's a two way street. I hope you are not suggesting that someone who is overweight (for whatever reason) not participate in this sport, for that fat dude/doll could be the spark that inspires the next Sonia/ Eamon...... But hey as a wise man once said ( to me) " you are fat what the hell do you know about running"

Completely not what I'm saying. Has nothing to do with track, sprints, middle distance etc. Going long refers to those who don't give 2 tosses about time. Once they complete a 5k, It's onto a 10k, then a half marathon, then a marathon, all completed in terrible times because the person has no interest in trying to getting faster at any one distance. It's all merely about getting to the finish, crossing the line, ticking the box. That type of stuff makes the sport look sh1t.

Don't know where you got the idea that I could be suggesting for overweight and obese people not to take up the sport.

PaulieC

Puking one's guts up all day and generally feeling exhausted.

Sacksian

Rant (not really, but trying to keep it on-topic): Criticising the different journeys people take to discover what distance/event they enjoy the most.

Personally, I did a couple of cycles of marathon training before I discovered I enjoyed training for and racing shorter distances more. And I wouldn't have done that without trying to tick the marathon box first, before thinking of joining a club environment. And I've met very few competitive club runners who give out about people running terrible times or are anything less than encouraging to anyone who wants to get involved in athletics at whatever level they feel most comfortable.

edit: not directed at you Chivito, but I think anyone running at all should be encouraged and it's counter-productive to criticise people who may come to the sport from a different background or with a different perspective. The first steps are the most important ones and I think a culture of participation will have room for everyone.

Chivito550

Sacksian wrote: »

Rant (not really, but trying to keep it on-topic): Criticising the different journeys people take to discover what distance/event they enjoy the most.

Personally, I did a couple of cycles of marathon training before I discovered I enjoyed training for and racing shorter distances more. And I wouldn't have done that without trying to tick the marathon box first, before thinking of joining a club environment. And I've met very few competitive club runners who give out about people running terrible times or are anything less than encouraging to anyone who wants to get involved in athletics at whatever level they feel most comfortable.

edit: not directed at you Chivito, but I think anyone running at all should be encouraged and it's counter-productive to criticise people who may come to the sport from a different background or with a different perspective. The first steps are the most important ones and I think a culture of participation will have room for everyone.

Just for the record, I have no issue with people running slow times. Each and every one of us here run terrible times in comparison to somebody faster. I've loads of time for people looking to improve, at any level, in any distance. It's the box ticking backslapping I hate.

Anyway I'll let yous get back on topic with gaa, politics and crisps rants

vitani

Chivito550 wrote: »

Completely not what I'm saying. Has nothing to do with track, sprints, middle distance etc. Going long refers to those who don't give 2 tosses about time. Once they complete a 5k, It's onto a 10k, then a half marathon, then a marathon, all completed in terrible times because the person has no interest in trying to getting faster at any one distance. It's all merely about getting to the finish, crossing the line, ticking the box. That type of stuff makes the sport look sh1t.

Don't know where you got the idea that I could be suggesting for overweight and obese people not to take up the sport.

But it's not a sport for everybody...

Gavlor

Sacksian wrote: »

Rant (not really, but trying to keep it on-topic): Criticising the different journeys people take to discover what distance/event they enjoy the most.

Personally, I did a couple of cycles of marathon training before I discovered I enjoyed training for and racing shorter distances more. And I wouldn't have done that without trying to tick the marathon box first, before thinking of joining a club environment. And I've met very few competitive club runners who give out about people running terrible times or are anything less than encouraging to anyone who wants to get involved in athletics at whatever level they feel most comfortable.

edit: not directed at you Chivito, but I think anyone running at all should be encouraged and it's counter-productive to criticise people who may come to the sport from a different background or with a different perspective. The first steps are the most important ones and I think a culture of participation will have room for everyone.

that's totally aimed at chivito!! Don't be apologising for challenging his opinion.

Rant: I still haven't won the lotto. Wtf? I prayed for it at mass back in 2009

Sacksian

Gavlor wrote: »

that's totally aimed at chivito!! Don't be apologising for challenging his opinion.

Rant: I still haven't won the lotto. Wtf? I prayed for it at mass back in 2009

Ah no, it's not - my rant is directed at that attitude, not him.

So, while I disagree with him fundamentally about box-tickers and the utility of doing more mileage to improve your 400m times, his enthusiasm for the sport, the work he's put into The Running Review and encouraging discussion of track (AND field) on this forum makes him one the good guys and show that he's really a big softie at heart, so there's no need for a disagreement about the sport to be personal.

I also admire his dedication to ticking a box of his own!!

drquirky

Rant : THE ****ING RANT THREAD BEING TAKEN OVER FOR THE DAY!!!! START A NEW THREAD!!!!!!

adrian522

Rant: duplicate rants.