Is a marathon as big an achievement as it once was ?

Spirogyra

An article in the Time's of London today saying that Ultra-marathons are becoming the new marathon. That more people than ever are running multiple marathons in a single year and that it just isn't the achievement that it once was.

Thought's ? sorry it's not free on-line.

I think that maybe in today's more health conscious world, where more people are fitter, it's certainly not as elite an achievement as it was in the 70's and 80's say. Although obviously still a very good one

libelula

It still takes as much for a person to do one, but I think we have a lot more leisure time these days to train etc. Maybe that's part of the reason?

Notwork Error

What is an achievement? It's a personal milestone and the marathon is the same thing now as it was in the 70's and 80's, it hasn't changed in anyway. I don't think the number of people doing it or running an ultra takes away any of of that personal glory because really that's what it is about.

The marathon has probably lost a lot of it's mystique over the years but the achievement remains the same individually as it always has.

walshb

Depends who's telling their story.

davedanon

Spirogyra wrote: »

An article in the Time's of London today saying that Ultra-marathons are becoming the new marathon. That more people than ever are running multiple marathons in a single year and that it just isn't the achievement that it once was.

Thought's ? sorry it's not free on-line.

I think that maybe in today's more health conscious world, where more people are fitter, it's certainly not as elite an achievement as it was in the 70's and 80's say. Although obviously still a very good one

Check out the number of people running sub-3 marathons back in the 70s and 80s, when people 'weren't as fit' compared to now, and then apologise for talking b*llocks.

menoscemo

Notwork Error wrote: »

What is an achievement? It's a personal milestone and the marathon is the same thing now as it was in the 70's and 80's, it hasn't changed in anyway. I don't think the number of people doing it or running an ultra takes away any of of that personal glory because really that's what it is about.

The marathon has probably lost a lot of it's mystique over the years but the achievement remains the same individually as it always has.

Agree with this.
Why was completing a marathon ever an achievement? If it used to be, it still is now. More people doing it now can't make it less so if it ever was one.

Personally I don't think completing a marathon is necessarily a huge achievement and I don't think an ultra is either. Just because less people do ultras does not make it 'better'.

An achievement can come from any distance in running from 100metres to 100+ miles, it depends on the person, their performance and how much they put into it.

Finglas Flier

Looking at all the runners around me crossing the finishing line last Monday, I would say it is still a huge achievement for those who took part...
8 years after running my first DCM and I felt an immense achievement in running a PB..... Anything that pushes you outside your comfort zone is a real achievement
Ultra-marathons are just that Ultra- marathons......just like a 5k or a 10k are *marathons* for some people in there own rights

Possibly wrote by a lazy journalist... :-)

conor_mc

davedanon wrote: »

Check out the number of people running sub-3 marathons back in the 70s and 80s, when people 'weren't as fit' compared to now, and then apologise for talking b*llocks.

Bit harsh, he did say "more people" are fitter today, not that the people who ran sub-3's in the 70s and 80s weren't as fit.

RuMan

davedanon wrote: »

Check out the number of people running sub-3 marathons back in the 70s and 80s, when people 'weren't as fit' compared to now, and then apologise for talking b*llocks.

Very true, much larger number running Sub 2:30 in DCM in the 80's. Almost all were Irish as well. Even more so in the UK, the standards have dropped massively. Larger numbers doing it now of course.

menoscemo

conor_mc wrote: »

Bit harsh, he did say "more people" are fitter today, not that the people who ran sub-3's in the 70s and 80s weren't as fit.

Less people are fitter today. That's not even my opinion it's a fact.
Just because less people ran marathons in the 70's and 80's doesn't mean that people are fitter today. In fact it's quite the opposite.

rom

Q. Is a marathon as big an achievement as it once was ?
A. Doing something that 9 out of 10 who start finish is not an achievement.

Gavlor

rom wrote: »

Q. Is a marathon as big an achievement as it once was ?
A. Doing something that 9 out of 10 who start finish is not an achievement.

9 out of ten people don't start, that's the point.

Fbjm

The distance hasn't changed, human biology hasn't changed. Doing a marathon still takes the same amount of sacrifice and effort as it always has and always will, so to me that says the achievement is the same.

28064212

It's a meaningless question without more context. Completing a marathon has become more commonplace for sure. In 2015, there were 12,293 finishers compared to 7,241 in 1984 (random year choice).

In 1984, the average finishing time was 3:50:07, and 36.5% had a time over 4 hours
In 2015, the average finishing time was 4:16:49, and 56.8% had a time over 4 hours

Does that mean that "Thomas Jordan" (2:59:59 in 1984) had a better achievement than "Declan Murphy" (2:59:59 in 2015)? I don't believe so (well, maybe slightly, the WR has dropped 5 minutes in that time)

Does it mean that Joe Bloggs1984 had a better achievement than Joe Bloggs2015 when he announced "I did the marathon on Monday" at the office water-cooler? Maybe, but without additional context, it's a nonsensical question

Chivito550

Sure there's more people doing ultras now than before, but many (not all) are just jogging. Going for distance rather than time. Fail to see how that is much of an accomplishment, but then again it fools the general public into thinking it is so, so there must be merit to the madness.

The true achievement, whether it is over 100m or a 100 mile ultra is determined by the clock. Completing a distance is not much to shout about as anybody can do it if bothered. Getting under a certain time for a certain distance, not everyone can do.

ger664

Been able to run a longer distance is not an achievement. I got more satisfaction from achieving sub 20 for 5K this year than any marathon i ran which included a PB in Boston in April.

ultraman1

All relative...was it an achievement to the lads that paced 4hrs?,prob not...was it an achievement to the people that trained and gave it their best to finish at 4hrs?prob yes

Gavlor

ultraman1 wrote: »

All relative...was it an achievement to the lads that paced 4hrs?,prob not...was it an achievement to the people that trained and gave it their best to finish at 4hrs?prob not

In fairness it was an achievement for meno just to finish it given his recent woes, maybe use a different example

rom

Gavlor wrote: »

9 out of ten people don't start, that's the point.

Thats their choice. Its starting to sound like a religion more than a sport that everyone who doesn't do it is somehow wrong or misguided. :rolleyes:

Running a marathon is still a great achievement. I messed up my one and only marathon (finished, but poor time), so will do another one sometime. For someone who isn't a runner, the achievement is massive. I've seen plenty of people go from running their first 5k, then on to 10k, followed by half marathon and full. Sticking with it through this process is an achievement in itself, especially as running can become tedious and boring.

Regarding fitness, and whether more people these days are fitter, I really don't think there is any correlation. I don't view someone who runs marathons as necessarily having great fitness, but that's another conversation.

Firedance

ultraman1 wrote: »

All relative...was it an achievement to the lads that paced 4hrs?,prob not...was it an achievement to the people that trained and gave it their best to finish at 4hrs?prob not

Post that on the novices thread then. I'm fairly sure anyone who trained & worked for 18 weeks towards a time goal & achieved their goal on Monday would disagree.

First Up

rom wrote: »

Thats their choice. Its starting to sound like a religion more than a sport that everyone who doesn't do it is somehow wrong or misguided. :rolleyes:

If it is starting to sound like that then you need your ears tested. Running 26 miles is not easy and anyone who does it deserves credit. If you feel threatened by it, that' s your problem.

I've taken issue in the past with non-competitive marathoners being described as " fun runners". 99% of those running marathons have put in hundreds of miles of training and in many cases suffered injury or at least discomfort.

It is an achievement and deserves respect. I've talked to several world class marathoners and they are in awe of people who run for four, five or even more hours, usually with physiques ill suited to it.

inthehole1

Firedance wrote: »

Post that on the novices thread then. I'm fairly sure anyone who trained & worked for 18 weeks towards a time goal & achieved their goal on Monday would disagree.

Totally agree with this.an achievement cant be judged by a certain time.achievements are unique to everyone.just getting to the start of a marathon and then just finishing regardless to the time is a major achievement to a lot of people
Myself included

rom

I never said it was easy but its quite doable by most people. I'd class myself as a fun runner as I only compete with myself and I run for fun, not for a living. If it wasn't fun I would and should do another sport.

Sorry but honestly I have talked to a few household names that say the same but after you get to know them you see its a little white lie. Its like saying that baby is so cute when they look like spike from gremlins. It would be rude to say otherwise.

Its somehow not PC to not back slap the back markers and mid packers.

Its not that its easy for the better runners, its that it took perhaps 10+ years for them to get to that level when the slower runner may have carried out a single marathon cycle.

menoscemo

First Up wrote: »

It is an achievement and deserves respect. I've talked to several world class marathoners and they are in awe of people who run for four, five or even more hours, usually with physiques ill suited to it.

Let me get this straight, are you saying it's more of an achievement running a marathon when overweight?

benwed

Stats from the usa have only one percent of the population have completed a marathon with only a quarter going sub 4 hour.so for me yea its still a decent achievement

Chivito550

benwed wrote: »

Stats from the usa have only one percent of the population have completed a marathon with only a quarter going sub 4 hour.so for me yea its still a decent achievement

Most Americans are overweight or obese. Is this the benchmark an achievement is measured against?

ultraman1

Firedance wrote: »

Post that on the novices thread then. I'm fairly sure anyone who trained & worked for 18 weeks towards a time goal & achieved their goal on Monday would disagree.

Ment to say" prob yes" to the point about the people trainin to go sub 4...

(Im not dat much of a ****....though some may disagree)

rom

benwed wrote: »

Stats from the usa have only one percent of the population have completed a marathon with only a quarter going sub 4 hour.so for me yea its still a decent achievement

Thats like saying Ireland has the best hurlers in the world. If "doing" a marathon was a life goal for the majority of the population then that would be a relevant stat but its not.

The 1/4 going sub 4 really is subject to age,sex.

Age grade is the only calculation you can use as it factors those in.

http://www.runnersworld.com/pace-calculators/age-graded-calculator

100% Approximate World Record Level
90%+ World Class
80%+ National Class
70%+ Regional Class
60%+ Local Class

Firedance

ultraman1 wrote: »

Ment to say" prob yes" to the point about the people trainin to go sub 4...

(Im not dat much of a ****....though some may disagree)

Phew! I did wonder if it was a typo!!!!

average_runner

Suppose that's down to each individual. I know I gave it all I could. I loved my first marathon the most.

Chivito550

Closed account?

First Up

menoscemo wrote: »

Let me get this straight, are you saying it's more of an achievement running a marathon when overweight?

I'm saying that the dedication and effort needed by those of us without the physiology or natural ability of a John Treacy or a Greta Weitz deserves to be recognised.

Notwork Error

First Up wrote: »

I'm saying that the dedication and effort needed by those of us without the physiology or natural ability of a John Treacy or a Greta Weitz deserves to be recognised.

Not being an ass but someone who wins Olympic medals and runs at the very top level deserves a lot more recognition than any of us in running. They have natural ability, yes but they also run 100-200 miles per week and have honed their skills over years and years, I don't think you fully comprehend what an elite level athlete puts their body through to compete at that level. I play a bit of golf but don't expect the recognition that Tiger Woods gets.

Do your own thing for your own reasons.

kit3

Chivito550 wrote: »

Closed account?

Hope that's a temporary demise - wonder what happened ??

Notwork Error

Notwork Error wrote: »

Not being an ass but someone who wins Olympic medals and runs at the very top level deserves a lot more recognition than any of us in running. They have natural ability, yes but they also run 100-200 miles per week and have honed their skills over years and years, I don't think you fully comprehend what an elite level athlete puts their body through to compete at that level. I play a bit of golf but don't expect the recognition that Tiger Woods gets.

Do your own thing for your own reasons.

I think you've blown what was being said completely out of perspective.

FutureGuy

In February 2013, I was almost 14 stone - I was fat and getting fatter and couldn't run 500m without getting gassed.

In November 2013, I was around 12 stone had a Dublin City Marathon medal.

I couldn't care what others say about the distance. That was an immense achievement for me as a person.

First Up

Notwork Error wrote: »

Not being an ass but someone who wins Olympic medals and runs at the very top level deserves a lot more recognition than any of us in running. They have natural ability, yes but they also run 100-200 miles per week and have honed their skills over years and years, I don't think you fully comprehend what an elite level athlete puts their body through to compete at that level. I play a bit of golf but don't expect the recognition that Tiger Woods gets.

Do your own thing for your own reasons.

Eh, you can rest assured that I fully comprehend what elite athletes do. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

The question posed by the OP was is completing a marathon as much of an achievement as used to be. This question was presumably being asked in relation to those if us in the 3+ hour bracket, and maybe especially of those without any athletic ability worth talking about.

An Olympic marathon medalist has told me that the idea of running for 4 or even 5 hours is almost inconceivable. I talked to Greta Weitz after she ran the NYC marathon with Fred Lebow in a time that she could have comfortably halved and she said it was one of the hardest things she ever did.
Running 26 miles is tough. Racing it is a different thing entirely but give credit to anyone who gets over the finish line.

Chivito550

First Up wrote: »

Eh, you can rest assured that I fully comprehend what elite athletes do. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

The question posed by the OP was is completing a marathon as much of an achievement as used to be. This question was presumably being asked in relation to those if us in the 3+ hour bracket, and maybe especially of those without any athletic ability worth talking about.

An Olympic marathon medalist has told me that the idea of running for 4 or even 5 hours is almost inconceivable. I talked to Greta Weitz after she ran the NYC marathon with Fred Lebow in a time that she could have comfortably halved and she said it was one of the hardest things she ever did.
Running 26 miles is tough. Racing it is a different thing entirely but give credit to anyone who gets over the finish line.

To be fair though, running twice as slow is hard for anyone because it doesn't feel natural to run so slow relative to your abilities and current shape. So I'd take her comments with a grain of salt, legend and all that she was.

menoscemo

First Up wrote: »

Eh, you can rest assured that I fully comprehend what elite athletes do. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

The question posed by the OP was is completing a marathon as much of an achievement as used to be. This question was presumably being asked in relation to those if us in the 3+ hour bracket, and maybe especially of those without any athletic ability worth talking about.

An Olympic marathon medalist has told me that the idea of running for 4 or even 5 hours is almost inconceivable. I talked to Greta Weitz after she ran the NYC marathon with Fred Lebow in a time that she could have comfortably halved and she said it was one of the hardest things she ever did.
Running 26 miles is tough. Racing it is a different thing entirely but give credit to anyone who gets over the finish line.

I paced 4hours in Dublin on Monday and it was very very handy. Much easier than racing a marathon.
I wouldnt call it an achievement that I finished the marathon in 3:59. If it was gonna take an achievement for me to do the job then I shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.

There were lots of runners with me who put in a brave effort and I could see they gave it 100% to finish in the time they did. So yeah for those racing you could definitely say it was an achievement.

Dubgal72

Chivito550 wrote: »

To be fair though, running twice as slow is hard for anyone because it doesn't feel natural to run so slow relative to your abilities and current shape. So I'd take her comments with a grain of salt, legend and all that she is.

She's still a legend

Notwork Error

First Up wrote: »

Eh, you can rest assured that I fully comprehend what elite athletes do. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

The question posed by the OP was is completing a marathon as much of an achievement as used to be. This question was presumably being asked in relation to those if us in the 3+ hour bracket, and maybe especially of those without any athletic ability worth talking about.

An Olympic marathon medalist has told me that the idea of running for 4 or even 5 hours is almost inconceivable. I talked to Greta Weitz after she ran the NYC marathon with Fred Lebow in a time that she could have comfortably halved and she said it was one of the hardest things she ever did.
Running 26 miles is tough. Racing it is a different thing entirely but give credit to anyone who gets over the finish line.

But you were the one who brought up elites as a reference

I'm not taking credit away from anyone, I've respect for anyone who gets up off the couch and does it but at the end of the day, my opinion on someone else's personal achievement doesn't mean squat because it's personal to them and their goals. My quibble is the comparison between us and the pro's like you did, there is no comparison. Some people seem to believe that because they are out there longer that they are more determined, that's not true at all.

walshb

Notwork Error wrote: »

Some people seem to believe that because they are out there longer that they are more determined, that's not true at all.

Even on AR people aren't that stupid to possibly believe that.😉

The YOPPA

I'm 48 in December, had a Kidney transplant last April and I'm hoping to do my first marathon in Dusseldorf next April, on my 1 year anniversary....Will I consider finishing that marathon an achievement...you bet ya.

average_runner

Question: Why is distance the aim of the achievement?

If I ever break 40 for 10k, it would mean more to me. Just need a good spell without injury to even think about it.

Spirogyra

I think the thrust of the article was that 'the human body is evidently capable of more than we thought' , the case of far more multiple marathons (and thus no need for a long recovery) in a single year was particularily highlighted, that to really push the body to it's limit's, one needs to do an ultra, ' that I think is what he was saying....

I'm surprised actually that time's were faster in the 70's and that the W.R. has only fallen by 5 minutes.... I've done 2, think they were great achievement's for me at my humble level, that I'm proud of, especially the one sub four hour , but I do think most people are physically capable of one if they are commited,like a lot of things I suppose....wasn't superhuman

walshb

Spirogyra wrote: »

I think the thrust of the article was that 'the human body is evidently capable of more than we thought' , the case of far more multiple marathons (and thus no need for a long recovery) in a single year was particularily highlighted, that to really push the body to it's limit's, one needs to do an ultra, ' that I think is what he was saying....

I'm surprised actually that time's were faster in the 70's and that the W.R. has only fallen by 5 minutes.... I've done 2, think they were great achievement's, that I'm proud of, especially the one sub four hour , but I do think most people are physically capable of one if they are commited,like a lot of things I suppose....wasn't superhuman

5 minutes is still a lot. It's over a mile for those lads. Plus, I reckon percentage wise the record drop is in line with several other distance record drops.

First Up

average_runner wrote: »

Question: Why is distance the aim of the achievement?

If I ever break 40 for 10k, it would mean more to me. Just need a good spell without injury to even think about it.

Because a marathon asks questions that a 10k never will.

First Up

Notwork Error wrote: »

But you were the one who brought up elites as a reference

I'm not taking credit away from anyone, I've respect for anyone who gets up off the couch and does it but at the end of the day, my opinion on someone else's personal achievement doesn't mean squat because it's personal to them and their goals. My quibble is the comparison between us and the pro's like you did, there is no comparison. Some people seem to believe that because they are out there longer that they are more determined, that's not true at all.

We seem to be talking about different things. Every marathon runner is an individual and what or how many others do it is irrelevant to them.

Today's pro athletes benefit from advances in sports science but your average 30 year old amateur footballer, rugby player etc. faces the same challenges today as 10, 20, 30 or 50 years ago. The only thing that has changed is expectations, which is a huge help at 20 miles.

average_runner

First Up wrote: »

Because a marathon asks questions that a 10k never will.

That's untrue. A 800m race will ask a lot more of you

Notwork Error

Spirogyra wrote: »

I think the thrust of the article was that 'the human body is evidently capable of more than we thought' , the case of far more multiple marathons (and thus no need for a long recovery) in a single year was particularily highlighted, that to really push the body to it's limit's, one needs to do an ultra, ' that I think is what he was saying....

I think he's coming from a different perspective to most of us here. I think multiple marathons will tire you out more by volume, running one or two a year will tire you out more by quality.

Personally, I'm hanging for recovery by the end of a marathon cycle while some of the multi marathon runners who would be around the same fitness level as me can knock out 10+ marathons in the time I train for one. They have to take their foot off the gas to be able to do that while I'm on the limiter to run one quality race. Our recovery times could be very similar but the intensity is higher for just one race. This is all theoretical of course.

Even this year when I ran a full track season where my toughest and longest race was 3000m steeple, I was getting tired towards the end of the season because the intensity was so high even though the distance wasn't long.

I suppose an example would be two people going and doing a workout. One does 10x400m at mile pace w/60s recovery, the other whose going longer might have to do maybe 20x400m @ 5k pace w/35s to get the same level of fatigue.