Why does anyone care about any of this at all? You run fast. Somebody else runs slow. So what?
Why does anyone care about any of this at all? You run fast. Somebody else runs slow. So what?
Why would someone be concerned if a complete stranger takes 5 hours to run a marathon?
Just because you have a goal of finishing doesn't mean you aren't "racing it" to any less of a degree than someone who runs it faster. Your 100% effort may be faster than my 100% effort but that doesn't mean I am not racing to finish in the best time. Sure I know I will not win, but you probably don't have a shot at it either so what are you racing against? This attitude or runners being superior to hobbyjoggers to the extent they don't want to be in the same races really points out some character flaws.
Because the momentary interest of people who don't know any better might be slightly higher for the 5 hour finisher than the 3 hour finisher. Also, the faster someone runs, the less likely they are to have any other interests or redeemable qualities that may be beneficial for acceptance into various social circles.
jad83 wrote:
You're missing the point. The are far too many people finishing near 5 hours. If you're anywhere near 5 hours, it's evident to me that you haven't put in the proper training or are not ready for the distance yet.
What about 4 or 3 hours. If can't break 3, you haven't put in the proper training. Wait, make that 2:30, or maybe 2:15.
They already have a marathon for the truly serious runners: the Oly trials.
jad83 wrote:
You're missing the point. The are far too many people finishing near 5 hours. If you're anywhere near 5 hours, it's evident to me that you haven't put in the proper training or are not ready for the distance yet.
If your goal is just to finish and you do so in the allotted time, be it 5 hours or whatever, then it seems self evident that you've trained sufficiently for that objective.
I think that the crush of people invading the marathon, bucket listers, Team in Training types, etc.. is what's fueling the move to trails races and ultras.
People look at the pure lameness of the big city marathon and have to move on to something else.
I don't think this is true. Most of the ultra runners don't finish in great time and except for the few in each race, most of the times are just not good. I have no problems with ultras and people doing them. I just don't think this invasion of the urban marathon by "hobbyjoggers" has anything to do with it.
I think most people who finish in 5 hours are "competing" - doing the best they can considering their sex, age, and fitness.
They are just not remotely competitive with the best people of the same age and sex.
If a guy who runs mid-distances in track and is in his early 20's spends 10 weeks doing long runs and getting ready for a marathon, he might run under 2:30, which is semi-competitive in lots of marathons (at least ones without prize money), but obviously not the best he could do if he trained properly.
If an overweight woman in her 40's trains for 10 weeks and run/walks a marathon in 6:30, she isn't remotely competitive for her age and sex, and could be much with a few years of real training.
Both have treated the marathon with the same "respect" and "competed" to the best of their current abilities.
The main difference is that participants like the overweight woman, who is typical of most "marathoners" these days, start out with such a huge fitness deficit.
Anyhow, saying the marathon is "dead" is kind of like the Yogi Bera saying that nobody every goes to that restaurant anymore because it is too busy.
Fishing Instructor wrote:
jad83 wrote:You're missing the point. The are far too many people finishing near 5 hours. If you're anywhere near 5 hours, it's evident to me that you haven't put in the proper training or are not ready for the distance yet.
If your goal is just to finish and you do so in the allotted time, be it 5 hours or whatever, then it seems self evident that you've trained sufficiently for that objective.
+1
fsdafsda wrote:
They already have a marathon for the truly serious runners: the Oly trials.
I'd also like to add that there is a marathon that is exclusive to semi-serious types: Fukuoka. The standard is 2:42 which isn't blazing but it's the fastest I know of for a big marathon.
You can debate whether the participation crowd is a good or bad thing for marathons and running in general. It is beyond debate however that it had diluted the mystique that the marathon used to hold.
Completing a marathon used to been seen as something that "I could only do that if I become a really good runner first." Now people think more along the lines of "anyone can complete a marathon ... why haven't you?"
The marathon is a silly event anyway. Who wants to regularly race 26 miles? I stick to half marathons and below, where you can sign up less than a month ahead of time, actually go to the bathroom within 2 hours of race time (shocking, I know), arrive at a reasonable hour, not shell out $100+ for a race, and so on.
It's not like you absolutely have to run marathons to be a serious runner.
Reedroom wrote:
It's not like you absolutely have to run marathons to be a serious runner.
We know that, but the general public measures the difficulty of a race by its length. They think that a mile is a "fun run." A 5k is for couch to 5k programs. A marathon is for real, serious runners.
Good luck changing attitudes.
I run ultras (100-miler are my specialty) and I'm considered a God by my coworkers.
Tell someone you ran the 1600 in high school, and the 1st thing they ask is how long that is because no one knows what the 1600 is, and when you tell them it's about a mile, the response is "Oh, yeah, I ran TWO miles on the treadmill last week," as though that's something comparable.
The general public 1) doesn't understand distances and 2) doesn't understand what is a fast time and what isn't.
They do understand that a marathon is very long and that most people can't run that far, so a marathon is impressive to most people.
Rudy Eugene wrote:
jad83 wrote:What's your opinion on this?
'Tis better to run a mile than to slog through a 2:30 marathon.
Amen to this. Why is running the mile not a bigger fitness goal! It has great marketability. Say your out of shape, you run mile and it takes 10 minutes. You train and in a few months you run an 8:30. That's awesome. You train some more and your down to 7 minutes. I'm high fiving that guy before someone who runs a 4 hour marathon. You train some more and your down to 6:30, Than 6:15. Now that's cool. And anyone can make great improvements in the mile and it's a goal you can always shoot for again. But NOOOOOO, everyone wants to mark the marathon of their bucket list and tell their friends about it, and then return to being out of shape : (
I told a co-worker I was doing a mile race and she laughed at me and told me about her daughters half-marathon and how that's an accomplishment. SHE LAUGHED at me for even mentioning I was running a mile race. Like "you loser, go run a marathon or your not a runner" I'm not looking for accolades, but damn, laughing at me.
"Why is running the mile not a bigger fitness goal!"
? You're. High-fiving.
Bring back the mile yo wrote:
Rudy Eugene wrote:'Tis better to run a mile than to slog through a 2:30 marathon.
Amen to this. Why is running the mile not a bigger fitness goal! It has great marketability.
I agree. I'd like to see more road miles but I can see that management might be harder than a 5k with a mass start because you would need to have different starts by similar times and people don't know or aren't realistic about how fast they can run a mile. A 5k gives people more time to sort themselves by speed.