Guess what % of marathoners broke 3 hours in 2007?

No expert wrote:

I'm always perplexed how people think they can accurately determine how hard other people train, how fast they are capable of running, and how hard they are trying just by looking at a finishing time. Should I assume all those who run a 2:30 marathon can drop 10-15 minutes off their times if they would just "try as a hard as they can?" After all, that's still 25 minutes short of the world record. Lots of room for improvement.

My thought... if running for 5 hours sounds so easy, then why aren't we all moving up to the ultra marathons?

If the masses think runners of elite stature are looking down their noses at the common runner, perhaps that's why said people have lost interest in running as a sport and now only think of it as a way to stay in shape.

Some things to ponder.....

Yeah well your thought is dumb. I never said that running for 5 hours "sounds so easy", where the hell did you get that idiot idea? Listen Einstein, what I was saying was that running for 5 hours on top of running 5-6 hours a week for 12-18 weeks is easy compared to running 10+ hours per week for 50 weeks out of the year. I can tell how hard someone has trained and whether or not they are close to tapping their potential by how fit they look, how much muscle definition they have. You really think there are guys who look like Hall and Sell out there slogging away for 5 hours on a marathon course? I guarantee you the typical body in that part of the pack, excepting age, looks soft and unfit. Not all, just most. The masses would have to first pay attention to elite runners beyond the headline grabbing heroes like Deena and Meb to even begin to have a clue, and all evidence says that they don't even care to. Most of the people near or slower than the median finish time tend to be the self-absorbed runners who don't care about the sport beyond what it can do directly for them.

rojo wrote:

"The elusive sub 3-hour mark was broken by only 1.7 percent of marathoners, down significantly from 2006 when more than 7,600 runners broke that barrier."

I am just glad wejo is letting you put "co-founder" under your name now.

Dr. No:

You must have very short legs. I can walk up to about 5.7mph on a treadmill. (I am not a trained racewalker. Racewalkers can walk well over 10mph).

Agree with alskd.Agree with Mayeroff.People might want to consider dealing with Life as a complex function with millions of variables. Rather than persistently trying to ultra-define and pigeon hole.Solo excellence heroes and performances can be inspiring.But the widespread application of this inspiration will inevitably operate on many levels.It seems reasonable that an elite runner may decide at some point to run alongside with a dear beginner friend.It seems reasonable that a frustrated and overweight human will want at some point to start running and training for a marathon to better him/herself. With some sort of planet-wide verification.It could be on a particularly fast course on a particularly good day of a particularly good year, you post a marathon time that you never replicate but that will make you feel good for the days to come.It makes sense that many people would want to try something rooted in the history of civilization and, unlike its founder, be alive at the end.And, no less, that the mind could wonder off while running 26 miles around a beautiful city, because ultimately the difference between placing 432nd and 754th is existentially insignificant.In november 2007 on basic fitness i ran a 3h27 barefoot marathon and loved it.Last Sunday on even better basic fitness i ran a barefoot marathon in 4h20 and needless to say i wasn't all that enthused.From both i was able to learn a lot. When you start spending more than 2 hours, focused and energized in your head and body, it tends to be rewarding. With marathons this is self-generated yet shared there-and-then with multitudes. Why would you want to take it away from anybody who wants to try?I have yet to hear of marathons being closed to fast runners...

alskd wrote:

This is the best post on this mess of a thread.The numbers stated in the article mean nothing.

Harry Kooter wrote:

I couldn't really tell, but it seems like the numbers in the article are for the number of times that the three hour barrier was broken, not the number of people who did it. For example, if a runner runs three marathons and one is sub three, for the purposes of this article, he should be counted once as a person who broke three. From the numbers that they have, it seems like he would be counted three times as one sub three and two three plus hour marathons.

If this is the case, the article shouldn't claim that 1.7% of marathoners broke three. It should claim that 1.7% of finishing times were under three. They're really two very different things.

I agree with Mayeroff. Having lumbered through a 6 hour ordeal with a good friend of mine (who was typically a 4 1/2 type - thats what happens when a 4 hour marathoner has an off day) I have a new respect for those people who spend an entire morning lumbering around various parts of the world. Physically (I agree with Waitz on this after she spoke of running NYC with Lebow) that it is harder to "run" slower than faster. My legs stiffened up due to time and never striding out. In addition bathroom breaks and a pit stop for food were realities that I had never before thought of. Overall I had a blast. Considerably more fun than trying to run sub 6's. It was fun at the line-up, fun with the crowds along the course, great to take breaks to actually consume fluids, and snacks including candy, to chit chat with course workers, to not give a $hit about trying to make up for that 6:01 25th mile, and in general to just enjoy the sights, sounds, and overall experience. Hell, looking back, I can see why people lean toward finishing rather than running fast. Kinda like a lot of sports, it's fun if you don't take it too seriously. I suspect the number of people who had a ball running 2:30 is pretty low.

Until you can post without referring to people's ideas as "dumb" and idiotic, and then mocking them by calling them "Einsteins," why listen? No one is calling you dumb - I'm just wondering why the abrasive attitude toward those in the back of the pack (who tend to be volunteers at other races - hardly self-absorbed and in it only for themselves).You sound quite angry. See some posts above about enjoying the marathon. Just asking, do these pertain to you in some way? Still finding the sport fun?I agree with previous posters... these numbers essentially mean nothing, other than that there are enough people participating (and interested) in marathons that someone sees a need to keep statistics on the event.

It is obvious that many runners are threatened by this information. It really comes right out in their posts. Breaking 3 hours was a standard back in the 1970's so I don;t know where this guy comes off saying it wasn't that important. It was. I get that not everyone has the talent (I don't anymore) but it was the poor man's 4 minute mile.

Marathoning has degenerated into a "we're all winners" sport with low standard BQ's as the new "bar". Go over to Active and you can see it lathered all over the place over there.

If someone decided to run the marathon and runs sub 3 or 4 or 5 hours that's there business. Just don't understand that for many of us, when we were at our best, just running to finish as an under trained jogger was not considered to be anything important. Glad to see you there but way after we finished, had breakfast and were on our way home.

When we couldn't do that anymore we got out.

No expert wrote:

Until you can post without referring to people's ideas as "dumb" and idiotic, and then mocking them by calling them "Einsteins," why listen? No one is calling you dumb - I'm just wondering why the abrasive attitude toward those in the back of the pack (who tend to be volunteers at other races - hardly self-absorbed and in it only for themselves).

See? You can't even parse out that my 'attitude' here isn't regarding "those in the back of the pack". It's actually regarding those who make ignorant claims about them and insultingly tell everyone else the 'right' way to view them.

You sound quite angry. See some posts above about enjoying the marathon. Just asking, do these pertain to you in some way? Still finding the sport fun?

Sound? What have you heard? I've ALWAYS found the sport fun, what of it?

no, i don't think the over-three-hours runners feel threatened by these partial figures. I am not in anyway. If anything, i am inspired to train to go sub three. But not as an all-consuming ambition. I think you'll find many average and below average runners look up and respect the faster types. And possibly expect the same going the other way.You on the other hand sound very nostalgic. For times gone by. Back in those days, there were fewer people running. I guess you could look at it as you guys being just one of those fast sub-three-hour types who didn't make it to the Olympics...Also, i don't think it is so much a degeneration into "we are all winners," as much as an evolution into "we can all be finishers."When you were doing 2:28, you probably had no idea that hundreds of kids in africa were doing it on a daily basis. Not in a ritzy race, but to commute to school.And, since "you got out" one question: so how are you enjoying getting older?

2:28 wrote:

When we couldn't do that anymore we got out.

If you "got out", why are you hanging around here?

Are your stories meant to be a public service or something?

Back when only runners ran marathons I would think that the 3 hr barrier would be respected and expected. But now days with so many fitness runners in the sport I just don't see how you can really compare the two. It's like there are three races going on out there.

There are the elite runners going for the win, sponsorships, national teams, etc..

There are competative runners. People that actually train, set time goals, etc..

Then all the Team in Training types, joggers, plodders, and fun runners people just trying to finish.

It's never the really fast guys that critize the other runners, it's the pretty fast guys that get so bent out of shape about this issue.

2:28 said:

"When we couldn't do that anymore we got out."

Don't let the door hit you on the ass.

I've got a copy of an old book published in 1978 called 'The Complete Marathoner'. The book is edited by Joe Henderson and consists of different chapters on varying aspects of the Marathon, from course design and logistics to racing and training strategies.

In it Ron Daws (68 Olympian, author 'The Self Made Olympian') has a chapter entitled 'Training to Peak'.

In the first paragraph he states :

"The womens marathon record would be 2:24 if it were on par with their world record for 3000 meters. If you think that is an exaggeration, then you might be surprised to learn that the average male in his 20s or 30s has the potential to crack 2:30, or if he has a bent for running he could do 2:20."

I personally don't think he's correct in thinking an average male get crack 2:30 but certainly back then expected finishing times were much lower than they are now.

markg11cdn wrote:

In it Ron Daws (68 Olympian, author 'The Self Made Olympian') has a chapter entitled 'Training to Peak'.

In the first paragraph he states :

"The womens marathon record would be 2:24 if it were on par with their world record for 3000 meters. If you think that is an exaggeration, then you might be surprised to learn that the average male in his 20s or 30s has the potential to crack 2:30, or if he has a bent for running he could do 2:20."

So according to him the AVERAGE male, or maybe one slightly better than average could qualify for the Olympic Trials (under the old std)?

markg11cdn wrote:

In it Ron Daws (68 Olympian, author 'The Self Made Olympian') has a chapter entitled 'Training to Peak'.

In the first paragraph he states :

"The womens marathon record would be 2:24 if it were on par with their world record for 3000 meters. If you think that is an exaggeration, then you might be surprised to learn that the average male in his 20s or 30s has the potential to crack 2:30, or if he has a bent for running he could do 2:20."

I personally don't think he's correct in thinking an average male get crack 2:30 but certainly back then expected finishing times were much lower than they are now.

You can't really compare averages, because slower runners skew that. It's sad to note that the *number* of people running under 2:30 or 3:00 is going down (I think that's the case, but would be happy to be proven wrong).

I also don't believe his numbers. Let's do some math, shall we? There are about 300 million people in the US. Half of them are male. About 40% of those are 20-39. That's 60 million. I will assume that by "average" he means the top half. That's 30 million men who have the potential to run 2:30. Seriously? Really? I don't think there are 30 million men who can run that pace for one mile. Let's assume that having "a bent for running" means you are in the top 0.1% of all men (which actually seems pretty stingy to me). That gives us 30,000 runners who could crack 2:20 in the USA. I'm just not buying it.

'It's never the really fast guys that critize the other runners, it's the pretty fast guys that get so bent out of shape about this issue.'

Good point.

Personally I feel like I have busted my guts training and racing for any marathon that I have run. I feel great about my time if I ran a PR or if the course was difficult and I ran a good pace and finished pretty high. It sometimes seems like the 5 hour club (of course not everyone in the 5 hour club, there are some actual respectful runners in this area. Yes I said runners, they just are not as fast as you) didnt even train, or even cared about the race. Sure they did it, but what kind of respect did they show for the race or what the marathon ultimately shows: that you cant hide behind your fancy car or trophy wife/husband, or your big muscles. It strips you bare and puts you out infront of yourself and you have to decide to make the confrontation. Most people can 'run' a marathon, or should I say 'do' a marahton. Fewer actually race hard for a place or a desired time. It is indeed as if one were trying to compare a house cat to a lion (thank you JLP). I am greatful for their participation in the race as it adds to the popularity of the sport and makes the event that much more enjoyable, I just dont think that one can fairly compare the two due to the differences in the purpose of attendance. As for the qualifying time standards for Boston, I have always believed that it would make it far more interesting if the time was decided by something like the qulaifying time for high school state meets. You could catagorize it by age and sex to make it fair and you could pick a place or an average of some sort to make it reasonable... than again I might just rambling about something that wouldn't work out and be just a plain mess.

you einsteins are all idiots.

just kidding.