Is a >3 hour marathon something to be proud of? I say if you are a woman, yes.. If you're a guy..

Dwightarm wrote:

Greg wrote:

I ran 16:21 for 5km when I was 20. I didn't even train half the year. What did you run for 5km at that age?

Absolutely irrelevant. My track times convert to a 2:30 marathon yet I would never claim to have run that.

You could have run 4:00 for full mile at age 20. YOU STILL HAVE NOT RUN A MARATHON! You have no idea how you would respond or your body would react.

So you talking sh!t on other runners means nothing, as everyone else on here has said, because you have no clout. You're even worse than an over 3hr marathoner because you've never even attempted it, yet you're diminishing others' accomplishments. Pathetic.

Greg needs to shut his mouth

beersandmiles wrote:

Wait. You're talking down to people in an event you've never run because you've run 26:20 in the 8K? That's comical.

Yeah seems weird. That's a pretty mediocre 8k for a "competitive" runner.

Greg wrote:

The 3:07 guy wrote:

If this would be a competitive running site, Greg would not be on here.

These PRs 16:21 5km 26:21 8km 57:58 10 miles are all more competitive than your marathon.

They're also all pretty darn slow for a guy doing 20+ mile long runs.

hi greg, i am a competitive runner. i beat you at marathons.

you have a dns, i have times.

you lose.

loser

Greg who? wrote:

Greg wrote:

These PRs 16:21 5km 26:21 8km 57:58 10 miles are all more competitive than your marathon.

They're also all pretty darn slow for a guy doing 20+ mile long runs.

🤔 LOL in what world is a 16:21 5k competitive?

wtfbbq wrote:

Greg who? wrote:

They're also all pretty darn slow for a guy doing 20+ mile long runs.

🤔 LOL in what world is a 16:21 5k competitive?

A bad division 3 college I guess? I ran at a D3 school and pulling up old performance lists from TFFRs it looks like he would have been like 20 seconds outside of being our 10th best 5k runner, and that's not including the fact that all of our decent 800/1500 runners could have easily ran faster than that but just never ran a 5k in a meet.

Greg! You keep coming back to the topic of marathons. You're clearly interested in the event. Why not sign up for one? You've got plenty of time to train before spring marathon season starts.

Dooooo it. You know you want to.

Greg wrote:

If you're a guy and proud of that time, unless you are in your 50s..

well...

This is a competitive running site!

I am a 37 y/o male who ran a 3:24 on little training. Is it fast, no. But I'm still proud of it, and I got it done before Covid hit.

Is the same Greg who's the screenwriter dude? LOL don't make fun of times...it's bad karma

I ran a 3:01 with 2500 feet elevation gain. Course record at the PA grand canyo, conquer the canyon.

2:46 is my flat PR.

Is that impressive?

Never ran in college or high school, 34 years old Male

For me, its relative. Ive broken sub 3, 7 times, I think its a pretty good feat. The 3:01 with 2500 feet gain was the hardest in my opinion.

CopperRunner wrote:

Most calculators will put me at 2:18-2:23 in the marathon if I use my middle distance times. Can I run sub 5 pace for a marathon? Hell no. Can I run sub 6 pace for a marathon? No. Can I run like 6:30 pace for a marathon while blurring the line between life and death? Probably.

What you could do in your prime for 5 miles hardly correlates with what you could have done for 26.2 miles then, let alone now.

Don’t bash on marathon runners that put lots of dedication into their training. I respect a marathoner that ran 4:52 cause 26.2 is HARD, and most people that attempt the distance don’t have the genetics to be good at it, they are there for the challenge.

THIS TIMES 1000.

Oprah is not my kind of talk show host, but I will always respect her for putting in solid training and getting her 4:29. To go from super-overweight to running a 4:29 (10:15/minute pace)--I respect that as much as the ultras and the elites in the Olympics, as she had NO running background whatsoever. And she ran it at MCM, which is a tough course.

Yes that's great.

I think 3 hours for the marathon is respectable no matter who you are..

But it is not a very competitive time for a man. The title of this thread of course sounds more brash than this..

It's not realistic to run over 3 hours as a man and call yourself a competitive marathon runner.. Unless of course you are competing solely against your age group, which is likely 40+..

As for the other posters saying all kinds of negative things about me

1. Get over yourselves, I haven't done anything wrong here in this thread, I am entitled to my views. If my posts really irk you to lash out at me, that speaks more about yourselves than it does myself.

2. Correct, I have never run a marathon. And have no plans to. And feel no less of a runner or person for not running a marathon, nor do I need to explain why I wouldn't run one.

3. My PRs across the board are more competitive than any 3 hour marathon, even though I haven't run that. You can argue this, but I will always disagree. I don't really see how you can say a 3 hour marathoner is the more competitive runner, but if that's the universe you want to live in, I guess that's your choice and I won't waste time trying to change your view.

I think that sums up the thread. We are all entitled to our views. Insulting me or arguing any point is not productive, so I don't understand what the point is of more discussion.. But I am sure there will be more negativity, some of you can't help yourselves.

Greg wrote:

I think that sums up the thread. We are all entitled to our views. Insulting me or arguing any point is not productive, so I don't understand what the point is of more discussion.. But I am sure there will be more negativity, some of you can't help yourselves.

Shut up

You created a thread to insult people who haven’t run faster than an arbitrary time and now you’re mad that you’re being insulted.

The Golden Rule applies once more — treat others the way you want to be treated.

Yes, a person - man or woman - should be proud of accomplishing a marathon regardless of time. It's a huge training commitment. And, you never know the journey an individual took to get to completing a marathon let alone running 3:00.xx. That person could have just recovered from illness or lost 100 pounds or was never a runner until they got into their 30s.

Greg wrote:

3. My PRs across the board are more competitive than any 3 hour marathon, even though I haven't run that. You can argue this, but I will always disagree. I don't really see how you can say a 3 hour marathoner is the more competitive runner, but if that's the universe you want to live in, I guess that's your choice and I won't waste time trying to change your view.

It's not a matter of more or less. You're here saying a 3:07 marathon isn't a competitive time. I'm saying your 16:21 isn't either.

Is 16:21 better than 3:07? Maybe? Probably to most people. Personally I'd have a much harder time running a 3:07 than a 16:21.

I just don't see how you can go on and on about 3:07 "not being competitive" when a 16:21 5k wouldn't be competitive in anything outside of some small farm town's thanksgiving turkey trot.

That we’re now debating what times are “competitive” proves how silly and mean spirited this thread was in its conception.

The goal posts have moved from “what times are you allowed to be proud of?” — a completely arbitrary and personal criteria — to “what times are competitive at the elite level?”

These are two entirely different questions.

RunRaider wrote:

You created a thread to insult people who haven’t run faster than an arbitrary time and now you’re mad that you’re being insulted.

The Golden Rule applies once more — treat others the way you want to be treated.

Yup!

Greg who? wrote:

Greg wrote:

3. My PRs across the board are more competitive than any 3 hour marathon, even though I haven't run that. You can argue this, but I will always disagree. I don't really see how you can say a 3 hour marathoner is the more competitive runner, but if that's the universe you want to live in, I guess that's your choice and I won't waste time trying to change your view.

It's not a matter of more or less. You're here saying a 3:07 marathon isn't a competitive time. I'm saying your 16:21 isn't either.

Is 16:21 better than 3:07? Maybe? Probably to most people. Personally I'd have a much harder time running a 3:07 than a 16:21.

I just don't see how you can go on and on about 3:07 "not being competitive" when a 16:21 5k wouldn't be competitive in anything outside of some small farm town's thanksgiving turkey trot.

To put it in perspective, what can the 3:07 runner do for 5k? The 5k guy probably has him beat by at least 2 minutes, likely more. The 5k time is the superior performance. The 3:07 won't win any marathon unless you are a woman.

The 5k guy runs steady runs at the same pace the 3:07 guy is going flat out for the marathon.. It's 2 different realms.. one guy is racing, the other just going for a training run. Does that make sense?

Greg wrote:

Yes that's great.

I think 3 hours for the marathon is respectable

But it is not a very competitive time for a man. The title of this thread of course sounds more brash than this..

It's not realistic to run over 3 hours as a man and call yourself a competitive marathon runner.. Unless of course you are competing solely against your age group, which is likely 40+..

With all due respect, it’s not realistic to run 16:21 / 26:xx 5k/8k times as an adult man and call yourself a “competitive” 5k/8k runner either. Much like a 3:00 marathon, those are times that require serious, consistent training (for those who are not exceptionally talented), and will probably place towards the top 5% of local races with a win here and there.

They all fall in the (frankly pretty wide) range of times that most would consider solid for a serious hobbyist who’s doing the sport because they enjoy it…and there’s absolutely nothing to fault in that. But yes, obviously they are not times that are “competitive” in the context of collegiate and pro runners…which in no way diminishes something that should be a personal accomplishment, and nothing more.