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

Greg wrote:

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.

The you don't mind if I express my views. After all I am entitled to them.

I think you are an irresponsible, dangerous man for speeding through school zones - AND! thinking it is unfair that the police fined you!

Most who understand the sport realize the 5k/8k times are the superior times. They won't win many races but are decent times. The 3:00+ marathon is ok, but unlikely to win at all.

Comparing the 5k/8k guy to the marathoner is silly because the 5k/8k guy is running faster times at shorter distances, often in the top 10 in local road races with several hundred or even over 1000 finishers.

The marathoner is finishing a long race but never winning.. His accomplishment is finishing.. He's not near the leaders of the race.. He's maybe in the top 10% of finishers. The other guy is in the top 1-2% of finishers. That's the difference.

One guy is in the top 1-2%. The other is in the top tier, but no where near the top. That's the difference.

Huh? A 3:01 guy is absolutely in the top 2% of most big city marathon finishers.

Going off results from the Edmonton marathon in 2019, with 468 male finishers, the first 3:07 to cross the line was 52nd place.

In the top 11%.

Big marathons like NYC or Boston would probably be more saturated towards the top with 3 hours types.

Greg wrote:

Going off results from the Edmonton marathon in 2019, with 468 male finishers, the first 3:07 to cross the line was 52nd place.

In the top 11%.

Big marathons like NYC or Boston would probably be more saturated towards the top with 3 hours types.

Yes, if you cherry pick a race lacking slower entrants, the average time will be faster.

You could use the same logic to say that any times that would put you out of contention for an Olympic final are “slow.”

Greg wrote:

Going off results from the Edmonton marathon in 2019, with 468 male finishers, the first 3:07 to cross the line was 52nd place.

In the top 11%.

Big marathons like NYC or Boston would probably be more saturated towards the top with 3 hours types.

🤫 shut up

Love this. I've had a couple of goes at breaking 3. I misspent my youth and now in mid 40s with a full time job I have the 5k, 10k hm and mile times that indicate I should be able to do sub 3... But it's hard. I get injured, when I up the volume. Total respect to anyone who achieves and actually completes what their body is capable of. Whatever that time is.

RunRaider wrote:

Greg wrote:

Going off results from the Edmonton marathon in 2019, with 468 male finishers, the first 3:07 to cross the line was 52nd place.

In the top 11%.

Big marathons like NYC or Boston would probably be more saturated towards the top with 3 hours types.

Yes, if you cherry pick a race lacking slower entrants, the average time will be faster.

You could use the same logic to say that any times that would put you out of contention for an Olympic final are “slow.”

I didn't cherry pick at all, I looked at the local marathon results from the city I live in. You said 3 hours would put someone in the top 1-2%. The results I looked at indicated something quite different.

Don't get angry when you see data that doesn't support your 'logic'.

Okay.

The “local marathon results from the city I live in” would place a 3:01 marathoner in the top 0.7% of finishers.

Greg wrote:

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?

It's still a matter of perspective. You say 3:07 marathon isn't competitive, but you'd agree it is the "superior performance" compared to a 4:00 marathon right? One performance being better than the other doesn't make it competitive.

A 16:20 5k may be a better equivalent performance than a 3:07 marathon, but it is also not really a competitive time. It's ridiculous to bash on a 3:07 marathon as not competitive while boasting about your own absolutely mediocre 5k performance in comparison.

RunRaider wrote:

Huh? A 3:01 guy is absolutely in the top 2% of most big city marathon finishers.

Some statistics

NY had 53520 runners for 2019

1563 under 3 hours

2235 under 3:07 (that is 4.18 % of all finishers)

15848 under 4 hours

37659 under 5 hours

48858 under 6 hours

52351 under 7 hours

53333 under 8 hours

53499 under 9 hours

53516 under 10 hours

53520 under 11 hours

For reference, a 16:20 5k wouldn't even put you in the TOP 500 in Division 3 this year.... Probably closer to top 1000, it cuts off with 500th place at 15:45.

How can you call that a competitive time?

So the first person who finished over 3hr at NYC was in the top 3% of finishers — not the top 10%.

Keep in mind that:

* NYC has a significant number of time qualifier slots set aside.

* Larger marathons, by simple mathematics, make up a more representative sample of marathoning than a local race with less than 500 finishers.

Greg wrote:

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.

Deep down you really want to run a 'thon.

It's okay, man. Take the plunge.

Devonian wrote:

Love this. I've had a couple of goes at breaking 3. I misspent my youth and now in mid 40s with a full time job I have the 5k, 10k hm and mile times that indicate I should be able to do sub 3... But it's hard. I get injured, when I up the volume. Total respect to anyone who achieves and actually completes what their body is capable of. Whatever that time is.

Greg, I think it's hard to appreciate how different the marathon is from the 8k until you do it. I ran 25:06 in XC and was training at volume similar to you. Post-collegiately I made a go at the HM and marathon, and found the training and racing to be well outside my comfort zone.

Yes, you probably could have broken 3 by a comfortable margin, but, the consistent training and mental difficulty of running a 3:07 should not be scoffed at, particularly because you haven't been there.

20 milers ain't a 26.2 race. Try it, you'll see.

The 5k/8k are superior times. But they both fall within the range of times that are generally run by very solid amateurs who put serious time and effort into their training. Again, it's a big range...but there isn't some massive gap between the two where the 5k/8k are orders of magnitude stronger than the marathon.

Also, that doesn't mean that a 16:20 5k runner is capable of a 3:00 marathon. Plugging my high school mid-d PRs into the equivalence calculators, I'm getting 2:3x range equivalences for a marathon...but there's no way in hell I would've come anywhere close to that when I was in my best mid distance shape. These are different events with different physiological and training requirements. You wouldn't go up to a 100m runner and say "oh, I've run 16:20 for 5k, I could definitely run faster than your 11.75 for a 100, equivalence tables say so" ... so why do it with a marathon?

I've never run a marathon. I know I'd struggle to handle the buildup of 20+ mile long runs without breaking down and getting hurt. I respect those who put in the time and mileage to run them well -- and for 99%+ of the general population, a 3:00 marathon is pretty damn solid.

Do you know what's not competitive? "Gregory," the 12-hour marathon of scripts. Absolutely awful.

In the Boston Marathon 2019 where most people have achieved qualifying times so the field quality is high, 3:00 was approximately the division line for the upper 10 percent of finishers. Chicago same year puts a runner in the upper 5%.

It ain't qualifying for the OTs, but it is better than 90% of the running population and better than 99+% of everybody.

If you are not proud of your achievements, why do them. Or are you trying to belittle others in an attempt to elevate yourself?

Greg, I've run waaaaay faster than you could ever run/race a marathon. For the record, only "about" 3 percent of runners break 3 hours each year and even though I've been under 2:30, I don't train any harder or race any harder than those at 3 hours.

But you, you've never done that but you enjoy "Monday morning armchair quarterbacking" people who are 7 minutes away from it.

Serious question. For what reason did you feel the need to post something like that? What was in your mind that made you hit send? You are ripping others and implying that you are not in the camp because of 5k pr's and such. Is admitting that you were wrong so hard for you to do? I pridefully tell my wife that I do 6 things wrong before I get out of bed in the morning. You started a bad thread, admit it?