2:47 marathon=serious runner or rec runner?

When you grow up and have some responsibilities beyond yourself, you'll understand.

Don Bowden's coach Brutus Hamilton would only let his athletes train 1hr/day. He was trying to make sure they had balance, and could prepare for the rest of their lives.

Bowden himself said that the current 24/7 nature of athletics has taken things too far:

"I still believe it's important to consider what running can teach you about yourself. Otherwise, won't sport end up becoming some frivolous obsession?"

To spend >10hrs/week on yourself is a big commitment. To deride the *outcome* of some is churlish in the extreme.

I'm a recreational runner. I can typically slot in at 2:45 when I'm trying hard, and I run 40mpw.

I'm organized, disciplined, and I work hard in the workouts I do - you might say "serious", but I simply have no interest in spending 2 to 3 times longer to achieve a modest incremental return of a few minutes. (and for me most likely get injured anyway).

So, go for it for a season or two, but if its your obsession, or your identity, I've got news for you: there will always be someone better, and probably someone better who has a more balanced life than you.

Maybe if you weren't so thin-skinned, self-righteous, and narcissistic then you'd understand. You're desperately trying to make this into something it's not. The clock doesn't care about responsibilities beyond yourself, there is no division in the sport between those choosing to reproduce, those with mortgages, those attending to the challenges of lawn care, and those who have chosen otherwise. Sport is no more frivolous than anything else you do in life that isn't absolutely directly related to personal survival. Adding layers of complexity to your life to inflate feelings of self-worth has nothing to do with anybody else or with real balance.

You surely spend >10 hours/week doing someone else's bidding, trading your time and energy to help them make profits in return for what they estimate that's worth. Spending 25% or less of what you spend helping others to achieve their dreams and visions to achieve your own dreams and visions is pretty minimal. As with raising kids or any other pursuit, with running outcome is pretty closely tied to input and that truth would only be misinterpreted as derision if you aren't secure enough to accept it for what it is.

If you sleep for an average of 8 hours per night there are 112 waking hours in a week. If you spend 40 of that working, 30 more of that on family time then you've still got 32 left for various other things (commuting, watching tv, washing the car, taking out the garbage, etc.) If you're going to insist that spending >10 of that to run is a big commitment to spend on yourself then why isn't spending >10 of that to work more also a big commitment to spend on yourself? Is more money worth so much more than personal satisfaction? Balance is an individual thing, it's not up to you or Brutus Hamilton to define that for anyone else. Nobody gave you that right, you presumptively took it upon yourself.

Just face it, if you aren't willing to spend 10+ hours/week to train for a marathon then you just don't want to run your very best badly enough. Don't get confused again with that concept, that's no value judgment and there's nothing wrong in not wanting it that much. Nobody should look down on you or make you feel bad for choosing to underachieve in any endeavor you willingly undertake. It's your life and your talents to do with as you see fit, if you're truly satisfied with your decisions then why are you taking issue? On the other hand, if you don't want to spend 10+ hours/week training but still truly want to race your best then maybe the marathon just isn't for you.

got self-righteousness? wrote:

Just face it, if you aren't willing to spend 10+ hours/week to train for a marathon then you just don't want to run your very best badly enough.

Correct!

I had that epiphany in HS.

I also had that epiphany in 2006 about $ working for a now-bankrupt investment bank.

As Richard Hell pointed out, "When you are 20, you want the world to notice your uniqueness. When you are 40, you realize the world is a pretty interesting place".

A 2:47 marathon is outstanding. Anybody who can do that is a superb athlete. I've run faster several times, but not by much. How much? Who cares.

Individual sports are the one arena where obsessive compulsive behavior is rationalized and rewarded. Its not healthy.

Accomplishments in this sport are extremely personal, yet many many people project their entire persona onto those brief moments. I see people do it w/ their checkbooks, cars, the bling on their wives, etc. Again, not healthy.

As for saying that sport is no more frivolous than life's other responsibilities....well...wait and see. You will find this NOT to be the case.

got self-righteousness? wrote:

If you're going to insist that spending >10 of that to run is a big commitment to spend on yourself then why isn't spending >10 of that to work more also a big commitment to spend on yourself? Is more money worth so much more than personal satisfaction?

More money = more security for those who depend on you and your income.

You think "what I do only affects me".

But that is almost never the case.

You must jump up on the cross for your family and your employer, too.

I found the world to be a pretty interesting place at 20, I wasn't much concerned with the world noticing my "uniqueness" way back then, either. I hope I never become so self-absorbed that I lose perspective to the degree that believing that feeding any contribution into an unhealthy system is anything other than frivolous. Your priorities have just as much negative consequence for others as anyone else's.

You like feeling holier than thou and I like feeling faster than thou.

got solipsism? wrote:

You must jump up on the cross for your family and your Your priorities have just as much negative consequence for others as anyone else's.

...do tell....

You chose freely to create that dependency. No extra credit for doing what you're supposed to do as a result of bringing more mouths to feed into this world. I'd never point to my kids as proof of selfless giving, that's asinine. People poorer than you have just as many kids as you, there is no income level requirement for having and raising kids. You want more money because you want more to spend on frivolous things.

keep going...this is good...

You have no idea how much I make, what I do, who I am, whether or not I married or have children...but if I suggest that family/children/career (all rewarding pursuits) are a better undertaking than an extra 20-30mpw, I am self-righteous?

...normally guys in Hollywood spend WEEKS trying to come up w/ characters like you....keep it coming!

Nah, this thread is about running your best. Or not.

no...its about running 2:47....which has nothing to do w/ "your best".

Off the Grid wrote:

if I suggest that family/children/career (all rewarding pursuits) are a better undertaking than an extra 20-30mpw, I am self-righteous?

For anyone other than yourself, yes. It's completely subjective, but then a genius like you must have known that, right? You also realize that the clock is objective and doesn't change based on subjective factors, right? Keep up, we'll get you up to speed soon enough, at least mentally.

...it must be SO cool to be as smart as u!

got self-righteousness? wrote:

Off the Grid wrote:

if I suggest that family/children/career (all rewarding pursuits) are a better undertaking than an extra 20-30mpw, I am self-righteous?

For anyone other than yourself, yes. It's completely subjective, but then a genius like you must have known that, right? You also realize that the clock is objective and doesn't change based on subjective factors, right? Keep up, we'll get you up to speed soon enough, at least mentally.

Try the RW forums, they might be more your speed.

Off the Grid wrote:

keep going...this is good...

You have no idea how much I make, what I do, who I am, whether or not I married or have children...but if I suggest that family/children/career (all rewarding pursuits) are a better undertaking than an extra 20-30mpw, I am self-righteous?

...normally guys in Hollywood spend WEEKS trying to come up w/ characters like you....keep it coming!

Wrong, it's what running 2:47 most often represents. I know that's a bit complex for you, but take your time and it might come to you sometime this week.

Off the Grid wrote:

no...its about running 2:47....which has nothing to do w/ "your best".

I tremble in awe....wow...

got self-righteousness? wrote:

Wrong, it's what running 2:47 most often represents. I know that's a bit complex for you, but take your time and it might come to you sometime this week.

Off the Grid wrote:

no...its about running 2:47....which has nothing to do w/ "your best".

Good lord, people, running does not take that much time.

I run 80-90 mpw and guess what? It doesn't take that much time. I run to work which takes less time than driving (35 minutes) and then I run home and add on another hour. When I get home, nobody even notices or knows how far I've run or even notices that I was missing. Even for total slowpokes, 100mpw takes less than 2 hours a day, which is fewer hours than most people spend watching TV.

I am not superfast, but I hate running marathons knowing that I could be doing much better if only ran more. I do the running so I have the satisfaction of knowing that I did what I could within reason to do my best.

For the original question, for a healthy male under 35, I consider 2:30 to be "good" and under 3:00 to be "solid." For women under 35, I consider 3:00 to be "good" and 3:30 to be "solid" But that's just based on me and people I know. To be honest, the men I know that run over 3:00 and the women I know that run over 3:20 don't train as much as they could, although I think they consider themselves "serious."

If you have all that time, and you want to dedicate your life to a couple of digits behind a colon go for it, but don't act as if you are somehow superior for doing so. On the flip side, those of us who do 50mpw or less have no right to play the could-have would-have game.

But if you're just on an ego trip to feel better about yourself or get some higher status by achieving a better time, which I get the sense that a lot of you are, you should really check yourself.

Does running 100mpw lead to better marathon times than 50mpw? Yes, absolutely, but not nearly as much as those of you burning all those hours doing the 100 would like to think.

Good times and high effort are great, but if it becomes all about numbers and not about the experience, then it will never be enough.

You're the types who would drive a Porsche Boxster and have your day ruined when a 911 cabrio pulled alongside, because for you its not about what you have, its about what you don't have.

How serious you are as a runner is related to the time you spend on letsrun every day.

Over 2:20 is very respectable

Over 2:30 is impressive

Over 2:35 is enviable

Over 2:40 is borderline elite

Over 2:50 is elite