When did a 3-hour marathon become something to brag about?

You are a jerk. There is nothing else to say about you or your disgusting post.

When I ran one!

Are you sure about that? I had to break 2:50 when I ran Boston in 87 and 88 I'm pretty sure. My PR is 2:27. I don't brag about that time. On the other hand, I didn't break 3 my first time out. Unless you really are an elite runner, running 6:52 for 42.2 k is not an easy run. While I don't brag about my PRs (who the frak would care? the only people who might understand what they mean would also not be impressed by them), I have bragged about doing things (making a really good jambalaya, most recently..) that are a heck of a lot easier to do than breaking 3 hours for a marathon. I'd have no problem congratulating someone who broke 3 hours and made a point of telling me about it.

Judge Omar Noose presiding wrote:

here you go wrote:

Open men qualifying times

1971-1976 3:30 (same standard for everyone)

1977-1979 3:00

1980-1986 2:50

1987-1989 3:00

1990-2012 3:10

2013- 3:05

His Honor rules- for purposes of this thread BAA Q time and about 3 hours running time is the benchmark the OP is talking about.

No need to quibble but on average 3;05 is a better general indicator of the BAA Q time over the last 40 years than 2;50 would be.

toro wrote:

Beavus wrote:

Win

G5.. wrote:

Congratulations. My mom is 87 years old.

That "win" was called too soon.

I am going to have to call it a loss if he banged his 87 year old mother.

Win goes to G5's mom. Good for her at 87 to be getting her cougar game on!

I think its good.

Cool

Story

Bro

G5 wrote:

When did a 3-hour marathon become something to brag about?

Probably as early as 1908, when Johnny Hayes held the world record at 2:55:18.

Perhaps the OP should have said 5 or 4, but 3 is rolling for someone who is working a full time job and raising a family. I am not if you ever need to brag, but 3 hours requires training and running hard.

Perhaps the OP should have said 5 or 4, but 3 is rolling for someone who is working a full time job and raising a family. I am not if you ever need to brag, but 3 hours requires training and running hard.

Guessing it's a troll - because who has ever heard anyone brag about a sub 3? Never have, anyone who can break 3 realises it's a lot work but nothing significant but those who can't keep quiet for obvious reasons

So saying I wish the LR community members who pretend they are elite but really aren't would pipe down - I respect your times but not your snobby attitudes (which aren't warranted by your performances, if at all).

I wonder how many posters have actually run a marathon?

So lets put a 3 hour marathon into the context some of these people can manage

tell me what you think

age 20-35 same as shooting 100 in golf at an easy municipal course

age 35-40 sub 90

40-45 sub 85

yes?

pacer wrote:

So lets put a 3 hour marathon into the context some of these people can manage

tell me what you think

age 20-35 same as shooting 100 in golf at an easy municipal course

age 35-40 sub 90

40-45 sub 85

yes?

Dream on. As an above-average but nowhere near elite runner & golfer, I can tell you that you are dreaming. Sub 3 for age 20-35 is probably more like breaking 80.

For most people, both feats will require a decent amount of dedication, an average amount of talent. And both accomplishments should provide some satisfaction and pride to the average person.

But brag about either (besides to your buddies) and you'll look foolish to anybody halfway decent.

When did you become so bitter ?

TrackCoach wrote:

Perhaps the OP should have said 5 or 4, but 3 is rolling for someone who is working a full time job and raising a family. I am not if you ever need to brag, but 3 hours requires training and running hard.

Back in the days of TNFmedia and the early days of letsrun, anyone running slower than 3:00 was called a jogger.

Keep in mind that Paul Cummings was a world class miler while working in a steel mill (and ran 3:37i[AR], 13:19, and 2:11) and Bob Schull worked 40 hours a week.

Keep in mind that Paul Cummings was a world class miler while working in a steel mill (and ran 3:37i[AR], 13:19, and 2:11) and Bob Schull worked 40 hours a week.[/quote]

___________________________________________________________

That's rare- seriously, most people have jobs and family. I mean I see locally competitive runners running around the school fields while their child plays a sport, things like that.

3:00 has always been considered decent. Get under 2:30 and you're a real marathoner.

Yes, there were guys who had full time jobs and still devoted themselves to running and made it big. In the pre-pro days you had no choice.

pacer wrote:

So lets put a 3 hour marathon into the context some of these people can manage

tell me what you think

age 20-35 same as shooting 100 in golf at an easy municipal course

age 35-40 sub 90

40-45 sub 85

yes?

This is complete BS. Sub 3=shoot 100? I'm a terrible golfer, and can say without question this is an unfair comparison. I was a decent runner once, and even though I was past my prime when I got around to a marathon I wouldn't say that breaking three was a walk in the park by any stretch. In fact, I underestimated the distance the first time and fell well short of this. Hell, just running 26 miles at any pace is a fair amount of work.

You shouldn't "brag" about any performance, but the average runner can and should be damned proud of a sub-3 hour marathon.

It is due to the fact that average people wet their pants when they hear your sub 3 time.

Most sub 3 guys know where they stand. I always remind the overly impressed that there are guys finishing almost an hour ahead of me, with women not that far behind them.