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

There's a number of runners at my club who have run a parkrun (5k) around 19/20 minutes and seem very proud of it by boasting on Facebook. However, none of them would get a sniff at sub 3. The marathon is what really separates the men from the boys and for club runners I think anything under 3:15 is a good time.

In fact, I see a number of them tearing the back out of it on every strava run they do, but when it comes to the marathon they run 7:50 pace for a pr. Laughable.

And less than 1% of the population has ever run in college. I guess that makes it an accomplishment when a kid runs 5:30 for the mile at an NAIA school.

No. A sub 2:45 marathon on limited training or a sub 2:30 on real training are the benchmarks for a respectable marathon. Anything else is just participating.

Greg wrote:

I've explained already there is no shame in a 3 hour marathon..

Then why’d you start this thread?

What did you hope to achieve?

Depends on your height and weight. A natural 5’10, 200 lb man running a 3:15 is very impressive.

27082021 wrote:

There's a number of runners at my club who have run a parkrun (5k) around 19/20 minutes and seem very proud of it by boasting on Facebook. However, none of them would get a sniff at sub 3. The marathon is what really separates the men from the boys and for club runners I think anything under 3:15 is a good time.

I fully agree with this statement!

*marathon pr:314

On the one hand I don't think people should shame others for their "slow" race time, because almost all people are slow compared to the top athletes. But I do think many here are exaggerating the difficulty of finishing a marathon. Distance running performance in shorter distances can be readily translate into marathon potential for the vast majority of runners. I do know a few runner who didn't handle the 26.2 very well, but they are the exceptions. Thus I can't be sure that Greg will run a sub 3:00 marathon if he train for it, but if I were to bet, I would overwhelmingly bet he can if he tries.

In my other post I talked about the "two worlds" in running. The world of the recreational runners and that of the elites. I think there are bias on both sides. In my other post, I emphasized that the elite runners tend to diminish the achievement of recreational runners, as this is the majority of the biases I see on this forum. But in this thread, I see more bias on the other side. Recreational runners tend to under estimate the value of a faster race time, but over estimate the awesomeness of mere long distance. For many finishing a marathon is infinitely more badass than a 5K, regardless of how fast. I think the eye-opening performance of Molly Seidel should shed some light on the fact that the marathon isn't really that special. Finishing the distance is not something that takes tremendous amount of talent, or even training.

doesn't make sense wrote:

if he tries.

I've been running marathons for more than 20 years. I've run under 3 hours a few times, but not in the last 10 years.

I don't ever talk about my times with people. If someone asks about a result, I will tell them. but most don't. I think your marathon time is a very personal thing. Picking an arbitrary standard for what someone considers "good" is ridiculous. I run marathons for me, not anyone else.

Now that I'm over 50, running a 3:20 feels a lot "harder" to me than a 2:57 did when I was age 30. I have a lot of respect for people that are out there for 4 plus hours. That's a lot of time on your feet. I'm not sure I'll want to continue running marathons if and when age slows me to that point.

In 1997 I was running a lot of short races and was a 16:30 5k guy. I had never even considered running a marathon. A buddy asked me to pace him at Chicago to try and break 3-hours. I asked him what pace that was and he said 6:47. Ha! that's my easy day pace (I was running 35-40 miles per week, most of it balls out - but I didn't know better).

So we made a deal, at 20 miles, no matter how we felt, whichever was feeling better was given the clearance to take off (I, of course, assumed this would be me). I did a 16-mile run in prep of the marathon and it was the longest run I had ever done up to race day.

We ran together till 20 miles and agreed we still felt OK and would stay together. We were slightly ahead of the 3-hour pace group. At 22 miles, I knew something was up and told my friend as the 3-hour group was beginning to encircle us. "I'm gonna back it down, you should stay with the big group." I went from clicking off 6:45's to 11 min miles in no time. My legs were cement. I hobbled in with a time of 3:09:5x and was more sore than I have ever been in my life.

My buddy ran 3:03 as he faded from the three hour group too.

The marathon is a different animal. It was a few years before I would try again but this time I trained for the race correctly. AS a predominantly fast-twitch type runner, the marathon was never going to be my best race. I ran a couple marathons and the third official race ran 2:45. That is my lifetime PR. All of my short distance PR's said I should have run around 2:33.

I don’t really see anyone in this thread holding up the marathon distance as some incredible feat in of itself. What many are doing is pointing out that many, many fast runners over shorter distances have been humbled by the marathon and saying it’s silly to claim you “could have” run a particular time without ever trying.

Or, even more prevalent, people are pointing out that it’s mean-spirited and asinine to gatekeep who is allowed to “feel proud” of their race performances. A recreational runner who’s close to breaking three hours has plenty to be proud of — it’s not something that an untrained individual could simply roll out of bed and accomplish.

Effort, training volume, and training intensity are all relative. Many people don’t have natural or genetic talent, or years of base aerobic capacity, and are reaching their full potential en-route to a 3hr marathon. I think there’s much more “pride” in that than riding the coattails of natural running ability to a 2:45ish finish, or worse — never even trying and insisting everyone recognize your calculated equivalence from a years-old PR as evidence you’re the “better” runner.

Greg started this thread to shame others unnecessarily. That’s the subtext and why it’s totally fair to point out that a 3:07 marathoner has run a marathon 3 hours and 7 minutes faster than Greg.

doesn't make sense wrote:

... Finishing the distance is not something that takes tremendous amount of talent, or even training..

Well put.

In everything in life I can think of we reserve our respect and admiration for those who try the hardest ... except casual distance running. And in casual distance running, for some reason we respect the jogwalker and his 90 minute 5K more than the accountant dad guy and his 20-high, even though that jogwalker eats what he wants, drinks what he wants, skipped all his training, and simply managed to wake up and get themselves to a start line.

The marathon is different, but not really. There's still a massive difference between those who train hard for it, like people I know, and those who train just enough to barely finish, like me.

I don't know what the numbers are -- 3'30 for men, 3'45 for women, foolishly ignoring age and weight? -- but there's definitely a number that you are very unlikely to get under without significant dedication or talent or both. And if being 'proud' of talent seems weird, it shouldn't. We do it all the time.

Greg wrote:

said if you live in a glass house dont throw stone wrote:

come on now greg. get out and try it and see what you decide then. if someone sets a goal they will know once they meet it if its worth being proud. i'd bet you cant break 3;00 in the next 6 months. is talking trash from the livingroom better than at 3;00.01 marathon?

There is nothing for me to prove in running. I am satisfied with the results I have. This started from someone with a 3:07 PR claiming I couldn't run under 3 hours... Most LRers know my track/road times line up to a marathon performance 10-20 minutes faster than a 3:07, so why would I have to go prove it to the slower guy?

Shouldn't the 3:07 guy be proving he can run a mile under 4:50? Break 27 for 5 miles? Why would I have to prove it?

“Why would I have to prove it”

You’re the one asking a stupid question.

I am not proud of my 3:07 Marathon time. It just happened to be my best Marathon time. And the only reason 3:07 comes up here is, because I was the guy who pointed out to Greg, that you just can't use a race calculator to get to a Marathon PR. You actually have to do the endurance work and you have to run a Marathon to get a PR.

Greg talks a lot about competitive running. You know what competitive running is: It's all these runners who toe the starting line, run and finish a race. These are all competitive runners. And no couch potato from Canada with a 8k time in a probably too short of a race from 15 years ago can take that away.

Greg, get your butt out of the door and train for something. Get to the starting line and ran that race and report back.

We will all help you along the way but stop that "I am the better runner because..." because you are not even running and competing. You are just talking.

So get out, run and get ready for a race.

The 3:07 guy wrote:

And no couch potato from Canada with a 8k time in a probably too short of a race from 15 years ago can take that away.

]

LOL, how do you summarize the course was short in my 8k?

Was your marathon course short?

You guys keep saying 'get out the door and do something'

I regularly run 25-35mpw. I don't have anything to prove to anyone on the board.

Why don't you get out the door and do something? You suggesting I get out the door has no more weight than me suggesting the same for you.

[quote]The 3:07 guy wrote:

=You know what competitive running is: It's all these runners who toe the starting line, run and finish a race. These are all competitive runners. And no couch potato from Canada with a 8k time in a probably too short of a race from 15 years ago can take that away.

With due respect, all of my PRs are more competitive than yours. Look at the distances we competed in that are common to both of us.

If you are going to suggest I am not a competitive runner, you are clearly delusional.

Greg, you’re very thin-skinned for a guy who created two threads in three hours in hopes of getting LetsRun to sh*t on three hour marathoners on your behalf.

Greg wrote:

If you are going to suggest I am not a competitive runner, you are clearly delusional.

You are clearly delusional if you think you are a competitive runner.

I bet you can't run a sub 5:00 mile today.