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:

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.

I am running for over 37 years with a lifetime average of 26+ miles per week.

I have done epic races you would dream about.

I do stuff.

But this is not about me. This is about you Greg, you are belittling very runner with your one time achievement 15 years ago. Runners are people who run. I don't really think you are one of them.

4523 wrote:

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.

Competition is relative. At one extreme, you could argue if you haven't made a global final, you aren't competitive. At the other, if you can finish any race in the top 3, you can call that competitive. There are a whole lot of races out there; the ones with even sub-elite fields are the exception. Hard work and dedication are impressive. So is talent. We're all garbage compared to the world records; most other benchmarks are pretty arbitrary. They can be impressive for one person to achieve, and disappointing for another. OP's question is unanswerable in the abstract. Two people can have different answers and both be right.

Greg wrote:

[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.

Well you are not competitive in the marathon.

And that is the gold standard for a distance runner.

Greg, you claim to be a different caliber of runner than the 3:07 marathoner just because you have shorter distance PR's that "indicate" you'd be able to do something faster.

Those indications aren't worth poo and nor are your weird false equivalencies about training zones or pace on easy runs compared to this poor 3:07 runner guy.

You don't know what you could do in a marathon until you've done one, not even with a 10 mile race you're using as a conversion estimate.

My buddy and I both ran collegiately (D3). Neither of us were world beaters, pretty mediocre PR's but respectable for that level. He was a little faster than me over 8k (25:32vs 26:15) but I had him by a few seconds in the 1500m (4:00 vs 4:02) and the 800m (1:57 vs. 1:59).

My 1500m time "indicates" I had/have the potential to run a marathon in the 2:25 -2:35 range. I ran 50mpw for around 4-5 months out of college and come race day for my first marathon I blew up at mile 20 and limped home in 3:09.

Could I go faster? Probably, but probably isn't worth much.

My buddy with the comparable PR's went on to run a 2:31 in his first marathon, and has since worked his way down to a 2:23 while I'm just jogging 20mpw for fun and to avoid getting chunky.

Also, if 3:00 in a marathon is not "competitive" enough for you to warrant a post here, I would not mention your 16:21 run off of higher mileage. You're far down the bottom end of what anyone who's competed would consider remotely "talented" so act accordingly.

Greg wrote:

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?

The 8k you ran 17 years ago in 26:21 was a Running Room event, the same folks who evolved Gallo-walking to their core 10-and-1 program.

Running Room is not known for competitive events, certified/accurate courses, or competent timing.

The only other race result showing up is from 20 years ago, when you put a 17:05 5K in school. Apparently you ran a 16:21 5K somewhere - was this XC? And a sub-60 "hilly 10-miler" - can't even find a race for that distance, let alone that result.

You've done practically no racing, it seems, so really have nothing to benchmark that 8K against which would suggest the course was accurate and correctly timed.

Ernest wrote:

The 8k you ran 17 years ago in 26:21 was a Running Room event, the same folks who evolved Gallo-walking to their core 10-and-1 program.

Running Room is not known for competitive events, certified/accurate courses, or competent timing.

The only other race result showing up is from 20 years ago, when you put a 17:05 5K in school. Apparently you ran a 16:21 5K somewhere - was this XC? And a sub-60 "hilly 10-miler" - can't even find a race for that distance, let alone that result.

You've done practically no racing, it seems, so really have nothing to benchmark that 8K against which would suggest the course was accurate and correctly timed.

Thanks, I was always wondering about that. So chances are, that the 8k was a lot shorter.

The 3:07 guy wrote:

I am running for over 37 years with a lifetime average of 26+ miles per week.

I have done epic races you would dream about.

I do stuff.

But this is not about me. This is about you Greg, you are belittling very runner with your one time achievement 15 years ago. Runners are people who run. I don't really think you are one of them.

First, let's be honest. I do believe your best is 3:08, not 3:07.

I started a joke about training for a 3:07 marathon as it eclipses 3:08 by a minute. for fun..

You are in all honesty a 3:08 marathoner, right?

Epic races I would dream about? Gimme a break. I don't find slogging along in ultras to be fun.

I bet you would dream to play the piano like I can.

I do stuff too.. You say it isn't about you, but then you go on to talk about yourself.. Hmmm...

dingbat wrote:

Also, if 3:00 in a marathon is not "competitive" enough for you to warrant a post here, I would not mention your 16:21 run off of higher mileage. You're far down the bottom end of what anyone who's competed would consider remotely "talented" so act accordingly.

First some of you take this discussion WAAAAY too seriously. Lighten up folks!

Second when did I say I ran my 5k off higher milage? It was run 1 year roughly after my 8k/10 mile PRs.

I had some talent. I was running about 20-40 mpw when I ran my 5k PR.

I think most would agree 16:21 off 20--40mpw, no specific workouts indicates a certain degree of talent.

dingbat wrote:

You don't know what you could do in a marathon until you've done one, not even with a 10 mile race you're using as a conversion estimate.

.

Pretty much sums it up.

Crunching an event time through a McMillan (or similar) calculator and extrapolating equivalent times for other race distances is rarely accurate - and all bets are off when it comes to 26.2/42.2

In a marathon, I've seen a 38 minute 10K runner beat 33 minute 10K runner. Even for those trained and prepared, the last few miles of a hard marathon can be painful carnage...

If you want to know your time for a particular race distance... you have to actually run it.

No two ways about it - 3:07 guy is the better marathoner. And there's nothing shabby about that time - for the last 20 years or so, it would have been a BQ for most.

Hey Ernest,

First of all you know that searching online for results and not finding them doesn't mean I am making up my PRs, right?

I am an honest person, I have nothing to gain by making up my PRs, which aren't even world class.

Second, my 10 mile was the St. Albert 10 miler in 2004. The results used to be online. I can't find them anymore, but what does it matter?

The 5k was from 2005. It was a spinal chord society themed race. I can't find it online either.

I can find an indoor 3000m from 2003 where I ran 9:26.17. I had an injury, ran only once in the 2 weeks prior to that race, but it still was a decent result considering it basically matched my high school outdoor PR.

And by the way, you think the 8k race I won was suspect.. Look up Marty Robinson, the 2nd place finisher in that race.

He ran a 1:15 1/2 and 2:44 for the full marathon. I think he probably has run much faster than that, but those results you can find for him online.

Anyways Ernest,

If I had run a marathon when I was competing somewhat seriously, here's how I would have looked at it?

3 hours + would have been a massive disappointment.

2:50 something would have been humbling, I still would have been disappointed.

2:40 something is what I would have expected.

2:30 something would have been a goal to shoot for

Greg wrote:

dingbat wrote:

Also, if 3:00 in a marathon is not "competitive" enough for you to warrant a post here, I would not mention your 16:21 run off of higher mileage. You're far down the bottom end of what anyone who's competed would consider remotely "talented" so act accordingly.

First some of you take this discussion WAAAAY too seriously. Lighten up folks!

Second when did I say I ran my 5k off higher milage? It was run 1 year roughly after my 8k/10 mile PRs.

I had some talent. I was running about 20-40 mpw when I ran my 5k PR.

I think most would agree 16:21 off 20--40mpw, no specific workouts indicates a certain degree of talent.

That your PRs came off of such low mileage does not bode as well for your success in the marathon as you seem to think it does….

To satisfy Ernests suspicion he can find my indoor 3000m here

https://www.trackie.com/track-and-field/Results/2003-high-performance-meet/87/

Greg wrote:

First some of you take this discussion WAAAAY too seriously. Lighten up folks!

Just want to say how this thread is comical.

Is a 3 hour marathon something you shouldn't be proud of? If that's within your abilities, sure, be proud of it. It's an accomplishment.

For me, it would not have been something I would have been proud of. I would have been somewhat satisfied with a time in the 2:40s.

I love the arguments on this thread.

'Well, your 8k PR is false, the course must have been short'

'You've made up your 10 mile PR, I can't find the results online'

LOL

Greg wrote:

Just want to say how this thread is comical.

Is a 3 hour marathon something you shouldn't be proud of? If that's within your abilities, sure, be proud of it. It's an accomplishment.

It took 9+ pages, but it sounds like Greg is waving the white flag here, folks.

Greg wrote:

To satisfy Ernests suspicion he can find my indoor 3000m here

https://www.trackie.com/track-and-field/Results/2003-high-performance-meet/87/

Men 3000 Metre Run High Perfoma Senior

================================================================

Name Year Team Finals

================================================================

1 Nissen, Rob 83 Edmonton Thu 8:32.84

2 Kelemen, Kelsey 80 U of A 8:33.11

3 Raudebaugh, Dallas 81 Rams Track 8:41.38

4 Kerr, Geoff 84 U of C 8:49.60

5 Manyfingers, Ian 80 U of C 8:53.53

6 Lambert, Adrian 85 Edmonton Thu 9:09.68

7 Zawaski, Greg 84 Leduc Track 9:26.27

8 O'Brien, Ben 84 Edmonton Thu 9:32.61

9 McGavock, John 75 Unattached 9:33.99

10 Carver, Jason 84 Edmonton Thu 9:36.81

11 Masters, Kevin 72 Unattached 9:44.22

12 Travers, Damien 77 Unattached 9:52.10

54 seconds after the first runner. That's 7.2 seconds per lap. I don't know anything about 3000 meter running but that seems not that competitive.

Op has obviously never run a marathon.

There is something very exciting about watching people finish a marathon. 3hrs, 12hrs walking, and all the other ranges. Hugging their friends and family and competitors. The smells of success and suffering. Nothing like it.

I've read a few resumes with marathon or Ironman as an accomplishment. I always select those for further consideration.

RunRaider wrote:

Greg wrote:

Just want to say how this thread is comical.

Is a 3 hour marathon something you shouldn't be proud of? If that's within your abilities, sure, be proud of it. It's an accomplishment.

It took 9+ pages, but it sounds like Greg is waving the white flag here, folks.

Not waving a white flag at all, not intimidated by any of the silly posters here either.

The title of this thread was a bit tongue in cheek. The fact so many people defend the 3 hour + marathoners is an indication this site is more saturated with your casual hobby jogger who got into marathoning. but never ran track competitively.

I've been coming to this site for a long time, longer than most posters here.

I would NOT have been satisfied or proud of a 3 hour marathon. No, I've never run one, but I had every reason to believe 2:40 something was realistic.

Not having run one doesn't make me any less of a person or runner. Sure someone who has run 3:08 is 'better' at the distance, but for them to dismiss my belief of early running sub 3, a reasonable expectation for myself, is purely a case of them defending their accomplishment, a time that in my eyes would have been a disappointment.