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

What if I ran 3:02 when I was 12 years old and then lost the use of my legs at age 13? Am I not allowed to be proud?

What if you are yet to break 9:00 in the mile after 3 years of training?

I think you need to make it sub something. sub-4:00? sub-5:00? Someone could slowly walk a 13 hour marathon.

Greg, you talk a big game. You have never run a marathon at all. Run one in under 3 hours and then get back to us.

proud and boastful are simultaneously synonymous, but also very different. unless youve run an olympic trials standard you shouldnt brag about your times, but being proud about something is very personal and ive felt accomplished after running solo marathons.

Hooma wrote:

Greg, you talk a big game. You have never run a marathon at all. Run one in under 3 hours and then get back to us.

I don't feel I have anything to prove and am quite sure a sub 3 hour marathon was well within my abilities when I was competing more seriously. My track and road times pointed to a time in the mid 2:40s. I would bet on myself running under 3 hours given that I'd done several runs of 2 hours and a few over 2 hours.

Let's put things in perspective. A 3:07 marathon is the equivalent of a 5:25 mile or 31+ minutes for 5 miles.

I would routinely run 6 minute pace for 5 miles in training as a tempo run. I had a best of 26:21 for 8km, or 5:16/mile.

It's not about whether I could have run sub 3 or not, it's more about a poster who ran 3:07 talking up their performance.. meanwhile I doubt they ever ran under 30 minutes for 5miles/8k. I could do that in my sleep.

I don't think suggesting I could do a sub 3 hour marathon, given my PRs is 'talking a big game'.

I'll let the 3 hour marathoners bask in there glory while I don't care about not having competed in the distance..

My track/road times are solid enough for me given the amount of work I did to achieve them.. Knowing I had ability to run sub 3 hours in the marathon is good enough for me, I don't have to prove it to random posters years later when I am no longer competing.

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?

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?

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?

When did this 3:07 guy challenge you? I can’t find the thread.

If you've never run before and were unfit your whole life, then got off your butt and ran/walked a marathon in 5 hours, I'd say you'd have every right to be proud of yourself.

i have better marathon times than greg.

this is a competitive running site.

i win.

i am the better marathon competitor.

Greg wrote:

If you're a guy and proud of that time, unless you are in your 50s..

well...

This is a competitive running site!

if you are a freeloader from Edmonton with all time in the world to train and you talk shyt on letsrun dissing people who are actually running...

well...

This is a competitive running site!

This is not a I-could-have-run-a-certain-time site for big mouths like you who are slower than some 70 year olds.

A 3:01 marathon will put you in the top 10% of most marathons. It’s not much of an accomplishment for a college runner, but for the average Joe it’s a pretty good feat.

Most of my “running friends” have not broken 3 hours.

I ran my 3:07 when I was 40.

Am I proud of it? Not really, since I have done a lot cooler stuff on longer distances.

But when I see all these slow pokes these days, especially in my running group, I think 3:07 was not that bad.

If this would be a competitive running site, Greg would not be on here.

With all times, it's relative. 3:07 is not as good as sub 3 hours but hell lot better than just getting under 4 hours.

A sub 2:30 is a lot better than sub 3 hours but not that great if you compare it with sub 2:15 runners.

And a sub 2:10 is not that much if you are from Kenia.

But the best is if you have no Marathon time and can judge like Greg. That is the ultimate Marathon runner.

The 3:07 guy wrote:

But the best is if you have no Marathon time and can judge like Greg. That is the ultimate Marathon runner.

Exactly. Greg is:

(1) slow

(2) a hypocrite

(3) a burnout

(4) a has been, a NEVER WAS

Mustang wrote:

Greg wrote:

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?

When did this 3:07 guy challenge you? I can’t find the thread.

Yes, that was me.

Greg boosted about his old times and how he could have run a sub 3 Marathon.

Could he? Probably with a lot of hard training. But he didn't even try and he didn't run one single marathon.

There is a huge difference with having the potential and actually doing it.

I probably could have run sub 3 too if I would have put a lot of work into it. But I am a ultrarunner, always was. I have seen many training for and running under 3 hours. But I can tell you, all of them were not Greg types. Lots of them worked there asses of to get under 3 hours.

And we all know, that's not what Greg would do.

Greg,

If you ran a marathon in the next 6 months and you ran a 3:09, would you be proud of that?

I am guessing that you would be proud of that.

Greg wrote:

Hooma wrote:

Greg, you talk a big game. You have never run a marathon at all. Run one in under 3 hours and then get back to us.

I don't feel I have anything to prove and am quite sure a sub 3 hour marathon was well within my abilities when I was competing more seriously. My track and road times pointed to a time in the mid 2:40s. I would bet on myself running under 3 hours given that I'd done several runs of 2 hours and a few over 2 hours.

Let's put things in perspective. A 3:07 marathon is the equivalent of a 5:25 mile or 31+ minutes for 5 miles.

I would routinely run 6 minute pace for 5 miles in training as a tempo run. I had a best of 26:21 for 8km, or 5:16/mile.

Several runs of 2 hours! My goodness. I did a two-hour run every Sunday morning, 45 weeks a year, for about 15 years--and that was half-marathon training.

A 3:07 marathon may be the equivalent of ONE 5:25 mile, but it's certainly not the equivalent of 31+ minutes for 5 miles. Not even close.

When I ran 2:53, I routinely ran 10Ks around 36 and ran the mile right around 5 minutes flat. I ran 10 miles at 6 minutes pace twice in Central Park and those "races" felt more like hard tempo runs. Your calculations are off. And it's a really bad idea, in my view, to talk about the marathon in terms of what you COULD have done if you'd actually run one. The marathon is its own race. It's particularly unforgiving of those who haven't laid in a substantial bed of long runs.

Did you have the underlying talent to break three hours? Based on your times, absolutely. You coulda been a contender. But it's a losing game, in this snakepit, to place too much weight on what you could have done, rather than on what you actually accomplished. I qualified for Boston by one second (3:30:59) when I was 50, but I never ran Boston--marathons are just too damned hard--and I've never spent one minute regretting that blank space on my CV. Take pride in what you've actually done.