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

Ye say No wrote:

Nope, he didn't do it so he didn't do it. Maybe he was only strong enough to run 6:52 miles for 20 miles, who knows?

I know several runners that could not get under but were close each time. Their half marathons indicated they could do it, but...they never did. It doesn't lessen them as being great people, but they never broke 3 hours. I give them more credit for trying than I give this Greg person for making false unknown claims.

I broke 2:45 at age 17 and it never comes up in conversation with anyone as it was for me, not them. Yet this Greg poster is going to post assumptions that never happened and never will? No, you did not break 3 hours Greg and probably never would have because the training would have destroyed you.

THIS👍

Smart man.

Calculators are only so useful, and I’d argue they’re essentially irrelevant when comparing times on the track to the marathon.

If it was so simple, why don’t we see more American track athletes making the leap up in distance? The money is a hell of a lot better.

Sliding scale. What's wrong with being proud of breaking 3? I was very pleased, and as proud as I allow for any goal achieved. No more proud at getting into the 2:45 range. Probly more proud of the 2:59. Something about that threshhold maybe?

Greg wrote:

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?

Because you're the one making the claim.

Not him.

The fact is, your calculators show one thing but you've never proven it. So you've never accomplished it.

Ridiculous to start a thread like this when you yourself haven't even accomplished it. Grow up.

I will critique them after running 2:36 on little training.

An equivalency calculator is really pointless for the marathon when looking at distances below 10K. Ten mile and above would be even more ideal.

If you train all-in for a mile or 5K, you won’t be able to jump into a marathon a week later and expect to run it to your full potential.

The training and the adaptations it induces are completely different and there’s no guarantee that someone who responds well to one form of training will also respond well to another, let alone be able to execute that fitness in a race scenario.

It’s shocking that these obvious facts are lost on so-called “elite” runners.

I did not run in the NCAA and coming on LetsRun boosts my confidence. It’s very obvious that lots of people rely on talent over hard work and lack a serious IQ when it comes to training and exercise science.

Hey Kitty Girl wrote:

Greg wrote:

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?

Because you're the one making the claim.

Not him.

The fact is, your calculators show one thing but you've never proven it. So you've never accomplished it.

Ridiculous to start a thread like this when you yourself haven't even accomplished it. Grow up.

Long story short. I was never able to run that fast.

I was getting ready for my fastest Marathon with a 1:28:xx Half a month earlier.

Both races had perfect conditions and I ran as good as I can imagine. There was no chip timing at the time but I think I was over the starting line in the Marathon within 30 seconds and there were no delays after that.

That was before my 40iest birthday and I am happy that I could get my best marathon in at the right time with a good preparation in Spring. That was it.

"What distinguishes those of us at the starting line from those of us on the couch is that we learn through running to take what the days gives us, what our body will allow us, and what our will can tolerate."

—John Bingham, running writer and speaker

Hey Greg, STFU

Sure, it is difficult to break 3:00 . My PR from my mid 20's was 2:33 but when I turned 40 I tried to break 3:00 and realized that for an awful lot of runners it is a very difficult challenge. Holding a sub 7 minute pace for 3 hours is not "easy" even if you are able to go much faster

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

Greg goes home DEVASTATED. LMAO !!!!!

A 3:07 marathon is equivalent to over 31 minutes for 5 miles.

I ran 5 minutes faster than that for 5 miles

I have no doubt I would have run a marathon under 3 hours in my competitive running days. 0 doubt whatsoever.

The 3:07 marathoner comically says if this was a competitive site I wouldn't be here.

He's the one with the less competitive time!

The fact I've never run a marathon is basically irrelevant.

Surely I had the ability to complete one, I was running 20 miles and feeling fresh afterwards.

I'm not going to lose sleep over a time which is not in the same realm as my PRs.

A 3:07 marathon isn't anything to be ashamed of I suppose, but, it would have been a time I would have been extremely disappointed with if I'd done a marathon.

Let's put it this way: No I didn't 't run a sub 3 marathon, but my times pointed to a time much faster.

That you can't argue with. All the 3:07 marathoner can say is that I never ran a marathon, and he's correct because most runners 18-20 never run one. It's not really a 'thing' to do. I suspect the 3:07 runner never ran competitively in his life prior to attempting the marathon and holds this achievement through a limited lens.

There's no point in arguing this anymore, my times line up with a marathon much faster than a 3:07, the 3:07 guy can argue that all he wants but the fact is he was basically a 'slower' runner in general. End of discussion

Greg wrote:

There's no point in arguing this anymore, my times line up with a marathon much faster than a 3:07, the 3:07 guy can argue that all he wants but the fact is he was basically a 'slower' runner in general. End of discussion

Greg you are right, your are the better non runner talking about running.

The 3:07 guy wrote:

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

These PRs 16:21 5km 26:21 8km 57:58 10 miles are all more competitive than your marathon.

3:07 guy, don’t feed the troll. Greg is the equivalent of a pigeon. The more you feed it the more it sh%ts on your head. They stink, they’re gross, they make stupid sounds when they open their mouth and they are well known to assault their siblings.

Greg wrote:

The 3:07 guy wrote:

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

These PRs 16:21 5km 26:21 8km 57:58 10 miles are all more competitive than your marathon.

STFY

Greg wrote:

The 3:07 guy wrote:

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

These PRs 16:21 5km 26:21 8km 57:58 10 miles are all more competitive than your marathon.

Are they?

I honestly have no idea since I never ran on track. Others have to judge that. But what I do know is that just calculating what you could run does not necessarily make these projected times happening. I have beat plenty of runners over in 24 hour races who where a lot faster in Marathons or 100k races. And I am pretty sure that is true for 5000 and 10,000 meter runners who try to get a hold in Half Marathons or Marathons. Just because you are good in one distance does not mean you will be good in the next longer one.

Greg wrote:

There's no point in arguing this anymore, my times line up with a marathon much faster than a 3:07, the 3:07 guy can argue that all he wants but the fact is he was basically a 'slower' runner in general. End of discussion

Hey bozo, the world record holder in the half marathon has a time that lines up with bettering the world record in every other distance.

How about we give him all the world records?

You are really stupid and arrogant.

The 3:07 guy wrote:

Greg wrote:

These PRs 16:21 5km 26:21 8km 57:58 10 miles are all more competitive than your marathon.

Are they?

They are soundly better. The calculators suggest a 2:33 marathon for me. I admit that was not in the cards.

2:45 would have been realistic to shoot for. 2:50 would have been a reasonable expectation for me had I done a marathon. If you wanna argue that I was running at a higher level than you, that's your business. Also consider than you were running over 7 minute pace for your marathon. Almost all of my training runs were at or near. that pace. Did you run all of your training runs at marathon pace? No you didn't, you would have gotten injured.

Greg wrote:

The 3:07 guy wrote:

Are they?

They are soundly better. The calculators suggest a 2:33 marathon for me. I admit that was not in the cards.

2:45 would have been realistic to shoot for. 2:50 would have been a reasonable expectation for me had I done a marathon. If you wanna argue that I was running at a higher level than you, that's your business. Also consider than you were running over 7 minute pace for your marathon. Almost all of my training runs were at or near. that pace. Did you run all of your training runs at marathon pace? No you didn't, you would have gotten injured.

What matters here is that YOU ARE NOT BETTER than a 3:07 marathoner because you have never run a marathon.

End of discussion.