Only the strong do marathons!

Being a marathoner myself I know how painful it is.

Trying to improve at any running event from 100meters to 100miles takes much courage, hardwork, pain, suffering and dedication.

My hat goes off especially to the 800-5000 meter runners. In these distances there is no "comfortable period." it is goddamned painful from start to finish.

There is no "toughest distance." It is all quite painful to run as fast as you truly can.

jason

That's an interesting question, Fredo (on moving up). I think you should be patient to move up (deciding to focus on a longer as opposed to just running a longer event every once in a while) as long as you are improving on your current distance. When you sort of plateau at a given distance, then I would attempt specializing in a longer distance. I would continue on in this fashion as long as 1.) I wasn't one of the best in a given event, or 2.) my comparative times in a longer distance are not as good as in a shorter distance.

So, this maybe why there seems to be so many 800 HSers (and especially 800m JrHSers) compared to 2milers. Also, for your example, perhaps this guy should move up eventually (would be nice to be a 5Ker or 10Ker with this speed), but he shouldn't yet bc he is not near what he should do in the 800 (relative to his 400). If he can't get down to 1:53 or so (given his 51), then he may not be as talented a distance runner as 400-600m runner. Anyway, if you move up in this way, I wouldn't worry about messin' anyone up (making them slower), plus speed can be gained back through training.

This is why I think an experienced runner / marathoner has a healthy respect for the shorter distances. That runner has tried them and plateaued as they have moved up to find their best distance. Off course, I am just pulling this out of my arse, and I'd hate to have one of the physio-guys tell me I've got ot all wrong (oh well, if so), but it is my 2cents.

Watch out or you'll get banned! Yeah, I was the only one doing that!

I agree with you that there are tons more 2:00 800 guys compared to 10:00 3200 guys. My conclusion is that it is easier to run a 2:00 800 for most high school guys than it is to run a 10:00 3200.

That being said, I did the latter but not the former in high school - 2:03 in the 800, and 9:48 in the 3200 in high school. But, on my team, we had 3 guys who ran under 2:00 for 3200, and none of them could beat me in the 3200 or even the 1600. As it was, we had a really good 3200 relay team.

I think that in my case, I am just better suited to the longer distances than they were, because we all did pretty much the same training. That was a fault of the coaches. They should have had me running further, but I didn't know any better, and 9:48 in the mid-80s made me win just about everything, so I thought I was all that and a bag of chips.

It seems to me that in high school, most programs even today still have the runners running relatively few miles, and it is easier for someone with some talent to run a 2:00 800 on little training than it is to run a 10:00 3200 on little training.

As a senior in my league championship finals, we had 2 of us go under 10:00 in the 3200, but everyone in the 800 final went under 2:00, and there were many more 800 guys who went under 2:00 in the 3200 relay.

Seems to me that 10:00 is a tougher barrier than 2:00, even though I've never broken the latter.

High school distance legend Scott Fry who ran the 3200 in 8:46 (I think) had an 800 PR of just 1:57 - a race I witnessed at the Oak Harbor Invitational in 1985. This was memorable because (and I know I've told this story before, but I don't get too many opportunities to name drop) later in the 3200 as everyone had been waiting to see him break 8:50, he false started and was thrown out. I went on to win that race to a chorus of boos and chants of "you suck, you suck, you suck."

Thoner wrote:

As a marathon runner, I get asked all the time why don't I race shorter distances. I simply say, that it takes more dedication and ability to be successful at a marathon. To win, you need the speed of a miler and endurance of a 10K'er. Heck anybody can run a fast mile off of little training.....high school kiddo's do it all the time. What makes you a betetr person is not necessarily the race, but the road (training) that gets you there.

Marathons are not for everyone or the weak at heart, but if you think you have all the tools....go for it and make a REAL MAN out of yourself.

It takes dedication to be GREAT at a 5k. It takes far less so just to finish a marathon.

Thoner wrote:

As a marathon runner, I get asked all the time why don't I race shorter distances. I simply say, that it takes more dedication and ability to be successful at a marathon. To win, you need the speed of a miler and endurance of a 10K'er. Heck anybody can run a fast mile off of little training.....high school kiddo's do it all the time. What makes you a betetr person is not necessarily the race, but the road (training) that gets you there.

Marathons are not for everyone or the weak at heart, but if you think you have all the tools....go for it and make a REAL MAN out of yourself.

19 year old post at a time when Greg was performing at a high level.

Too bad he wasn't man enough to run a Marathon.

Thoner wrote:

As a marathon runner, I get asked all the time why don't I race shorter distances. I simply say, that it takes more dedication and ability to be successful at a marathon. To win, you need the speed of a miler and endurance of a 10K'er. Heck anybody can run a fast mile off of little training.....high school kiddo's do it all the time. What makes you a betetr person is not necessarily the race, but the road (training) that gets you there.

Marathons are not for everyone or the weak at heart, but if you think you have all the tools....go for it and make a REAL MAN out of yourself.

So, you want to bring up the real man thing again? Ok.

Criteria for being a real man:

1) Military service

2) Primary caretaker for elderly or disabled person that's NOT your vocation -- so like a parent or other family member.

3) Worker in some way in a war zone -- construction, journalist, whatever.

4) Married, active father to 2-4 children. You must live in the same house with those children and the mother, and you must take care of them financially and emotionally. You can't be a BAD father and be a man. You also do not have to procreate. You could be a father to them by adoption or marriage (wife had kids from previous marriage for example). Need at least 2 to fully feel what it's like to be a father, and more than 4 just allows the kids to take care of themselves too much, so 2-4 kids is the range. Now, if you had 4 and then one moves out and you had a 5th, then I'd accept that.

Those are the main ways to be a man. I would consider others if you want to provide them.

A single guy though who never has children and works to support himself and his lifestyle and doesn't fall into any of the other criteria I spelled out isn't a real man in my opinion. To be a real man requires serious responsibility, and that isn't fully realized for most people unless they are a GOOD father to 2-4 children.

hahaha, nice. lol