When did a 3-hour marathon become something to brag about?

This type of thread is why I don't visit this site much anymore.

The usual Let's Run dickhead spouting off about how a three hour marathon is a "lousy time" etc, etc, etc.

What have you accomplished in running that makes you so superior?

For the record my P.R. is 2:52:11 and I'm damn proud of that time. Did I go around bragging about it? Of course not. If someone asks I tell them. Running 6:36 per mile for the average person (of which I consider myself one) takes alot of hard work and dedication. For the more talented among us it is an easy time to acheive, but I am certain that the vast majority of people will never run a time like that so I consider it something to be proud about.

Also my 65 year old father runs about a 3:40 marathon. Should he be embarrassed about that time?

What about Ed Whitlock? Sub 3 at 70+? I'd say that's something to brag about...

I get so tired of twenty-something manorexics being the implicit reference point for threads on letsrun. Surely it occurs to some people here that a 3 hour marathon is an excellent marathon time for a number of people--new runners, older runners, WOMEN...You can't just post a benchmark time, then use that to evaluate all runners.

Also, it seems to me that trash talking and/or boasting is a fun (sometimes annoying) part of many sports. I don't understand how runners can get pissy about recreational runners (here, people seem to trash everybody that isn't a world record holder) when we all know that running is an under-appreciated sport.

I'm afraid you both are arguing a side issue. This post has nothing to do with marathon performance. The OP cares nothing about the 3:00 marathon. The point, although immature as it is, is to get a rise out of people and for passionate posters to "bite." That's exactly what a lot of posters did here. They took the issue seriously and went off on rages and tangents, while the OP is laughing.

You guys gotta learn letsrun better. Anytime you see a subject like that it is BS and if you get angry, the poster wins.

Bummer. I wish I would have read this thread before I went out and ran 18 today, last 6 at 6:52 pace. All for naught. :-(

twenty-something manorexics

I hope you're not implying that most of the male 20 somethings here don't eat 3000+ calories per day, because that would be straight up silly. Thin is not a synonym for anorexic (nor, for that matter, is anorexic a synonym for thin, a misconception that perpetuates the problem in many cases).

Surely it occurs to some people here that a 3 hour marathon is an excellent marathon time for a number of people--new runners, older runners, WOMEN...You can't just post a benchmark time, then use that to evaluate all runners.

I think this is part of the issue... most of the guys on here running sub 3 hours are able to do so because they have the advantages of youth, experience (compared to some), and gender on their side in terms of speed. They are being compared against a standard for the general population that doesn't apply to them, and they don't want undeserved praise; undeserved praise is almost as bad, or worse, than failure.

Butt arse stupid since forever wrote:

Coffee added wrote:

Wrong. 2:50 was the standard not 3:05.

---------------

Would someone post the BAA standards year by year.Thanks

Open men qualifying times

1971-1976 3:30 (same standard for everyone)

1977-1979 3:00

1980-1986 2:50

1987-1989 3:00

1990-2012 3:10

2013- 3:05

It definitely sounds elitist but 30 years ago, a 3 hour marathon really WASN'T a big deal. I bombed out at Boston in 1980 (20 years old and it was only my second marathon) in 3:15 after a 1:18 first half. I think I finished 2700 something out of about 3600 finishers on a hot day. I ran 2:52 at the end of that fall (after XC season ended), and again was pretty disgusted, not because it was not a Boston qualifier, but because I just did not run very well.

A few things for perspective, not nearly as many women running marathons then, and most of the younger men had run in school. There were not as many marathons held then either.

I have to agree, its sad but its because any jacka$$ can post on here and they are unknown so it leaves a bunch of random posters (who probably havent even run a marathon) to stir up trouble and post CRAP

Honestly, 3 hrs is good, at least you can say they are clean. But there are many dopers who are barely under 2:20 now thats sad

here you go wrote:

Butt arse stupid since forever wrote:

Coffee added wrote:

Wrong. 2:50 was the standard not 3:05.

---------------

Would someone post the BAA standards year by year.Thanks

Open men qualifying times

1971-1976 3:30 (same standard for everyone)

1977-1979 3:00

1980-1986 2:50

1987-1989 3:00

1990-2012 3:10

2013- 3:05

His Honor rules- for purposes of this thread BAA Q time and about 3 hours running time is the benchmark the OP is talking about.

No need to quibble but on average 3;05 is a better general indicator of the BAA Q time over the last 40 years than 2;50 would be.

Truth is, as soon as triathlon became popular, it had a massive impact on the depth of talent at the marathon and other road races.

Back in the 70's and 80's, you'd get a heap of guys running 2.40, 2.50 and it was no big deal at all. Now, a lot of those same people (who would once have been serious recreational runners) are now doing tri's.

So while at the pointy end, times have gotten faster (due almost entirely to East Africans) once you go south of 2.20, performances have gotten worse.

Add to that the general unhealthiness of modern America/Australia/UK, the sedentary lifestyle of our youth, and the fact that junk food has become a staple for many people... and there you go.

People just aren't as physically fit as they were a generation ago.

So yeah. Now, if you go sub 3, at any age, you're statistically near the top of the pile.

Feb. 22nd, 1975 when a 13 year old girl ran a 2:56 @ Seaside, Oregon.

The next year, on Feb. 28th, 1976, an 11 year old girl ran a 3:04 in the same race

http://www.arrs.net/HP_TrEMa.htm

It's also something to brag about when your marathon pace is faster than your mile pace when you first started running.

This sport is about nothing but self achievement - whatever that may be - unless you are getting paid.

At my age (66), I would certainly brag about running a 3 hour marathon (and even sub 3:40). The OP disregards those of us old farts who once could run decent times and now are glad to just be out on the roads without needing a walker!

SFrieds34 wrote:

It's also something to brag about when your marathon pace is faster than your mile pace when you first started running.

This sport is about nothing but self achievement - whatever that may be - unless you are getting paid.

Exactly. At school the fastest I ever did a mile was 6:15; after taking up running at 25 I ran a 2:40 marathon 4 years later, of which I'm damn proud.

That said, had I run a 4:15 mile in school, a 2:40 marathon would not be all that great. The whole pride thing is relative.

I'm a 46 year old female and ran 2:57 at TCM last year and was very proud of the time. I believe any women who run under 3 should be pleased, as we all know the amount of work and luck on the day of the race.

3 hours is easily something to brag about. how many people run 6:50 pace at the local 5k? Top 30...maybe...even in a "fast 5k" There are a lot more people running 5ks than marathons.

I think when the Finisher Medal became prevalent (as in 'you're all winners.'). Good related post here: http://1pumplane.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/grunty-fen-12-marathon-or-getting-oldsucks-21k/

I ran the Culver City Marathon in 1974 and they gave medals (had been doing it for years) to those who finished under 3:00. I ran 2:52 and was 64th out of 500 or so; probably 100 or so broke 3:00 (~20%).

That 100 or so included at least one female, who ran about 2:43:54 -- that is notable in that the WR before that race was 2:46:24 and the winner of this race in 1971, 1973 and 1974 set the WR.

When the Penquin began marching....