I Never Realized How Thin-Skinned Slow Runners Are -- thanks, Deadspin

a female POV wrote:

there were no female qualifying times in the 50 or 60s. women couldn't run in the boston marathon until the early 70s.

This is a known. But what about the late 70s and 80s. And was the Boston Qualifier always 2:50? I think that came on in the mid-late 70s when the field started getting bigger. Like 2000 or 3000 runners.

The Boston qualifier time has gone all over the place, at one point you (everyone) just needed a note from their doctor saying they could probably run 3:30

Was I the only one who lold at this one "50 to 54: 3:30 (8:01/mile). At age 50, you are considered a Grand Master. This is because at over 8:00 per mile, you look like the Grand Master of a parade, moving at near-walking pace while everyone stares at you and your funny clothes" This stuff is gold lol

LOL!

"It had something to do with all the levels being really hard when Cool Ranch Doritos are a staple of your diet."

Reg fields wrote:

Dennis Reynolds 2.0 wrote:

Half fitness/preperation and marathon fitness/preperation are not even close to the same. Running a good half doesn't mean sh*t for the marathon. Just ask Tadesse.

How about if your 20 mile long run was completed in 2hr 20 mins, 4 weeks out with the last mile being done 6:38 and plenty left in the tank.....Genetics play a big role in this, I get your point but its hard to specify all of the necessary info in one post.

The point I'm really trying to make is that training hard doesn't assure everyone of a sub 3:05 which is a fact sometimes lost on this site.

I would like to see what the rest of your schedule looks like. You can run 1:20 half, a training 20 miler at 7:00 pace and can't break 3?

Sounds like your training is specifically tailored for the half. Not enough miles at or near marathon GP. How many mpw you run?

At the time last year I was running high 50's to low 60's MPW.

The point I was really trying to make is that the training I did probably would have been sufficient for some to break 2:50 yet I couldn't break 3:05 with it. I'm giving a BQ one last chance at Philly this fall so I guess we will see as I ran 3:09 in NYC then 3:08 in Philly 2 weeks later last year so 3:08 is now my PR

house of cards wrote:

Reg fields wrote:

It's just leg cramping, I never get tired, the legs just start cramping around mile 23 or so...again, I think genetics play a large part in this as I've been cramping my entire life after workouts.

holy shit! you start cramping in the last 6 miles of a marathon? that must be some special genetic defect that only happens to certain people and not everyone. i wonder what they call this phenomenon.

The only difference is that I was running way below my fitness level when I cramped each time. 6:50 miles shouldn't put a 1:20 half guy into that kind of deficit.

Reg fields wrote:

house of cards wrote:

holy shit! you start cramping in the last 6 miles of a marathon? that must be some special genetic defect that only happens to certain people and not everyone. i wonder what they call this phenomenon.

The only difference is that I was running way below my fitness level when I cramped each time. 6:50 miles shouldn't put a 1:20 half guy into that kind of deficit.

Ya gotta carbo-load and eat ya GU homie!!

The article is an excellent satire on most people on this board. Every runner's time should be judged by the same standard, regardless of age. So the older runners have it easy because their BQ is way slower than the one for under 35.

Reg fields wrote:

The only difference is that I was running way below my fitness level when I cramped each time. 6:50 miles shouldn't put a 1:20 half guy into that kind of deficit.

This has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with your preparation.

I guess you all feel good bashing people who are slower than you.

The relaxed standards today(by comparison to sub-2:50 back in the day) and charity cases make the current Boston fake.

A bunch of message board losers coming to a forum to bitch about the losers in another forum. Classic letsrun thread.

Oh, and just to save you the time, i consider myself part of you group of losers. No need for twenty nags to point that out.

runner who professes wrote:

The relaxed standards today(by comparison to sub-2:50 back in the day) and charity cases make the current Boston fake.

So does it make the 60's Boston races fake too?

It's not the slow running. It's the attitude.

I am shocked at how arrogant fast runners can be. For the majority of the world, running a marathon is hard and running at the paces needed for boston is harder. That is why most marathon runners don't qualify. Most people on this site act like people who don't qualify are lazy slob. They are not, they are not fast runners.

But remember, marathons and most races are run for everybody, not just the ones up front.

reggggy wrote:

Reg fields wrote:

The only difference is that I was running way below my fitness level when I cramped each time. 6:50 miles shouldn't put a 1:20 half guy into that kind of deficit.

This has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with your preparation.

I'm going to change up my routine and do my long runs slower this year and I'll do multiple 20 milers so I'm doing what I can on the routine front.

I still say most males in this forum could've broken 3 with my training so genetics is a factor.

Whitest kid you know wrote:

I'm not surprised at all.

Humor, jokes, most are lost on runners. Running is mostly autism mixed with varying low to mid levels of exercise and athleticism.

QUOTE OF THE DAY! MOST TRUE ISH ON LRC