Why is running faster consider a greater accomplishment than running further (farther?)?

coach d wrote:

But Bolt doesn't have to run a marathon. Drugs aside, he actually has talent. He doesn't have to run a 400, either.

OTOH, Farah has run a blazing 12.98, so you know who has to move up. Most everybody (except Olympic 100m people) move up after high school or college. And most people move up to the shortest distance they are competitive in, so the people running the longest distance have the least talent--and often the biggest ego's, so you get all those 26.2 stickers for people who are rrreeeaaalllyyy slow.

Coach D - Have you ever RACED in a marathon ??

Well, for the general public, it's actually the latter being considered a great accomplishment.

"Accomplishing" a 4 hour + marathon is not at all notable. Really, neither is 3:00.

"Accomplishing" a 100 miler is an accomplishment but it doing it at 11;00 minute pace is just hiking fast.

A sub four minute mile and sub- 2:20 is more impressive than any 100 mile time so far.

Guaranteed, if you take the current top 50 marathoners and trained them for a 100 miler, they would each break the current 100 record. ----They just don't want to. Of course, if the purse was really high.....?

Because even when you run for a long time, your lungs might feel fine. But running a sub-4 mile makes your whole body hurt. Not many can do it.

For the cool kids (masses) these days it's more about how often and how far they race, not how fast. Just go to another forum like Runners World, Cool Runing, or Runningahead. It's all about doing the 17th marathon, 7th 50 miler and 4th 100 miler in a year. And if not that, then it's 2 or 3 5Ks one week and then a half marathon every other week. And seriously, most of those runners don't know the difference between a 1:06 half and 2:10. It's all relative.

truth

Well, everyone should enjoy thier accomplishmen's for what they are worth. Personal satisfaction with achievING hard goals.-----Just don't bring it here and brag that it actually means anything in terms of historic athletic achievement. If you take a 1000 average marathoners and train them for a 100 miler, most could do it, no problem. Set your mind to it and do it. If you took 100,000 average marathoners and trained them to try and run a sub 4 mile, probably none would ever do it. Finishing an ultra is great. just don't try to call it an "elite" performance.

Slow and long is still slow!

jksparky wrote:

Well, everyone should enjoy thier accomplishmen's for what they are worth. Personal satisfaction with achievING hard goals.-----Just don't bring it here and brag that it actually means anything in terms of historic athletic achievement. If you take a 1000 average marathoners and train them for a 100 miler, most could do it, no problem. Set your mind to it and do it. If you took 100,000 average marathoners and trained them to try and run a sub 4 mile, probably none would ever do it. Finishing an ultra is great. just don't try to call it an "elite" performance.

Slow and long is still slow!

I like your logic. I think I'd shape/phrase it like this:

1000 Average runners are asked to train for 2 goals that are something that 1% of runners have accomplished. Those two things - unscientifically - are complete a 100 mile event and run a sub-2:40 Marathon.

Like you said, many more will accomplish the 100 mile event than the marathon with a time goal of sub-2:40.

I would phrase it like this:

1,000 Average runners are asked to train for 2 goals that are something that 1% of runners have accomplished. Those two things - unscientifically - are complete a 100 mile event and run a sub-2:20 Marathon.

Like you said, many more will accomplish the 100 mile event than the marathon with a time goal of sub-2:20.

geetar wrote:

Because it's easy to be extreme, it's hard to be excellent.

POD

I spend a lot of my time trying to wean recreational runners of the marathon fixation and get them to do things they can actually enjoy - repeatedly. I've just got 2 of mine to sign up for indoor track rather than Boston. You're welcome!

salserorunner wrote:

Bravo, Sir. wrote:

I like your logic. I think I'd shape/phrase it like this:

1000 Average runners are asked to train for 2 goals that are something that 1% of runners have accomplished. Those two things - unscientifically - are complete a 100 mile event and run a sub-2:40 Marathon.

Like you said, many more will accomplish the 100 mile event than the marathon with a time goal of sub-2:40.

I would phrase it like this:

1,000 Average runners are asked to train for 2 goals that are something that 1% of runners have accomplished. Those two things - unscientifically - are complete a 100 mile event and run a sub-2:20 Marathon.

Like you said, many more will accomplish the 100 mile event than the marathon with a time goal of sub-2:20.

I'd love to see the data on that. I'd guess that 2:40 is still in the top 1%.

PTO wrote:

coach d wrote:

But Bolt doesn't have to run a marathon. Drugs aside, he actually has talent. He doesn't have to run a 400, either.

OTOH, Farah has run a blazing 12.98, so you know who has to move up. Most everybody (except Olympic 100m people) move up after high school or college. And most people move up to the shortest distance they are competitive in, so the people running the longest distance have the least talent--and often the biggest ego's, so you get all those 26.2 stickers for people who are rrreeeaaalllyyy slow.

Coach D - Have you ever RACED in a marathon ??

He's a hobbysprinter, or so he claims.

Clearly that's not possible. Just like it may not be possible to be the fastest in the world at marathon and 100 miles. Distance runners, of course, are too smug and arrogant to admit it.

Ummmm. Ever heard of the one hour run?

coach d wrote:

But Bolt doesn't have to run a marathon. Drugs aside, he actually has talent. He doesn't have to run a 400, either.

OTOH, Farah has run a blazing 12.98, so you know who has to move up. Most everybody (except Olympic 100m people) move up after high school or college. And most people move up to the shortest distance they are competitive in, so the people running the longest distance have the least talent--and often the biggest ego's, so you get all those 26.2 stickers for people who are rrreeeaaalllyyy slow.

So guys like Kimmetto or Wilson Kipsang run the marathon because they can't compete at the 5k or 10k?

I doubt that somehow.