And we thought some hikers were eltist. :)

[Mags]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sp...s&st=cse&scp=1


I think the "best" comment from the article was by this woman:

“I always ask those people, ‘What was your time?’ If it’s six hours or more, I say, ‘Oh great, that’s fine, but you didn’t really run it,’ ” said Given, who finished the Baltimore race in 4:05:52. “The mystique of the marathon still exists. It’s the mystique of the fast marathon.”

[Pedaling Fool]

It's very much the same argument as what constitutes a thru-hiker; the only real difference is the issue of keeping the course open, other than that it's the same controversy.

[Mags]

It's very much the same argument as what constitutes a thru-hiker; the only real difference is the issue of keeping the course open, other than that it's the same controversy.

More or less the same thoughts I had.

Every niche activity has their own customs, culture and petty arguments that sound odd to those outside the group.

(e.g. some "purists" who hike all the 14ers in Colorado (14k+ foot peaks) say you haven't really hiked the mountain unless you gain at least 3000' from base to summit. This means some people will start the hike from the road rather than the actual trail head.)

[superman]

Yup, a six-hour marathon isn't running. I was part of the bunch that began regular running back in the 70s. Jim Fixx didn't invent running but he made it doable for the masses of less than elite runners. "The Complete Book of Running" opened the door to a healthier life style than a lot of alternatives. Back in those days, I traveled a lot. Hotels didn't have exercise equipment. I didn't have time to go for a hike nor could I bring equipment with me. Running required a pair of sneakers and one small compact running outfit. I could always find a place to go for a run.

My first race was a 20k. I wore canvass tennis sneakers, cotton shorts and t-shirt. The temperature was high in the 80s. I finished but I thought I was going to die. I got proper running gear and for years I ran marathons at a comfy 3.5 hours. I never burned a racecourse up but I had years of health that would have been more difficult with out running. The health issues that led me to running finally caught up to me and I struggled to keep running. I ran a marathon in over 4 hours and I had to re-think what I was doing. My life changed and I switched to hiking.

I've read "Runners World" for years. One thing they have beat on for lots of years is encouraging runners to run less miles. My experience says to me that there is no substitute in running for running lots of miles. My perspective is to encourage people to do any exercise they can do. If providing a venue for a 6 hour marathon gets some folks off the couch, then so be it. Exercise isn't a one size fits all thing. If a person is inspired to thru hike the AT and can only hike half of it in a season it's still a healthier accomplishment than watching someone hike on TV. I understand that there are costs to keep a marathon course open for 6 hours but it is the masses of runners that have elevated the interest in running...not the elite runners (except for Boston Billy).

[Jack Tarlin]

I know plenty of older people or people with health issues that would be really happy if they could do 26 miles in 10 hours, never mind six, the same way I know a guy who tokk 18 years to finish the A.T.

If six hours is their best time, well good for them!!

[Mags]

There is such thing as a very-slow-run.

Even if they are running slow, they are running. (Granted, I've walked faster than some people are running..esp on steep uphills)

But, that just may be semantics. I think going up to someone after they completed a race and literally saying "You really didn't run it" is a (being polite here) a jerky thing to do. (As the woman in the article admits)



If people need to feel elite by external validation, than their Mommy and Daddy have given them too many "You are a very special person and no one is as good as you" speeches in their childhood.

[TD55]

Yup, a six-hour marathon isn't running. I was part of the bunch that began regular running back in the 70s. Jim Fixx didn't invent running but he made it doable for the masses of less than elite runners. "The Complete Book of Running" opened the door to a healthier life style than a lot of alternatives. Back in those days, I traveled a lot. Hotels didn't have exercise equipment. I didn't have time to go for a hike nor could I bring equipment with me. Running required a pair of sneakers and one small compact running outfit. I could always find a place to go for a run.

My first race was a 20k. I wore canvass tennis sneakers, cotton shorts and t-shirt. The temperature was high in the 80s. I finished but I thought I was going to die. I got proper running gear and for years I ran marathons at a comfy 3.5 hours. I never burned a racecourse up but I had years of health that would have been more difficult with out running. The health issues that led me to running finally caught up to me and I struggled to keep running. I ran a marathon in over 4 hours and I had to re-think what I was doing. My life changed and I switched to hiking.

I've read "Runners World" for years. One thing they have beat on for lots of years is encouraging runners to run less miles. My experience says to me that there is no substitute in running for running lots of miles. My perspective is to encourage people to do any exercise they can do. If providing a venue for a 6 hour marathon gets some folks off the couch, then so be it. Exercise isn't a one size fits all thing. If a person is inspired to thru hike the AT and can only hike half of it in a season it's still a healthier accomplishment than watching someone hike on TV. I understand that there are costs to keep a marathon course open for 6 hours but it is the masses of runners that have elevated the interest in running...not the elite runners (except for Boston Billy).

That is a very nice post. Lots of wisdom.

[Spokes]

Have you ever been at mile 23 and look over to your right to see a butterfly passing you? It's all relative.....

[beakerman]

I know plenty of older people or people with health issues that would be really happy if they could do 26 miles in 10 hours, never mind six, the same way I know a guy who tokk 18 years to finish the A.T.

If six hours is their best time, well good for them!!

Forget old people I don't think I could "run" 26 miles without puking a few times along the way. I could fast walk it but I don't hink my knees would hold up to that abuse.

[Pedaling Fool]

There is such thing as a very-slow-run.

Even if they are running slow, they are running. (Granted, I've walked faster than some people are running..esp on steep uphills)

But, that just may be semantics. I think going up to someone after they completed a race and literally saying "You really didn't run it" is a (being polite here) a jerky thing to do. (As the woman in the article admits)



If people need to feel elite by external validation, than their Mommy and Daddy have given them too many "You are a very special person and no one is as good as you" speeches in their childhood.

What's funny is that there are speed walkers that can walk a marathon faster than that she can run it; I'd like to rub that in her face

[Yahtzee]

I'm with the "runners". Seems like lowering standards to make everyone feel good. Diminishes what it means to run a marathon. No comparison to hiking. A marathon is a finite event, while a hike can last as long as you want it to. I've hiked over 26.2 in a day many times, with a pack and up and down mountains no less, but I would never say I "ran" a marathon.

[Pedaling Fool]

Not comparing hiking and marathons, just the attitude.

Who deserves a t-shirt?

[Yahtzee]

T-shirts go to those who finish before the set time alotted by whoever is holding the race. If they say 6 hours than so be it. Beyond the practicalities of having to open the streets back up, there is also an ideal to be upheld.

Gotcha on the attitudes, you are correct, purists v. blueblazers is akin to running v. walking a marathon. Funny, I side squarely with the bluelazers but can't even begin to understand the slow marathon thing. Anyone can finish a marathon if given enough time. Anyone. What is the accomplishment? And if you're best is not good enough to register with the marathon committee, than so what. It was your best, it just didn't meet the standards of what constitutes "running a marathon" to the greater running. If you are looking for validation from other marathon runners, run faster next time.

[Yahtzee]

edit "greater running community" edit

[Pedaling Fool]

Yeah, I understand, it's all subjective....but it's still a snobby thing to tell someone:
" ‘Oh great, that’s fine, but you didn’t really run it,’ ”.

[John B]

Yeah, I understand, it's all subjective....but it's still a snobby thing to tell someone:
" ‘Oh great, that’s fine, but you didn’t really run it,’ ”.

But it's still a truthful statement, isn't it?

[Yahtzee]

But it's still a truthful statement, isn't it?

Exactly.

Why not give out two distinct medals. One for those who finish in a specific time period and one for those who finish.

[Mags]

Again, you can actually *RUN* a marathon doing it slowly. All running is considered from a strict physical standpoint is having two legs in the air vs. one on the ground as in walking (which are the rules for speed-walking events anyway)


AND, when you do trail marathons...very few people run the whole bloody thing. (And, let's not even begin to get into ultramarathons! )

So, it boils down to semantics. As someone else mentioned, speed walkers have done really fast marathons...WITHOUT RUNNING.

So, using a time factor for marathons for running vs. walking and who is a "real" marathoner is a buncha BS.

re: Medals for finishing vs. an allotted time

Some races already do this. The Leadville 100 , for example, gives a medal for finishing, but a buckle for less than 24 hrs finish ...whether you ran, walked, skipped along or hiked it.

[Jack Tarlin]

I dunno, Yahtzee. A really strict application of your standards would cost most women firefighters their jobs, and I don't think we wanna go down that road.

If I hear that someone has finished a marathon, I don't really care what their time was.

I just congratulate 'em and that's about it.

[garlic08]

That reminds me of a woman at a dinner party who, after listening to me answer some questions about light weight and fast backpacking, said scoffingly, "That's not really backpacking." I replied, "Finally, someone understands!" I noticed that same attitude on the AT, that some heavy and slow hikers thought I was cheating somehow, and had to put down my achievement. I guess the same thing would happen if I walked a marathon. I'd probably finish ahead of some runners, but it wouldn't count if I didn't pound my feet and knees enough.