PDA

View Full Version : And we thought some hikers were eltist. :)



Mags
11-12-2009, 14:23
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sports/23marathon.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&sq=plodders&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
11-12-2009, 14:41
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
11-12-2009, 14:57
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
11-12-2009, 15:03
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
11-12-2009, 15:06
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
11-12-2009, 15:07
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
11-12-2009, 15:09
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
11-12-2009, 15:16
Have you ever been at mile 23 and look over to your right to see a butterfly passing you? It's all relative.....

beakerman
11-12-2009, 15:36
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
11-12-2009, 18:34
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:sun

Yahtzee
11-12-2009, 18:34
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
11-12-2009, 18:37
Not comparing hiking and marathons, just the attitude.

Who deserves a t-shirt?

Yahtzee
11-12-2009, 18:47
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
11-12-2009, 18:48
edit "greater running community" edit

Pedaling Fool
11-12-2009, 18:56
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
11-12-2009, 19:33
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
11-12-2009, 19:50
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
11-12-2009, 20:11
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
11-12-2009, 20:14
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
11-12-2009, 20:17
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.

Yahtzee
11-12-2009, 20:20
Finished? Of course, I would congratulate them. 26 consecutive miles is nothing to sneeze at. Although, as a matter of course, I would ask them their time. I am impressed with any time under 4 hours.

As for the firefighters, I'm gonna make a right turn and avoid that road, as well.

Yahtzee
11-12-2009, 20:25
So, using a time factor for marathons for running vs. walking and who is a "real" marathoner is a buncha BS.

That may be true, but to steal a little Churchill, it is the best BS we have. Certainly better than merely finishing. Arbitrary designations inevitably are gonna piss people off. I think these type of designations are less applicable to long distance hiking considering the fluid nature of the activity. You can take an hour off, a day off, a year off, whatever, it is all good. But a marathon is a finite activity, limited to a day with a time limit. It just seems it is more amenable to a distinction that sets apart those who ran and those who didn't.

Mags
11-12-2009, 20:27
"That's not really backpacking."

Some people on this BBS say that, too. ;)

Mags
11-12-2009, 20:31
But a marathon is a finite activity, limited to a day with a time limit.


You seem to be missing my point.

People do complete it in a finite time and fast WHETHER THAN RAN OR WALKED IT!

Elite racewalkers have done marathon times in 3:30 or less. People who have ran the thing have done it in 6hrs.

And then there are trail marathons....

Using a time for "running vs walking" is a highly BS example for gauging the chosen movement of motion for the racers.

So..who is the "real" marathoner????? The super fast walker..or the very slow runner?
(This is a trick question. ;) )

Donnie
11-12-2009, 20:33
I come from a competitive running background and I can sympathize with both parties. On one hand, there are many people out there who train literally around the clock with the simple goal of running fast and that dedication should be appreciated. But like people have said earlier, there is something to be said for people who out there for half an hour a day trying to get some kind of exercise. Now, with that in mind, I think those people with the goal of only completing a race should probably stick to a distance no longer than a 10K. Yes, I know this is a somewhat arbitrary distance but the line has to be set somewhere. Just like the "purists" vs blue-blazers debate, to each his own.

Oh, and just to brag, I have never ran an official marathon but I did run 58 miles in a single clip (as a part of a team tradition) and came through the marathon distance at about 2:53. Needless to say, after about mile 47, things were rather awful. Since then, I have yet to get back into a serious training regimen. Sad but true.

Jack Tarlin
11-12-2009, 20:41
Well, Mags old man....

In regards to your last post, every year the Appalachian Trail has a very clear, very definite finite length, and everyone knows exactly what it is, yet most people who hike it "thru" manage not to cover it.

Yet I bet most of the people arguing here about what does and does not constitute a "true" marathon might not wanna use the same argument when it comes to hiking the whole A.T. :-?

Curious, isn't it?

Mags
11-12-2009, 20:46
Well, Mags old man....

In regards to your last post, every year the Appalachian Trail has a very clear, very definite finite length, and everyone knows exactly what it is, yet most people who hike it "thru" manage not to cover it.

Yet I bet most of the people arguing here about what does and does not constitute a "true" marathon might not wanna use the same argument when it comes to hiking the whole A.T. :-?

Curious, isn't it?


That's another ball of wax, can of worms,a dead horse, etc. There are plenty of threads for that silly argument. Go look 'em up and post on it you want to..but not on this thread. :)



This argument is more akin to those who are against people running the trail or having a support crew because it is not how you are "really" supposed to travel on the AT.

We are discussing the mode of travel within the path (race course) and not the route of the path itself.

Yahtzee
11-12-2009, 20:50
I understood your point, Mags, it just wasn't central to my point. If someone speedwalks a marathon in 4 hours, then they get a medal. Someone who slow runs it in 6:05. Does not. I don't really care how you do it, the time is all that matters.

Jack Tarlin
11-12-2009, 20:52
Geez, Mags, sorry. :D

But you were the one who first talked about what counted as being "finite" and what wasn't.

But, yeah, we'll let this one go.


Boy, on anyone's list of what's an uncomfortable subject for a lot of folks, I can sure see what's up on the top. :rolleyes:

superman
11-12-2009, 20:53
But it's still a truthful statement, isn't it?

From my experience, just about anybody still running after 4 hours is running hurt and /or didn't have enough training for the distance. Most of the races have a bus that comes along and picks up the runners that didn't finish in time. I've never heard of anyone complaining about being brought in by the bus. As I said, if you're out on the course by the time the bus comes along you're a hurting unit anyway. I suppose I can claim a minor victory by never having to ride on the bus. The only elite runners that I know of are the top ten invited runners who are the most likely to have the winner among them. Everyone else is just running for themselves. My goal was usually to have a personal best or some times just to have a good run. As far as people with attitudes...they suck.:-? There are only two perfect people...me and you...and your kind of iffy.:)

rickb
11-12-2009, 21:06
To qualify for Boston's, an able bodied person needs to be able to run a marathon in 5 1/2 hours.

But that's only if you are 80 years of age or older.

I think there are ways around that, though.

Mags
11-12-2009, 21:09
Boy, on anyone's list of what's an uncomfortable subject for a lot of folks, I can sure see what's up on the top. :rolleyes:


Don't flatter yourself or your verbal skillzzz...

Life is just too short to rehash the same argument over and over and over and over again. If I wanted to do that, I'd go back home for the Holidays.


I understood your point, Mags, it just wasn't central to my point. If someone speedwalks a marathon in 4 hours, then they get a medal. Someone who slow runs it in 6:05. Does not. I don't really care how you do it, the time is all that \
matters.

You didn't say that originally and specifically said "ran". Not trying to be persnickety, but you were not very clear/and or changing what you said.

Jack Tarlin
11-12-2009, 21:13
Geez, Mags, lighten up. I understand that it's been discussed elsewhere. All I was doing was expressing surprise that there are folks who are so adamant about what apparently constitutes a "real" marathon or distance race in their eyes, and are quite strident about what DOESN'T count, but when the same sorts of paramaters or requirements are talked about in terms of the A.T. instead of, say, the Boston Marathon, then people seem to be much more forgiving when it comes to the complaetion of a hike rather than a road race.

I just find it curious, that's all, nothing for anyone to get peeved about.

rickb
11-12-2009, 21:16
Geez, Mags, lighten up. I understand that it's been discussed elsewhere. All I was doing was expressing surprise that there are folks who are so adamant about what apparently constitutes a "real" marathon or distance race in their eyes, and are quite strident about what DOESN'T count, but when the same sorts of paramaters or requirements are talked about in terms of the A.T. instead of, say, the Boston Marathon, then people seem to be much more forgiving when it comes to the complaetion of a hike rather than a road race.

I just find it curious, that's all, nothing for anyone to get peeved about.

If you are going to run for a charity in the Boston Marathon they make you attest to the notion that you can do it in 6 hours.

Not sure why, except that taking longer isn't running?

rambunny
11-12-2009, 22:58
whoever had the most joyful experience i vote for!

Sly
11-12-2009, 23:18
whoever had the most joyful experience i vote for!

I don't think marathoners have "joyful" races. It seems to me, many fall over and puke at the finish line. :D

Spokes
11-12-2009, 23:37
We all should subscribe to the Hash House Harrier motto- "a drinking club with a running problem".

SouthMark
11-12-2009, 23:49
I ran my first marathon in 3 hrs 20 min and I walked some so I guess that I really did not run a marathon.

Dirty Harry
11-13-2009, 00:11
Im all for more runners/walkers in any race. However I do think some of the cut-off times in some of the races Ive done have been a little rediculous. If we had more qualifications and earlier cut-off times mabe it might make someone work for it just a little bit harder. Which might be needed to bring the marathon back to more of a respectable race like the Boston.

Texasgirl
11-13-2009, 00:57
I don't think marathoners have "joyful" races. It seems to me, many fall over and puke at the finish line. :D

Naw.... it's really not THAT many that fall over and puke, not statistically at least I'm sure.

Joyful? Yeah, it's joyful. It's more than that. It's whatever the person chooses to get out of it. Joy. Elation. Ecstasy. Amazement. Wonder. Pride. Humility.

I would hope that what another participant or follower says or thinks about someone's accomplishment (marathons, thru-hikes, cycling, whatever) would be rendered mute - it has no real power to diminish or elevate what the individual chooses to internalize from the moment.

superman
11-13-2009, 01:03
Naw.... it's really not THAT many that fall over and puke, not statistically at least I'm sure.

Joyful? Yeah, it's joyful. It's more than that. It's whatever the person chooses to get out of it. Joy. Elation. Ecstasy. Amazement. Wonder. Pride. Humility.

I would hope that what another participant or follower says or thinks about someone's accomplishment (marathons, thru-hikes, cycling, whatever) would be rendered mute - it has no real power to diminish or elevate what the individual chooses to internalize from the moment.


I agree:):-?:D:sun

Erin
11-13-2009, 01:03
Here is my five cents. I ran the Chicago Marathon at age 40 to do it with a friend who really wanted to run a marathon and we were fun runners, not elite runners. I am not a distance runner. I am five feet tall and stocky and had never run over a 10K. To train, I got a program(Hal Higdon's) where I spent seven months after work running, before work running, running when it was hot, and running after I had worked a 10 hour day and running alone at 4:30 AM because the weather was so hot that summer. and then the final 20 mile run alone. We lined up in the five and a half pen so as not so slow up faster runners. I finished in just under four hours and yep, I was very happy. I hit the wall and kept running. I am slow but I will put my mental stength against anyone since I never give up. I have never been in better shape or had better self discipline. And I did not even get close to qualifying for Boston. So the elites better get used to the non elite athletes. We work as hard as our schedule allows, have no talent, but want to do it anyway.
Then I think of my friend who walked into a 5 K race, with no races ever before in a cotton t shirt and old gym shorts , at age 45 and just blew the elites away and took first place. That does happen and it was great!

Texasgirl
11-13-2009, 01:09
Yay for you Erin! That's an awesome story you get to tell forever!

Sly
11-13-2009, 01:16
Naw.... it's really not THAT many that fall over and puke, not statistically at least I'm sure.

Joyful? Yeah, it's joyful. It's more than that. It's whatever the person chooses to get out of it. Joy. Elation. Ecstasy. Amazement. Wonder. Pride. Humility.

I would hope that what another participant or follower says or thinks about someone's accomplishment (marathons, thru-hikes, cycling, whatever) would be rendered mute - it has no real power to diminish or elevate what the individual chooses to internalize from the moment.

Well, I'll take your word for it but, I grew up near Heartbreak Hill and watched the Boston Marathon more times than I can remember, and few looked "joyful" running that stretch.

Yahtzee
11-13-2009, 01:18
Mags, the number of speedwalkers is so small that I didn't consider them when I spoke of "running a marathon". But an overall reading of my posts focused on timing. And the net of effect of speedwalking is finish with times similar to runners.

Again, those who attempt and complete a marathon have accomplished something, but it is not the same as those who ran (or speedwalked!) the entirety of the course. I could jog a little and walk a little and finish 26.2 in 6 or 7 hours or so. But that is nothing compared to those who push themselves to finish as fast as they can.

Texasgirl
11-13-2009, 01:21
Hi Sly.... naw, you don't have to take my word on it. I figure this is much like many other personal experiences, individual results may vary. :)

Texasgirl
11-13-2009, 01:26
But that is nothing compared to those who push themselves to finish as fast as they can.

But but but.. Yahtzee.... is that for us to judge the fortitude of an individual? I've run alongside 68 year olds who walked/ran, and I watched them push theirselves to the ultimate gut-test limit. God I hope I'm that tough as my body grows older!

sigh.... oh, it was such a beautiful day here in Texas... think I'll step quietly out of this exchange and look forward to tomorrow's joys.

Yahtzee
11-13-2009, 01:44
Texasgirl, I have taken great pains to make clear I am not disparaging the effort or achievement of those who finish a marathon. Nor do I think those who accomplish something of that sort look to a marathon committee for validation any more than someone who walks from GA to ME in a non-purist manner looks to the ATC. However, IMO, there must be an arbitrary line drawn that distinguishes a run from one where a participant stops for lunch along the way. To not make the distinction is to diminish the accomplishment altogether.

DuctTape
11-13-2009, 02:40
When I was 19-20 years old, before the AT, I did some training and entered the Philadelphia Marathon. I really wanted to "run a marathon" as a life goal, blah blah blah etc. I was always a slow runner, got my butt whooped on a regular basis in track and field and cross country. The marathon was not exception, and I finished in five hours, but I ran the whole way... just very slowly, plodding.

I was initally proud of the accomplishment for a few months, but after a while I felt as though I should not say I ran a marathon with a time like five hours. It felt almost dishonest. Now ten years later I rarely claim to have "run a marathon," it just doesn't seem right. I've had it in the back of mind to give it another go... a finishing time like four hours is much more legitimate, 4:30 or so as an absolute maximum.

For what it's worth, these have been my own personal standards for my private conscience, regardless of others' thoughts. Obviously people have their own individual goals and set the bar higher and lower - and good for them.


surprise that there are folks who are so adamant about what apparently constitutes a "real" marathon or distance race in their eyes, and are quite strident about what DOESN'T count, but when the same sorts of paramaters or requirements are talked about in terms of the A.T.

For most of us, the AT and marathon running are completey different endeavors. For those that the AT is very much like marathon running... well, I'm sure they've done every step of the official trail.

Pedaling Fool
11-13-2009, 09:14
Texasgirl, I have taken great pains to make clear I am not disparaging the effort or achievement of those who finish a marathon...
That was my only point.

I don’t care how one defines what constitutes "running a marathon" I understand individual standards and I have my own that I will not share, because in the end it’s meaningless I have better things to struggle with.

However, if I witnessed some bitch walking around looking to rub in someone’s face that they didn’t really run a marathon because she doesn’t consider a time under 6 hours worthy, then I’m going to reciprocate with my own form of bitchy behavior. Who the hell does this bitch think she is?

superman
11-13-2009, 09:30
I've done both and feel that they are like comparing apples and oranges. I also used to skydive and felt some accomplishment for doing good jumps. Some times I went right back up and jumped again. Gravity did most of the work though. That was unlike my marathons or thru hike in that when I finished them I was glad they were done. I felt good that I'd done these different activities but I always saw them as mutually exclusive. I have never taken 5 or 6 hours to run a marathon but as I said in an earlier post "if you are still running after 4 hours you are a hurting unit." The marathons that I did in 3.5 hours I had no post race problems. I actually went out partying.
There is nothing like a thru hike and nothing like a marathon but they just aren't a like enough to say they are like one another. "However, if I witnessed some bitch walking around looking to rub in someone’s face that they didn’t really run a marathon because she doesn’t consider a time under 6 hours worthy, then I’m going to reciprocate with my own form of bitchy behavior. Who the hell does this bitch think she is?":)

John B
11-13-2009, 09:42
It's an interesting question and one with which I'm well familiar. I love distance running more than hiking. Barring injury, I run five days a week and this year's goals are one half marathon (March, Berry College) and two marathons (April, Louisville's Derby Classic; November, S. Carolina's Costal Marathon), then ramping up to my long-term goal of running the American River 50-mile Ultra in April 2011. So I guess you could say that I'm a serious runner.

As the article cited by Mags alluded, and in on-going and always contentious forums in Runners World, there has been a quantum shift in the marathon. Until quite recently, it was a race, now it's more of a mass fund-raising event. Whether that's a good or bad thing largely depends on one's perspective -- if it's the former, then 40,000 participants in the Miami ING or the Phoenix PF Chang is not a good thing. If the marathon is now just another marketing tool to generate cash, by staging an event in which anyone whatsoever regardless of conditioning or ability can participate, then the more the merrier.

I think that for people who train hard daily, follow news about elite runners with the same intensity as Bostonians following the Red Sox, and see the marathon as the historic, premier endurance race, it's bothersome to see one of the oldest Olympic events, whose very name goes back to Pheidippides in 490 BC, transformed into something resembling a 26-mile group hug featuring celebrities such as Oprah and human interest stories of septuagenarians being accompanied by arthritic Golden Retrievers. I think that many would say that if you're going to do a marathon, then at the very least you should run the course and not stop to have lunch, tweet/twitter your progress or lack thereof, or catch a ride up the hills on the back of a bike. Such people are participating but I don't think they are running a marathon.

I have no problem with standards similar to those imposed at Boston (which make me unable to run that race... yet). I don't think that six hours for a marathon is a legitimate or perhaps even possible run (that would be approx 15 min miles, which is walking pace on a standard road course). I have no problem with race directors imposing maximum split times and pulling people off the course who are not making the cutoffs (a very common practice in races such as the Black Mountain). I agree that medals/award should be given only to the top three and not every single soul who manages to cross the line after 10 hours. I don't see it as being elitist to think that integrity and respect need to be restored to the marathon and that's because I see it as a 26 mile 386 yard race.

That's my .02

Pedaling Fool
11-13-2009, 10:03
...
I have no problem with standards similar to those imposed at Boston (which make me unable to run that race... yet). I don't think that six hours for a marathon is a legitimate or perhaps even possible run (that would be approx 15 min miles, which is walking pace on a standard road course). I have no problem with race directors imposing maximum split times and pulling people off the course who are not making the cutoffs (a very common practice in races such as the Black Mountain). I agree that medals/award should be given only to the top three and not every single soul who manages to cross the line after 10 hours. I don't see it as being elitist to think that integrity and respect need to be restored to the marathon and that's because I see it as a 26 mile 386 yard race.

That's my .02
I have no problem with an organization setting standards; I may or may not agree with them, but it's like the running of this website: If you don't like it you can respectfully recommend a change, but if that doesn't work keep your mouth shut or start your own website (or marathon event).

I'll admit I'm somewhat of an elitist when it comes to cycling, I've been cycling for over 20 years as my primary form of transportation, so when I see (and this is elitist) other non-cyclists on a bicycle that are in my way (happens a lot here on certain roads in Florida) I get aggitated and get off that road. But I would never express my attitude because it's my personal belief, what's the point, I have better things to debate.

And I know there are some cyclists out there that would probably not consider me a cyclists, the thought of that doesn't bother me, but if they tried to tell me that I'm not a cyclists, well then we'd have some words...

neighbor dave
11-13-2009, 10:11
it's just, walking, running, and cycling.
it's just living life here on planet earth.
nobody's better than the other.
everyone needs to get over themselves and just accept that there are other humans trying to live their life.
p.s. i agree with john b.
("I think that for people who train hard daily, follow news about elite runners with the same intensity as Bostonians following the Red Sox, and see the marathon as the historic, premier endurance race, it's bothersome to see one of the oldest Olympic events, whose very name goes back to Pheidippides in 490 BC, transformed into something resembling a 26-mile group hug featuring celebrities such as Oprah and human interest stories of septuagenarians being accompanied by arthritic Golden Retrievers. I think that many would say that if you're going to do a marathon, then at the very least you should run the course and not stop to have lunch, tweet/twitter your progress or lack thereof, or catch a ride up the hills on the back of a bike. Such people are participating but I don't think they are running a marathon.") funny stuff:D

SouthMark
11-13-2009, 11:04
I don't think marathoners have "joyful" races. It seems to me, many fall over and puke at the finish line. :D

After I finished my first marathon and was sitting on the curb eating cookies and drinking juice, a lady crossed the finish line, grabbed some cookies and juice and sat on the curb near me. Her friends walked over and handed her a cigarette which she smoked.

garlic08
11-13-2009, 11:24
I don't think marathoners have "joyful" races. It seems to me, many fall over and puke at the finish line. :D

Hah, that's nothing! If I recall my history correctly, didn't the first marathoner ever fall over and DIE at the finish line?

John B
11-13-2009, 11:32
Hah, that's nothing! If I recall my history correctly, didn't the first marathoner ever fall over and DIE at the finish line?

That's the legend. Just after running 26 miles and announcing the Greek victory, he fell over dead from exhaustion. But that was back in The Day when people actually ran the thing. When Oprah finished the Chicago, she only developed a bad case of gas from ingesting so much cheese cake and Gatoraid during her "run."

beakerman
11-13-2009, 11:45
This entire thing is simply manners. Didn't momma teach you that if you have nothing nice to say then keep your mouth shut?

If someone tells me they did a marathon in 10 hours and my time is 3 hoursso what? Move on in the conversation without being a prick about it and rubbing their noses in teh fact that you are faster than them. If they ask how you did tell them but don't be an arse.

I'm not about lowering standards or any of that feel good crap--competition is competition. However everyone should realize that someone else might have different motivations for doing what they are doing. Maybe they have a respiratory issue and are just happy to complete the event...or something like that. Sure if that is the case the slow guy should not be upset but that is still no reason to be a jerk about it.

Lone Wolf
11-13-2009, 11:48
If someone tells me they did a marathon in 10 hours and my time is 3 hoursso what?

i'd tell 'em they walked a marathon distance and a slow pace at that

beakerman
11-13-2009, 11:52
sorry for the serial post...

I would add that I don't have a problem with the orginizers saying you need to finish in X amount of time. otherwise the accomplishment is somewhat meaningless. Rules are rules and if you don't like them try to get them changed and failing that shut up and deal with it.

this is not the same as one "runer" judging another.

max patch
11-13-2009, 11:52
My first thot was that it was kinda funny for someone with a time of 4 hours plus to criticize someone elses time.

beakerman
11-13-2009, 12:10
i'd tell 'em they walked a marathon distance and a slow pace at that

that's because you are a little man that needs to feel better than others...

Just poking the bear...or the wolf...giving you a hard time.

That's you then i guess. The question I would ask you then is why you would say that? Did you need to or just want to? The simple fact that you would do it says something about you as a person..sorry about that but it's true. They why says even more. Sure what you said was true. There's all kinds of things that are true but you don't need to shove them in peoples faces.

Folks that do marathons non-competetively are doing them for some sort of self validation...proving to themselves that they can do it. It's the same as thru hikers that first time out. You think you can do it but the only way to get the patch is to shut up and do it right? Well these folks are doing ths same thing. Would you make the same type of comment if it took me 10 months rather than the standard 6 to do a thru hike? It's just walking right?

John B
11-13-2009, 12:21
With all due respect, beakerman, I don't think that a marathon is group therapy for self validation. It's a race, or at least I think that's what they are intended to be.

Lone Wolf
11-13-2009, 12:55
that's because you are a little man that needs to feel better than others...

Just poking the bear...or the wolf...giving you a hard time.

That's you then i guess. The question I would ask you then is why you would say that? Did you need to or just want to? The simple fact that you would do it says something about you as a person..sorry about that but it's true. They why says even more. Sure what you said was true. There's all kinds of things that are true but you don't need to shove them in peoples faces.

Folks that do marathons non-competetively are doing them for some sort of self validation...proving to themselves that they can do it. It's the same as thru hikers that first time out. You think you can do it but the only way to get the patch is to shut up and do it right? Well these folks are doing ths same thing. Would you make the same type of comment if it took me 10 months rather than the standard 6 to do a thru hike? It's just walking right?

dude. i guess your signature line means nothing :rolleyes: i was freakin' jokin'

Speer Carrier
11-13-2009, 13:02
I think the people denigrating the folks who basically just walk a marathon, or a 10k or what ever are not the elite runners, but the folks pretty far down in the pack. For a marathoner, I'd say people who run around three hours, and for 10k I'd say people who run around 40 minutes. These are not bad times, but when you consider the New York marathon was won with time of 2 hours and some change, and the best 10k time is around 27 minutes, these are not world class times.

I had the privilege of competing in some races with Bill Rogers many years ago, and at the conclusion of one of those races, when we were all sitting around drinking beer, he said he had the utmost respect for the people who bring up the rear in a race. He said it's obvious they are not equipped to seriously compete, but they probably put in as much effort as I do in any race.

Consider this, for just about everyone competing in a marathon or 10k, there really only are a small handful of competitors who have any real shot at winning. Everyone else is competing with themselves to establish a new personal best, to get some exercise, or just have fun.

If it were not for the plodders, most races would never be run, because it would be too expensive to stage a race where only those who had a serious chance of winning would enter.

The Peachtree Road Race here in Atlanta, in which I have run for the past 30 years, charges $25.00 for each of the 55,000 who complete. That's $1,375,000 the Atlanta Track Club pulls in for that race. Do you think the city would put in all the resources they do to support that race if only the ten or so folks who had any real shot at winning could compete? No, the fatties who mostly walk that race are the ones making the whole thing possible, and making all other races possible as well.

Dirty Harry
11-13-2009, 13:03
That's the legend. Just after running 26 miles and announcing the Greek victory, he fell over dead from exhaustion. But that was back in The Day when people actually ran the thing. When Oprah finished the Chicago, she only developed a bad case of gas from ingesting so much cheese cake and Gatoraid during her "run."


Ha! I always liked that bumper sticker: Ultra Running because Oprah ruined the marathon.

SouthMark
11-13-2009, 13:06
With all due respect, beakerman, I don't think that a marathon is group therapy for self validation. It's a race, or at least I think that's what they are intended to be.

It is not a race against other entrants for most. It's just a 26 mile run, run-walk or walk. If it were a true race there would be a lot fewer people entered. If it were a true race then most who finish slower than 2:20 should stay home. The race is between each individual and themselves. Just walking 26 miles is an accomplishment for some given there age, health, handicap, etc.

Lone Wolf
11-13-2009, 13:06
Ha! I always liked that bumper sticker: Ultra Running because Oprah ruined the marathon.

she needs to run a few ultras. she's quite the cow these days

superman
11-13-2009, 13:44
Years ago the winners of some races I ran would hang out and encourage and congradulate the slow runners. It was about the only time I saw the winners...it was nice.:)

Mags
11-13-2009, 13:44
Ha! I always liked that bumper sticker: Ultra Running because Oprah ruined the marathon.


But most people walk (albeit faster) in ultras....

The ultra motto is go slow...then taper off! :D

rickb
11-13-2009, 19:57
Running is cool, but I am into mountaineering, myself.

My passion is high altitude mountaineering like in you find in the Whites.

In the rarefied air of NH you can leave all this internet kvetching behind. I don't thing anyone thinks of definitions when taking on the technical route though Mahoosuc Notch.

JAK
11-13-2009, 20:37
You can't always run faster than the next guy, but you can always run harder.

Lone Wolf
11-14-2009, 01:14
I don't thing anyone thinks of definitions when taking on the technical route though Mahoosuc Notch.

ain't nothin' technical about goin' thru the notch. last time i did it took 40 minutes to do .8 mile. overrated for sure

Tin Man
11-14-2009, 02:08
Running against the clock in an attempt to beat others is called competition, as in 'I am trying to establish a mark for others to beat or to top my own time.'.

Running, walking, crawling just for the sake of doing it is called fun, as in 'why should I care what anyone else thinks, I done the dern thing for me'.

rickb
11-14-2009, 07:51
ain't nothin' technical about goin' thru the notch. last time i did it took 40 minutes to do .8 mile. overrated for sure

I suppose you think that hiking in the rarefied air of the Whites doesn't qualify as high altitude mountaineering either.

Dirty Harry
11-14-2009, 12:41
I suppose you think that hiking in the rarefied air of the Whites doesn't qualify as high altitude mountaineering either.

no... not really.

Lone Wolf
11-14-2009, 16:09
I suppose you think that hiking in the rarefied air of the Whites doesn't qualify as high altitude mountaineering either.

low altitude walkin'

Mags
11-16-2009, 13:59
My passion is high altitude mountaineering like in you find in the Whites.



The Rockies snob in me will not make a comment. I will not comment. I will not comment as I drink my coffee at 5400' or so at my kitchen table. ;)


( All in good fun. The Whites will always be the place I consider the place where I fell in love with the outdoors. I hiked there a year ago and was again reminded of how much I love those mtns)

rickb
11-16-2009, 18:47
I was joshing to make a point.

Mags
11-16-2009, 18:49
I was joshing to make a point.

For a joshing guy you are awfully dour. :p

docllamacoy
11-17-2009, 11:57
I could probably beat that Givens person in the article on my first try. Maybe if she was running under 3 hours, she could talk, but I know a lot of people would consider her slow.

I understand closing off the course after a certain time, due to costs or contracts with cities and whatever else, but I don't understand why anyone would get in a huff over a slower marathon runner if he/she isn't affecting his run. I think it's just an insecurity issue these few elitists have; they don't feel as important when someone 3 hours slower than them says they ran the same marathon. But what do I know.

Doctari
11-18-2009, 07:33
Every group I have been a part of has had those with an attitude similar to "You didn't pass every white blaze within 364 days so you aren't a Thru hiker!"
Some examples I have heard:
Bicycling: you don't use sew up tires so you aren't a real biker.
Renaissance fairs: you only do one fair & that only on the weekends, so you aren't a real rennie.

These people are few but vocal, I choose to ignore them & eventually they go away. If they don't I call them a few bad names & eventually they go away.

b.c.
11-18-2009, 08:07
Some folks that do something real well sometimes have a problem when some other folks do the same thing, only not as well, but are held with the same regard and respect for doing it.

Some folks that do things that they are challenged by and enjoy and are proud of sometimes have a problem with some folks that do not respect them because their efforts were judged to be less.

Is it about respect?

SouthMark
11-18-2009, 10:59
Some folks that do something real well sometimes have a problem when some other folks do the same thing, only not as well, but are held with the same regard and respect for doing it.

Some folks that do things that they are challenged by and enjoy and are proud of sometimes have a problem with some folks that do not respect them because their efforts were judged to be less.

Is it about respect?

Well said!

Speer Carrier
11-18-2009, 13:23
I could probably beat that Givens person in the article on my first try. Maybe if she was running under 3 hours, she could talk, but I know a lot of people would consider her slow.

I understand closing off the course after a certain time, due to costs or contracts with cities and whatever else, but I don't understand why anyone would get in a huff over a slower marathon runner if he/she isn't affecting his run. I think it's just an insecurity issue these few elitists have; they don't feel as important when someone 3 hours slower than them says they ran the same marathon. But what do I know.

To reiterate a point I made many posts earlier, I don't think it is the elite runners who are a problem, but rather those who are good but no where near the elite group. In just about every road race in which I have participated, the winner and those who finished in the top ten will walk back on the course to encourage the slower runners. The great thing about these running road races, is that one can say they competed in the same race as some famous runner, and the really good runners do not object to that, nor is it perceived by them to diminish their accomplishment.

I've been a volunteer worker at the Atlanta Marathon for the past 30 years, and we do shut down the course about 4 hours after the start.( which means taking up the safety cones and dismissing the police traffic controllers, and all other volunteers ) Those still making their way to the finish must take to the sidewalks and wait at traffic lights. As suggested, it is the agreement we have with the city.

JJJ
11-24-2009, 09:25
The second chicken from the bottom pecks the hardest.

Red Beard
11-24-2009, 09:48
I'm pretty sure I won't be mistaken for an Elite hiker. Slow as I am.

Bidwell
11-29-2009, 00:36
People who "run" a road marathon in the 6, 7, and 8 hour range, in my opinion, didn't really run it. Running a marathon is supposed to be a challenge, and running a marathon in that time frame, to me, isn't a challenge. Aiming to simply finish a marathon vs. running it in the best time possible is belittling the challenge of the marathon. I ran a trail marathon several months ago, where the time cut-off was 6 hours. Granted it wasn't a tough trail marathon by any means, I heard some folks didn't sign up because it was difficult to finish the race within the cut-off. That isn't what it is about. Maybe in an ultra-marathon, where a huge chunk of the field may not even cross the finish line, that would fly.

Hiking the AT slow vs. fast to me is completely different. Hiking is an activity, a marathon is a race.

Just my opinion :-/

squeezebox
11-29-2009, 01:37
one of the greatest physical accomplishments I have ever seen was to watch a 90 year old woman, 2 weeks after a hip replacement, walk 10 feet to the bathroom, I offered to help her back, she refused, wanted to do it herself. she was exhausted slept the rest of the day. The pain she pushed thru and the determination on her face I have never seen on a marathon runner.

Marta
11-29-2009, 08:51
People who "run" a road marathon in the 6, 7, and 8 hour range, in my opinion, didn't really run it. Running a marathon is supposed to be a challenge, and running a marathon in that time frame, to me, isn't a challenge. Aiming to simply finish a marathon vs. running it in the best time possible is belittling the challenge of the marathon. I ran a trail marathon several months ago, where the time cut-off was 6 hours. Granted it wasn't a tough trail marathon by any means, I heard some folks didn't sign up because it was difficult to finish the race within the cut-off. That isn't what it is about. Maybe in an ultra-marathon, where a huge chunk of the field may not even cross the finish line, that would fly.

Hiking the AT slow vs. fast to me is completely different. Hiking is an activity, a marathon is a race.

Just my opinion :-/

I note that you're 25, and I assume from your photo that you're in good shape. I also assume that you've never been terribly overweight and have never experienced being in really bad shape. I hope for your sake that you never are. However, there are plenty of people for whom "running" a 6-hour marathon will bring them way more pain than you will experience in less than half the time. I don't understand why you think this belittles your efforts.

A marathon is only a race for the people with single-digit entry numbers. For everyone else, it's a training goal.

One of my husband's cycling friends is a retired Special Forces guy who has 1200 jumps behind him, but now has put on quite a lot of weight. They did a long bike ride in Charleston last spring. David powered through in a respectable time. His friend took about twice as long to complete the course, which he did through sheer mental toughness, and was barely able to walk afterwards. In what way does that affect David's ride? None at all.

Red Beard
11-29-2009, 09:43
I like your style Marta, I like your style.

Tin Man
11-29-2009, 10:37
I like your style Marta, I like your style.

ditto. you tell him Marta :)

Bobbo
11-29-2009, 18:12
This seems to be an issue of semantics for some and an issue of form for others. In the last four years I have started running. At least that is what I call it, but some people that I talk to and are really into the sport – tell me that I am actually jogging not running. They make this determination based on my time it takes me to cover a mile.

Personally, I don’t really care – some people seem to have too much time on their hands and feel the need to inform others about how to live.

I actually asked a guy that works in the local running store what the difference was and he said something like – runners are up on their toes and joggers are usually heel toe. Something like that. I don’t know if that definition really holds true – but I will tell you that I ran my first marathon in 4:16……….or maybe I should say jogged my first marathon.

A fella I work with asked me why I enter all the races I do and train as much as I do considering I know I’m not going to win. I answered without a delay that it is a lifestyle I choose to live. I like goals and I like pushing myself mentally and physically. Gives me something to do. I guess it’s better then……………..

John B
11-30-2009, 09:31
...A marathon is only a race for the people with single-digit entry numbers. For everyone else, it's a training goal....


Absolutely and completely untrue.

Lone Wolf
11-30-2009, 10:00
this is what it's all about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUQeUsqQuVc

Lone Wolf
11-30-2009, 10:14
this is what it's all about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUQeUsqQuVc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64A_AJjj8M4&feature=related

Yahtzee
11-30-2009, 10:29
this is what it's all about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUQeUsqQuVc

Absolutely, LW. The guy finishes in less than 6 hours. Thanks for illustrating the point.

I think it was said earlier, this is a matter of respect. For years and years and decades and decades, sanctioned marathons have been the almost exclusive terrirtory of serious runners. Regardless or whether they were going to win, almost every runner was running as fast as he or she could in order to make their best time (not merely finish). Now, many marathons have been reduced to being populated by many who use the marathon as some sort of self-help goal. That is disrespectful to the true runners.

You may be able to sound self-righteous in defending a 10 hour marathon and if that is the best that one can do, then good for that person. But, it is still interloping on another community's customs and traditions.

One doesn't have to run in a marathon to run a marathon. Leave the sanctioned marathons as they were, for serious runners. Not everyone deserves a medal for running 26.2.

Bidwell
11-30-2009, 12:11
I guess my point was that humans are able to run so much farther than 26.2 and so much faster than a 6-8 hour marathon.

Granted everyone has their own stories on how they got to the start of a marathon, running at marathon in 7 hours is setting the bar pretty low in my opinion.

Also, that is a tall assumption that I've never been out of shape, Marta. I worked hard to get where I got. When I finished my first few races, I was intrigued by the mystery of human endurance, pushing me to go farther and faster. People who finish a marathon to say they ran a marathon, never to do another one again, don't impress me.

As a note, this topic gets me heated ;) that and the topic of "golf not being a sport". Carry on! :)

Pedaling Fool
11-30-2009, 19:30
Absolutely, LW. The guy finishes in less than 6 hours. Thanks for illustrating the point.

I think it was said earlier, this is a matter of respect. For years and years and decades and decades, sanctioned marathons have been the almost exclusive terrirtory of serious runners. Regardless or whether they were going to win, almost every runner was running as fast as he or she could in order to make their best time (not merely finish). Now, many marathons have been reduced to being populated by many who use the marathon as some sort of self-help goal. That is disrespectful to the true runners.

You may be able to sound self-righteous in defending a 10 hour marathon and if that is the best that one can do, then good for that person. But, it is still interloping on another community's customs and traditions.

One doesn't have to run in a marathon to run a marathon. Leave the sanctioned marathons as they were, for serious runners. Not everyone deserves a medal for running 26.2.
This is absolute bull****. Interloping?:rolleyes: The fact is some don't like when others complete an event, but not to their standards.

"A matter of respect" what the **** do you mean by that?

I've never done a running event, but I've done cycling events and we also have "interlopers" at these events. I guess I could get all ****ty about someone claiming that they completed a century ride (100-mile event) even though they stopped and had a social time at many of the aid/food stations. It's not the way I do centuries, I like to challenge myself more, but who the hell cares, I don't feel disrespected. Although, I guess if I had thin skin it would irk me.

John B
11-30-2009, 20:43
This is absolute bull****. Interloping?:rolleyes: The fact is some don't like when others complete an event, but not to their standards.

"A matter of respect" what the **** do you mean by that?

I've never done a running event, but I've done cycling events and we also have "interlopers" at these events. I guess I could get all ****ty about someone claiming that they completed a century ride (100-mile event) even though they stopped and had a social time at many of the aid/food stations. It's not the way I do centuries, I like to challenge myself more, but who the hell cares, I don't feel disrespected. Although, I guess if I had thin skin it would irk me.

Before engaging in a profanity-laced tirade about marathon racing, it might be helpful for you to actually participate in one before climbing too high on the soapbox.

superman
11-30-2009, 21:12
Before engaging in a profanity-laced tirade about marathon racing, it might be helpful for you to actually participate in one before climbing too high on the soapbox.

I ran marathons and many other distances and I agree with Marta and John Gault on this issue. Back when I was running my best races I wasn't running to win them. I was always running to do my personal best. I was only running against myself. Mostly a small number of runners show up to win the race. The rest of us are going to work to make our personal best time. It never bothered me a bit that some folks ran faster and many ran slower. Many, many years ago I chatted with Bill Rogers before a race. He had come to win and I had come to "also run." Bill was was very free to give other runners information that might help them but he never seemed to mind the slower runners one bit. The race organizers set the course and the maximum time. I've never heard anyone challenge that. I heard that there is a bus that comes along and picks up the runners who can't finish in time. I've never heard of any of those getting picked up arguing about it. As I said earlier, anyone still running after 4 hours is hurting and as the time goes out they are hurting all the worse. I've enjoyed cheering on the runners who are out on the course longer because they are digging down to get it done. I've never seen any of those folks skipping along eating donuts.

Cutty
11-30-2009, 23:24
medically speaking of marathon runners, they don't know what they are doing to
their health. if they knew what perils they put theirselves close to.....speaking of
the heart and the heart conductions that they go through would make a runner think
twice, or maybe thrice before they subjected theirselves to such electrolyte imbalances, and stress of the myocardium! they are close to closing themselves down permanently by subjecting their bodies to such punishment! they have done test
and found this to be true! so next time a marathon comes up, ask yourself if you
really want to put your body at such risks?
cutty,
who loves to climb the hills and mountains of of brevard

Bidwell
11-30-2009, 23:36
medically speaking of marathon runners, they don't know what they are doing to
their health. if they knew what perils they put theirselves close to.....speaking of
the heart and the heart conductions that they go through would make a runner think
twice, or maybe thrice before they subjected theirselves to such electrolyte imbalances, and stress of the myocardium! they are close to closing themselves down permanently by subjecting their bodies to such punishment! they have done test
and found this to be true! so next time a marathon comes up, ask yourself if you
really want to put your body at such risks?
cutty,
who loves to climb the hills and mountains of of brevard

This is a joke, right?

Yahtzee
12-01-2009, 11:06
"This is absolute bull****. Interloping?:rolleyes: The fact is some don't like when others complete an event, but not to their standards."

And others don't like it when there are standards.

"A matter of respect" what the **** do you mean by that?

That means respect the culture of those take running seriously. Don't just sign up for a sanctioned marathon so you can tell people "I ran a marathon", even though it will take you 6 hours to complete.

Not sure exactly why non-serious runners feel the need to pollute sanctioned marathons when they can just as easily find a course any day of the week and run one. I'm guessing they don't do it that way because the true purpose behind finishing a sanctioned marathon is to piggyback on the respect people typically reserve for those who run 26.2 as fast as they can. "I ran the Boston Marathon" sounds so much better than "I ran 26.2 along the river last Sunday". Same distance, different effect.[/quote]

Alligator
12-01-2009, 11:25
I'll bet there are guidelines for sportsmanlike conduct in track and field events:-?. Must be something about respecting your competitors:confused:.

Yahtzee
12-01-2009, 11:35
Alligator, if one person is running a marathon in 3 hours and another is running a marathon in 6 1/2 hours, they are hardly competitors.

Alligator
12-01-2009, 11:59
Alligator, if one person is running a marathon in 3 hours and another is running a marathon in 6 1/2 hours, they are hardly competitors.Oh right, they're beneath that consideration. I see where you are coming from.

Pedaling Fool
12-01-2009, 12:04
...
That means respect the culture of those take running seriously. Don't just sign up for a sanctioned marathon so you can tell people "I ran a marathon", even though it will take you 6 hours to complete.

Not sure exactly why non-serious runners feel the need to pollute sanctioned marathons when they can just as easily find a course any day of the week and run one. I'm guessing they don't do it that way because the true purpose behind finishing a sanctioned marathon is to piggyback on the respect people typically reserve for those who run 26.2 as fast as they can. "I ran the Boston Marathon" sounds so much better than "I ran 26.2 along the river last Sunday". Same distance, different effect.[/quote]
I still don't get how one can disrespect the "more serious" runners by participating in the same event. Just as I can't get why some cyclists are offended by others who say they completed a century ride, but not to their standards.

However, I do understand that some lady actively looking for people that didn't run the marathon to her standard and telling them that they didn’t really run a marathon – that is disrespect. Especially not knowing anything about this person or their history. I do understand how that is disrespect.

And John B, I will look for a marathon to run so I can lace my posts with profanity; I'm sure I can do a simple marathon, it's the 50+ miles thru the mountains that scare me.:D

FlyPaper
12-01-2009, 12:12
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.

With our without elitism, with our without condescension, there is a truth here that one can consider. Without a doubt, traveling 26.2 miles on foot in 6 hours is good exercise for most. That feat would require more than a casual walking pace.

I recall at one time being "in training" for a half marathon with hopes of being able to run the whole distance. The targeted event was in a place 4 hours by car from my home, requiring a hotel stay for at least one night, plus the race entry fee. One woman who I told of my goal pointed out that even if I couldn't run the whole distance that it would still be beneficial to walk it, or run some/walk some.

If I began running on race day, and for some reason couldn't finish in a run, fine. I trained and tried and wouldn't regret it. The training still had value and the the partial run, combined with walking would be good exercise. But, I am not leaving my wife with two kids for a weekend, paying a race entry fee, booking a hotel, paying for gas to drive to another city, etc, when my plan is to walk 13.1 miles. Not meaning to discount gratitude for good health, but as of now, I could walk out my front door and walk 13.1 miles (or 26.2 miles) with not an once of additional training outside my normal life. In fact, I've walked 13.1+ miles on the AT numerous times in one day, with a backpack (and all of us are well aware of the hills and rocks that make this much more difficult than a walk through city streets).

Not trying to be judgmental toward others, but in return I expect others not to be judgmental toward me. Planning to walk 26.2 miles is not a motivation to train, nor is it a goal that would seem worth the hoopla of "entering" a "race", at least not for me. A social event maybe. Likewise, planning to run 3 miles followed by walking 23.2 miles is a feat not much different that just running 3 miles through my neighborhood.

If someone tells me they completed a marathon, I say good for them and honestly mean it. But if they say they did it in 4 hours, that conjures up a significantly different image than if they say they did it in 6 hours (ignoring for now the differences between 30 year olds and 70 year olds). Perhaps it's rude to say and a bit judgmental so immediately after someone shares a personal victory of finishing in 6 hours. But it's equally judgmental to say there is never a place or time to recognize the difference between running and walking a marathon.

Alligator
12-01-2009, 12:31
2.4 THE PRINCIPLE OF SPORTSMANSHIP AND ETHICAL CONDUCT

For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of
higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these
athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility.


The above is from the NCAA. It goes on to state that each member insititution has the responsibility to further develop sportsmanlike conduct policies.

Top Ten Tips to teach your kids about good sportsmanship

1. Show respect to yourself by treating others the way you want to be treated.
2. Respect not only your teammates, but also your opponents.
3. Respect your coaches and the officials of the game.
4. Respect the rules of the game.
5. Always play fair.
6. Accept the judgment calls of the coaches and the officials without argument.
7. Offer encouragement to teammates, especially when they make mistakes.
8. Forgive yourself when you make a mistake and get right back into the game.
9. Lose without pouting. 10. Win without gloating.

And for Olympians
The 2007 theme for the United States Olympic Committee’s education program is Sportsmanship.
What does it mean to be a good sport?
An athlete who is a good sport is someone whose conduct and attitude demonstrate gracious behavior before, during, and after competition. In fact, good sportsmanship demands that nothing be done before, during, or after a game to cheapen or detract from victory.
What does being a good sport look like? Here are some examples:
http://www.elitemediagroup.tv/clip_image001.gifHugging or shaking hands with a competitor after a competition
http://www.elitemediagroup.tv/clip_image001.gifShowing appreciation for those who support you
http://www.elitemediagroup.tv/clip_image001.gifAssisting a competitor in need
http://www.elitemediagroup.tv/clip_image001.gifAcknowledging a competitor’s skills to others
http://www.elitemediagroup.tv/clip_image001.gifAccepting praise with grace and humility
http://www.elitemediagroup.tv/clip_image001.gifAvoiding or deflecting all opportunities to criticize competitors or judges
Olympic athletes aren’t perfect, but they work hard at being good sports, because Real Athletes Are Good Sports. Olympians have a lot to say about Sportsmanship too.

Yahtzee
12-01-2009, 13:04
"Oh right, they're beneath that consideration. I see where you are coming from."

Not what I said, I said they weren't competing with those who run in 3 hours. That is different from not being considered at all. If you had read the entire thread you would know I do not make light of someone, anyone doing a marathon. It is an accomplishment. I simply do not think super slo-goers should run in organized marathons. It is disrespectful not only to the serious runners but to the organizers who have to keep the course open so Slowpoke can say they ran a marathon. It is also disrespectful to townspeople who want their roads back in as short a time as possible. Slow runners have no place in sanctioned marathons. And simply because it makes people feel good isn't reason enough.

John Gault, it is disrespectful because slow-goers are piggybacking on society's appreciation of what it means to run a marathon, even though they did not run to that standard. It diminishes the accomplishments of those who ran as fast as they could in a time that warrants not only respect but admiration.

Flypaper, stop making sense. It has no place on Whiteblaze.

Mags
12-01-2009, 13:20
How many of the active posters on this thread have participated in a sanctioned marathon event? :)

Alligator
12-01-2009, 13:21
"Oh right, they're beneath that consideration. I see where you are coming from."

Not what I said, I said they weren't competing with those who run in 3 hours. That is different from not being considered at all. If you had read the entire thread you would know I do not make light of someone, anyone doing a marathon. It is an accomplishment. I simply do not think super slo-goers should run in organized marathons. It is disrespectful not only to the serious runners but to the organizers who have to keep the course open so Slowpoke can say they ran a marathon. It is also disrespectful to townspeople who want their roads back in as short a time as possible. Slow runners have no place in sanctioned marathons. And simply because it makes people feel good isn't reason enough.
....

No what you said exactly was
Alligator, if one person is running a marathon in 3 hours and another is running a marathon in 6 1/2 hours, they are hardly competitors.The rules are set when they start the event, therefore they are part of the marathon. That makes them a competitor. Someone will win and someone will lose. I think you are missing the points in the Olympian section I quoted above.

It's disrespectful to not be in the same competitive class as the fast runners?? Is it disrespectful to the other teams to be the worst team in baseball?

FlyPaper
12-01-2009, 13:27
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.


How many of the active posters on this thread have participated in a sanctioned marathon event? :)

Not me. And unless I reach a point where I think I have a shot of "running" the whole distance, I'm don't plan on entering one.

superman
12-01-2009, 13:28
"Oh right, they're beneath that consideration. I see where you are coming from."

Not what I said, I said they weren't competing with those who run in 3 hours. That is different from not being considered at all. If you had read the entire thread you would know I do not make light of someone, anyone doing a marathon. It is an accomplishment. I simply do not think super slo-goers should run in organized marathons. It is disrespectful not only to the serious runners but to the organizers who have to keep the course open so Slowpoke can say they ran a marathon. It is also disrespectful to townspeople who want their roads back in as short a time as possible. Slow runners have no place in sanctioned marathons. And simply because it makes people feel good isn't reason enough.

John Gault, it is disrespectful because slow-goers are piggybacking on society's appreciation of what it means to run a marathon, even though they did not run to that standard. It diminishes the accomplishments of those who ran as fast as they could in a time that warrants not only respect but admiration.

Flypaper, stop making sense. It has no place on Whiteblaze.

I've never met anyone who goes into a marathon with the idea to just walk it. It's not unusual to have less training than you thought or hurting for what ever reason that slows you down. Then you have the choice of toughing it out or walking off. I do respect those who show up and do their personal best. I'll say again that except for only a handful of people who show up to try to win the race everyone else is only trying to run against themselve to improve their personal best time. No one else is in direct competition with another runner...it's all about doing the race in your personal best time.

John B
12-01-2009, 13:35
I ran marathons and many other distances and I agree with Marta and John Gault on this issue. Back when I was running my best races I wasn't running to win them. I was always running to do my personal best. I was only running against myself. Mostly a small number of runners show up to win the race. The rest of us are going to work to make our personal best time. It never bothered me a bit that some folks ran faster and many ran slower. Many, many years ago I chatted with Bill Rogers before a race. He had come to win and I had come to "also run." Bill was was very free to give other runners information that might help them but he never seemed to mind the slower runners one bit. The race organizers set the course and the maximum time. I've never heard anyone challenge that. I heard that there is a bus that comes along and picks up the runners who can't finish in time. I've never heard of any of those getting picked up arguing about it. As I said earlier, anyone still running after 4 hours is hurting and as the time goes out they are hurting all the worse. I've enjoyed cheering on the runners who are out on the course longer because they are digging down to get it done. I've never seen any of those folks skipping along eating donuts.

I don't think that we disagree. You repeatedly use the word "run," "runners," and imply a 100% effort, and while I can't speak for Bidwell and Yahtzee, I think that is what is at issue and what many want to see. It's not necessarily the time, but the effort. My concern is that the marathon, which is by definition a race, has been reduced to an event -- a public spectacle in which participants are lead to believe that by merely completing 26.2 miles in an indefinite amount of time, replete with rest stops, lunch breaks, and time to blog or tweet their progress, that they are now 'marathoners.' No real talents or abilities are required, nor must one qualify by reaching a certain running standard, for to do so would be "elitist."

Before participating in a baseball game, it's necessary to know how to catch, hit, and throw a ball; before participating in tennis, it's probably a good idea to know how to hit a ball with a raquet, and before participating in a marathon, I think that one should be able to run 26.2 miles. And if you can't run 26, then run 13; and if not 13, then a 10k. But for whatever race you enter, at least run the thing because it is, after all, a foot race.

I see it as a quintessential example in sports of the larger phenomenon often called the "dumbing down of America" -- a situation in which there are no standards whatsoever, everyone goes home with a medal, and to quote Garrison Keillor, "all the children are above average." I think that there should be standards, and in marathon racing, I think that the standards of America's most famous race, the Boston Marathon, would be a good place to start for many marathons. Note that even for 80 year olds, they still must finish in under 6 hrs. http://www.bostonmarathon.org/BostonMarathon/Qualifying.asp (http://www.bostonmarathon.org/BostonMarathon/Qualifying.asp)

Yahtzee
12-01-2009, 13:43
Oh good lord, I give. Every one is a winner, every one gets a medal. There are no standards. Standards are disrespectful to those who can't meet them, so let's just get rid of them. Those with standards are elitist a-holes. Taking into account how much everyone walks during his/her lifetime, everyone has run a marathon. Give everyone a medal!!! Yay, they tried their best! Who cares how close their time was in comparison to the top finishers? The accomplishment is exactly the same. Yay for people!

Mags
12-01-2009, 14:17
Not me. And unless I reach a point where I think I have a shot of "running" the whole distance, I'm don't plan on entering one.


So, you have no personal experience then? ;)

superman
12-01-2009, 14:20
I don't think that we disagree. You repeatedly use the word "run," "runners," and imply a 100% effort, and while I can't speak for Bidwell and Yahtzee, I think that is what is at issue and what many want to see. It's not necessarily the time, but the effort. My concern is that the marathon, which is by definition a race, has been reduced to an event -- a public spectacle in which participants are lead to believe that by merely completing 26.2 miles in an indefinite amount of time, replete with rest stops, lunch breaks, and time to blog or tweet their progress, that they are now 'marathoners.' No real talents or abilities are required, nor must one qualify by reaching a certain running standard, for to do so would be "elitist."

Before participating in a baseball game, it's necessary to know how to catch, hit, and throw a ball; before participating in tennis, it's probably a good idea to know how to hit a ball with a raquet, and before participating in a marathon, I think that one should be able to run 26.2 miles. And if you can't run 26, then run 13; and if not 13, then a 10k. But for whatever race you enter, at least run the thing because it is, after all, a foot race.

I see it as a quintessential example in sports of the larger phenomenon often called the "dumbing down of America" -- a situation in which there are no standards whatsoever, everyone goes home with a medal, and to quote Garrison Keillor, "all the children are above average." I think that there should be standards, and in marathon racing, I think that the standards of America's most famous race, the Boston Marathon, would be a good place to start for many marathons. Note that even for 80 year olds, they still must finish in under 6 hrs. http://www.bostonmarathon.org/BostonMarathon/Qualifying.asp (http://www.bostonmarathon.org/BostonMarathon/Qualifying.asp)

The problem I have is that I've never seen anyone take any race as casual as you are portraying it. It's not a matter of who gets a medal for completing a race for what amount of time or effort. I was a runner from the early 70's thru the 90's. I've watched many races since then...including the Boston and Clarence DeMar Marathons. I've seen folks struggle like hell to eke out finishing but I've never seen them casual or not trying to run the race they are in...no matter how slow they might be moving.

Alligator
12-01-2009, 14:23
Oh good lord, I give. Every one is a winner, every one gets a medal. There are no standards. Standards are disrespectful to those who can't meet them, so let's just get rid of them. Those with standards are elitist a-holes. Taking into account how much everyone walks during his/her lifetime, everyone has run a marathon. Give everyone a medal!!! Yay, they tried their best! Who cares how close their time was in comparison to the top finishers? The accomplishment is exactly the same. Yay for people!Well then, good argument and thanks for playing:D.

squeezebox
12-01-2009, 14:26
Let's not get rid of stuff like the special olympics because they are not up to international racing standards. there is room for both and enough room to respect both accomplishments. although how extremely different they are. Most people are smart enough to see the difference. My respect for the person "Walking " a marathon because that heart attack last year scared them into exercising. that respect in no way diminishes my respect for your fast marathon.
2 completely different animals. don't confuse or equate the 2

Yahtzee
12-01-2009, 14:28
Well then, good argument and thanks for playing:D.

I expect my medal is on the way.

JJJ
12-01-2009, 14:30
...
I think it was said earlier, this is a matter of respect. For years and years and decades and decades, sanctioned marathons have been the almost exclusive terrirtory of serious runners. Regardless or whether they were going to win, almost every runner was running as fast as he or she could in order to make their best time (not merely finish). Now, many marathons have been reduced to being populated by many who use the marathon as some sort of self-help goal. That is disrespectful to the true runners.

You may be able to sound self-righteous in defending a 10 hour marathon and if that is the best that one can do, then good for that person. But, it is still interloping on another community's customs and traditions.
.....

With that line of reasoning you could end up with a viewpoint that the AT should be reserved for thru-hikers only.
You know -serious hikers.
Not people who just go out for a few hundred miles, or heaven forbid, a dayhike:eek:
All non-serious hikers should restrict themselves to blue blazes, otherwise some uninformed person at a road crossing might mistake them for a real hiker thus diminishing real hikers' glory.
We surely don't want those interloping day-hikers jumping on the revered bandwagon of thru-hiker customs and traditions, do we? ;)

If we have to sacrifice the racing, elitist aspect of marathons to get more people into a fitness oriented body/mindset with a little ego-boost sugar coating, I say "so be it".
In the end, society will come out ahead rather than remaining largely a congregation of sports-hero-worshiping couch potatoes.
.02

Mags
12-01-2009, 14:32
Not people who just go out for a few hundred miles, or heaven forbid, a dayhike:eek:



One person said as such (concerning day hikers) on a previous thread. :)


Wow..the highest volume thread EVAH on this new forum.

I think I'll post some more strident articles...

Trail runners can't enjoy the outdoors because they are Going Too Damn Fast.

Real ultra runners don't have pacers

A burger is best served medium-rare or rare

OK..the above has nothing to do with endurance events..but damn it..it is a shame to turn good meat into a hockey puck. ;)

superman
12-01-2009, 14:35
One person said as such (concerning day hikers) on a previous thread. :)

Day hikers are funny looking and they ruin everything.:D

John B
12-01-2009, 14:39
The problem I have is that I've never seen anyone take any race as casual as you are portraying it. It's not a matter of who gets a medal for completing a race for what amount of time or effort. I was a runner from the early 70's thru the 90's. I've watched many races since then...including the Boston and Clarence DeMar Marathons. I've seen folks struggle like hell to eke out finishing but I've never seen them casual or not trying to run the race they are in...no matter how slow they might be moving.

So no standards whatsoever then? Since you mentioned the Boston, is that an elitist race since it expects 85 yr. old men to qualify in less than five hours? Would you argue that Boston's standards should be eliminated?

JJJ, the Appalachian Trail isn't a race, although it is my understanding that the ATC does have a qualifying definition for a thru hike, but perhaps I'm wrong. The Boston Marathon, however, is most definitely a race.

Mags
12-01-2009, 14:40
Day hikers are funny looking and they ruin everything.:D

I hear you...just look at this schmuck out on a day hike:

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs258.snc1/10518_170047285020_563440020_4071937_2512449_n.jpg



Very funny looking AND he ruined the mountains for serious hikers! He even brought a THERMOS which no self-respecting serious hiker would bring. I bet he even includes the day hikes in his lifetime miles!!!

John B
12-01-2009, 14:41
One person said as such (concerning day hikers) on a previous thread. :)


Wow..the highest volume thread EVAH on this new forum.



Which only goes to prove that you're a pot-stirring, rabble-rousing commie. :D

Yahtzee
12-01-2009, 14:41
With that line of reasoning you could end up with a viewpoint that the AT should be reserved for thru-hikers only.
You know -serious hikers.
Not people who just go out for a few hundred miles, or heaven forbid, a dayhike:eek:
All non-serious hikers should restrict themselves to blue blazes, otherwise some uninformed person at a road crossing might mistake them for a real hiker thus diminishing real hikers' glory.
We surely don't want those interloping day-hikers jumping on the revered bandwagon of thru-hiker customs and traditions, do we? ;)

Thru-hiking and running in organized marathons are not comparable in the respects you outlined. Organized marathons are finite events, while a thruhike can be done at any time. Organized marathons have time constraints that limit the time in which the course is open. If the course should remain open for 6 hours to accomodate the slow-runners, do we keep it open for 12 to accomodate the walkers? There has to be a standard for a marathon.

If we have to sacrifice the racing, elitist aspect of marathons to get more people into a fitness oriented body/mindset with a little ego-boost sugar coating, I say "so be it".
In the end, society will come out ahead rather than remaining largely a congregation of sports-hero-worshiping couch potatoes.
.02

This is the first justification that makes any sense. I may not agree with it, but I see your point.

Yahtzee
12-01-2009, 14:44
John B, there is no place on Whiteblaze for your hate-speech. Marathoners who run under 4 hours are showoffs who don't deserve anything. Marathons are for those who try their best and finish in 5 hours or more. They are the real heroes. Not those uppity "achieving" types. Man, they ruin everything.

superman
12-01-2009, 14:44
I hear you...just look at this schmuck out on a day hike:

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs258.snc1/10518_170047285020_563440020_4071937_2512449_n.jpg



Very funny looking AND he ruined the mountains for serious hikers! He even brought a THERMOS which no self-respecting serious hiker would bring. I bet he even includes the day hikes in his lifetime miles!!!

Mags,
You may not know that there is a limited amount of happiness and good times in this world. You are definately taking up more than your share.:D

FlyPaper
12-01-2009, 14:45
So, you have no personal experience then? ;)

Perhaps there's a profound point here, but I'm missing it.

Likewise, if you're disagreeing with anything I've said in this thread, I'm missing that too.

Mags
12-01-2009, 14:45
Which only goes to prove that you're a pot-stirring, rabble-rousing commie. :D

I stirred a pot yesterday when I made some custard for a ricotta pie (Paul "Mags" Magnanti can cook AND be found by people on ALDHA-West webites! :D !)...

Rabble rousing? Well, I do some rubble rousing on trail work... (bada bing! Thank you! Thank you! Try the buffet!)

Commie? I prefer "hey..I need some cash..can ya spare a dime for me according to my needs!!!!" :p


Perhaps there's a profound point here, but I'm missing it.

Likewise, if you're disagreeing with anything I've said in this thread, I'm missing that too.

I am missing a clue. Everyone tells me to get a clue that I am missing..but I have yet to find said clue. I did find this in Target the other day. Perhaps this is the clue that my parents, ex-girlfriends, Sr. Helen and many others are telling me to look for?

http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Reviews/Clue/Images/Clue-Game.jpg

"Marathons are for those uppity achieving types..."


The snark is OK, but not great, in this one. I give it a solid C+. I suggest a full course of reading the Onion...then you too can make half-ass dumb jokes like some short dago from Rhode Island!

Remember folks..I'll be playing on White Blaze all week. Tip your waiters!!! Thank you! Thank you!

Bidwell
12-01-2009, 14:47
I've run ~6 marathons, maybe ~25 ultramarathons. PR in the marathon is 3:08... not the fastest time on earth, but I set a goal (qualifying for Boston), I did, and I gave it 110% effort. I consider myself an average joe... never been on an xc team or had a personal trainer... just started running one day b/c it was a nice day out and I realized how great it felt. It was rewarding knowing that my training and efforts paid off.

To speak to John B's post, I really do think it's a thing of effort. Both in the race and training, though. If an average joe puts in 110% effort during the marathon and runs 6+ hours, then they certainly didn't put in 110% effort to the training. I trained hard to get sub 3:10, working my way down from a 3:45 over a period of time.

I guess my point is, I feel an average joe doesn't have to dedicate a lot of time and effort to train for a 6+ hour marathon. Not to offending anyone, but to me that's "half-assing", and to consider that an accomplishment is pretty lame.

John B
12-01-2009, 14:52
John B, there is no place on Whiteblaze for your hate-speech. Marathoners who run under 4 hours are showoffs who don't deserve anything. Marathons are for those who try their best and finish in 5 hours or more. They are the real heroes. Not those uppity "achieving" types. Man, they ruin everything.

Wouldya just shut up, be thankful that they're in the race... errr... event, and give these runners a medal.

squeezebox
12-01-2009, 14:53
Sure there is room for elitist races, the Tour de France is for the best 180 cyclist in the world. no wanna-be-s. but there is frequently bicycle rides for the wanna be-s the same day of the pro races. does not detract from the respect for the pros abilities. obesity is the #1 health problem in America. Whatever it takes to get people to exercise will save lives.

superman
12-01-2009, 14:57
So no standards whatsoever then? Since you mentioned the Boston, is that an elitist race since it expects 85 yr. old men to qualify in less than five hours? Would you argue that Boston's standards should be eliminated?

JJJ, the Appalachian Trail isn't a race, although it is my understanding that the ATC does have a qualifying definition for a thru hike, but perhaps I'm wrong. The Boston Marathon, however, is most definitely a race.

The race organizer sets the limitations of the race. All of them have a limited time before the race is called finished. Most races give a t-shirt for signing up and paying your entry fee. Anything beyound this is what you make of it. The same standards apply today that applied 20 years ago. There have always been people who have finished over the entire time that race allowed. The runners...even the slow ones...aren't doing anything different than they used to. I have no idea why you are going on about changing races and or runners. if you have a problem with slow runners you should discuss it with Jim Fixx.

squeezebox
12-01-2009, 15:00
I'm not saying that I raced with Lance Armstrong because I rode the same course the same day as he did. Nobody is trying to equate the 2 1/2 and 6 1/2 hr. marathons

Yahtzee
12-01-2009, 15:01
Wouldya just shut up, be thankful that they're in the race... errr... event, and give these runners a medal.

I will never quit! I may stop on the side of the road for a bite to eat or a smoke, but I will never quit this thread. I am a true hero. I will finish this thread til the end. :banana

Mags
12-01-2009, 15:04
I will never quit! I may stop on the side of the road for a bite to eat or a smoke, but I will never quit this thread. I am a true hero. I will finish this thread til the end. :banana

BUT you already quit!"

Oh good lord, I give.

You DNFd..you can't jump back in..sorry.

Now, have some schwag, goo shots and Ctyomax over at the finish line. :)

FlyPaper
12-01-2009, 15:08
So, you have no personal experience then? ;)

Talk about elitism. Marathon running is so elite that people frown upon you even talking about it unless you've participated in some sanctioned event.

John B
12-01-2009, 15:26
...The same standards apply today that applied 20 years ago. There have always been people who have finished over the entire time that race allowed. The runners...even the slow ones...aren't doing anything different than they used to. I have no idea why you are going on about changing races and or runners. if you have a problem with slow runners you should discuss it with Jim Fixx.

I have no idea how that relates to my question or, for that matter, even what it means. "Changing races and or runners"??? But that's OK, too. :sun I would take it up with Mr. Fixx, but given that he's been dead for about 25 years, I doubt he'd listen to me anymore than the other riff raff who responded to this thread.

I'm gonna sign off now, go home, and waddle around the block a couple of times -- I am, after all, training for the Berry half marathon in March, and they damned well better gimme a nice medal, too.

Yahtzee
12-01-2009, 15:30
BUT you already quit!"

Oh good lord, I give.

You DNFd..you can't jump back in..sorry.

Now, have some schwag, goo shots and Ctyomax over at the finish line. :)

I know, Mags, it's frustrating, isn't it? But after I quit, I decided to go ahead and finish. I had a nice rest, rubbed down my typing fingers and psyched myself up to type as much as I could before I got tired and decided to take another break. Things are awesome when there are no standards. I've been missing out all these years.

superman
12-01-2009, 15:41
I know, Mags, it's frustrating, isn't it? But after I quit, I decided to go ahead and finish. I had a nice rest, rubbed down my typing fingers and psyched myself up to type as much as I could before I got tired and decided to take another break. Things are awesome when there are no standards. I've been missing out all these years.

There were always standards...it was the "personal best" of each runner. Personal best is a standard...it's not a comparitive time or effort. Many people at the beginning or at the end of their running years do slow races. Some times they have to tough out an injury or the ravages of time. Some folks are trying to improve themselves and some are trying to over come some limitation. It's all good because it's that individuals personal best.
...and everybody know that you're not an elite hiker unless you've hiked the AT at least 8 times.:)

JJJ
12-01-2009, 15:45
John, you're right, the AT isn't a race.
But neither is Boston really, few entrants even aim for their personal best, some are charity runners, some are just guest runners.
It's a 26.2 mile victory lap for miles and miles of training and racing to celebrate something only about 5% of all runners can qualify to do.
In a way, all the other marathons are also just victory laps for hours on top of hours of cardiovascular conditioning.
But telling a chick, "I ran a marathon.", is way sexier than saying "I have great cardiovascular conditioning."
I challenge any runner or non-runner to lace 'em up and WALK (no running allowed) 26.2 miles in 6 hrs (13:44 pace) and THEN say, "no big deal"

Marathons are so blasé anyway,
Ultras are where it's at :banana:
Check out
Running on the Sun (http://www.netflix.com/Search?v1=Running%20on%20the%20Sun)

Mags
12-01-2009, 16:01
Talk about elitism. Marathon running is so elite that people frown upon you even talking about it unless you've participated in some sanctioned event.

What? Did I say that? I only asked questions..

Lots of question marks. No declarative sentences.

A question like "How licks does it take to get to the center of the tootsie roll pop?" I never did figure that one out. Important question


I'm still looking for Col Mustard in the Library with a pipewrench!!!!


I know, Mags, it's frustrating, isn't it?

Only for Flypaper. The rest of us (you included) are treating this thread as one, big, meaningless but fun conversation.

Something to do between the runs, hikes and general goofing off that makes life so much fun!

Attn..Ms. Scarlet is in in the Kitchen with a pistol!!

Lone Wolf
12-01-2009, 16:29
I'm gonna sign off now, go home, and waddle around the block a couple of times -- I am, after all, training for the Berry half marathon in March, and they damned well better gimme a nice medal, too.

you don't need to start training til february. it's only a 13 mile jog

codpilot
12-02-2009, 18:15
It's rather funny I stumbled across this thread.

I hike - I enjoy hiking. Not fast - not slow just my pace for me. I set my record by doing the hiking I can when and where I can :sun

I've started running. I run like a herd of thundering turtles. Not fast - oh nobody would see me and think "WOW Speedy!"

What makes it funny is I started training for the ING with a WOG crowd (the jog/walk pacing thing) and am shooting for an average 12 min mile for 26.2 miles. For me that's training for well over 100% (remember I'm slow). So based on all the comments I'm shooting for a PB, training hard therefore I am "Running a Marathon".

One of the things people forget is that the original marathon was not about speed, it was about endurance. the man ran 26 miles, after running something over 100 miles (if my old history brain is correct) over a couple of days. I'm in it for better endurance, Cardio (Zombiland!), and teh experience.

For the last 8 years I have been a volunteer at the ING (or its precursor) handing out water to elite runners, fast runners, slow runners, walkers, wheelchair runners and more. The race rule has been fairly consistent. Finish in 6 - you finished a marathon. The rule does not give a pace, a method or whatever - just a bottom line.

Some folks do it for the group hugs, some folks do it for the PB's and a small few do it because they can actually race to win. That last group is nobody here! So if you believe that 3:30 is the cutoff point for a "real marathon", start your own sactioned event, set the time requirements and have at it. Simply don't participate in the "those other things".

It's all like the trail - walk your own walk. Or run your own run.

I truly admire the fast runners - that has never been, and regardless of training, will never be me. But I'm having fun, improving myself, setting goals, paying my entrance fee just like everyone else. And let me say - there are lots of folks who are amazed at anyone, at any pace, that finishes a marathon. Especially since at any pace we are talking about 1/10 of 1% of the people around will ever do a marathon. And if my finish in 5 hours in some way detracts from somebody elses in their mind, well too bad. I wll drink my accelerade, eat my gu and do my thing.

Walk (run) well!
:welcome

scope
12-02-2009, 18:21
Anybody see "Biggest Loser" last night? Five hours eleven minutes for a guy who used to be well over 400 lbs. Guess he really ran it.

superman
12-02-2009, 18:25
It's rather funny I stumbled across this thread.

I hike - I enjoy hiking. Not fast - not slow just my pace for me. I set my record by doing the hiking I can when and where I can :sun

I've started running. I run like a herd of thundering turtles. Not fast - oh nobody would see me and think "WOW Speedy!"

What makes it funny is I started training for the ING with a WOG crowd (the jog/walk pacing thing) and am shooting for an average 12 min mile for 26.2 miles. For me that's training for well over 100% (remember I'm slow). So based on all the comments I'm shooting for a PB, training hard therefore I am "Running a Marathon".

One of the things people forget is that the original marathon was not about speed, it was about endurance. the man ran 26 miles, after running something over 100 miles (if my old history brain is correct) over a couple of days. I'm in it for better endurance, Cardio (Zombiland!), and teh experience.

For the last 8 years I have been a volunteer at the ING (or its precursor) handing out water to elite runners, fast runners, slow runners, walkers, wheelchair runners and more. The race rule has been fairly consistent. Finish in 6 - you finished a marathon. The rule does not give a pace, a method or whatever - just a bottom line.

Some folks do it for the group hugs, some folks do it for the PB's and a small few do it because they can actually race to win. That last group is nobody here! So if you believe that 3:30 is the cutoff point for a "real marathon", start your own sactioned event, set the time requirements and have at it. Simply don't participate in the "those other things".

It's all like the trail - walk your own walk. Or run your own run.

I truly admire the fast runners - that has never been, and regardless of training, will never be me. But I'm having fun, improving myself, setting goals, paying my entrance fee just like everyone else. And let me say - there are lots of folks who are amazed at anyone, at any pace, that finishes a marathon. Especially since at any pace we are talking about 1/10 of 1% of the people around will ever do a marathon. And if my finish in 5 hours in some way detracts from somebody elses in their mind, well too bad. I wll drink my accelerade, eat my gu and do my thing.

Walk (run) well!
:welcome

Great post. Best of luck with your marathon.

John B
12-02-2009, 20:38
you don't need to start training til february. it's only a 13 mile jog

The distance is no problem -- I can do a 15-18 mile road run now without much problem -- but I want to finish with a good time. And I'm slow and can't improve my pace like I want, so I'm working on adding speed -- four 5-6 mile runs for speed work every weekday, a 'long run' on Saturday, Sunday off for rest. If I'm really hurting, I'll take an extra day off. My biggest problem is that when I do interval or tempo runs, I break down. I'm not a good runner but I want to get a lot better.

njordan2
12-02-2009, 21:41
One could argue that the only ones who have truly earned the right to be called marathon runners are the ones who die directly after running around 26 miles and mutter the word "nike" with their last ragling gasp. Everyone else lowers the bar. How far can we lower the bar, so that everyone has finished a marathon? If there is no time limit and someone is bed ridden except for the ability to get up and use the restroom, can they be considered has having run a marathon if after 75 years their trips to the jon have culminated in 26.2 miles?
I have ran in these races with 40,000 people in them and whether it is 40,000 or 40 there are never more than around 6 people who are actually competing in them. Nobody else in the herd stands a chance at being the fastest. Is it that if you are not fast enough to statistically stand a high probability of being the fastest out of everyone you are not competing?
My standard is that anyone who has moved about 26 miles can logically claim to have ran a marathon. It does not matter if you are one of us who can finish in 2:19:59 or less or if you are one of them who finish in 1,000,000:19:59.
Hiking the Appalachian Trail is similar. If you say you have hiked the appalachian trail, then you have. Not to drive the arguement to obsurdity again, but what defines the trail? Is 2 inches off to the side too much? Or can you be off to the side of the trail by 500 miles, sleeping in your bed in Illinois and still be considered on the trail? Or do you have to be in the exact steps of Earl Shafer within 1mm?
I think you get the point.
Everyone's a winner.

kolokolo
12-03-2009, 23:34
The fact is that the organizers of just about every marathon except Boston are just as thrilled to take the entry fee of a 6 hour finisher as that of a 3 hour finisher. Face it folks, running a marathon is not a purely elite accomplishment any more, although running a sub 3 hour marathon still is.

I've run two marathons in my life , and my experience is that after all of the planning, training and worrying, people really want to finish with a personal best. There would be far fewer participants in most marathons if there was some sort of 'cutoff' for getting a medal, or if the course was closed after 4 hours. Who would want to train for months and face the possibility that they wouldn't be recognized for completing the race. And who would pay $80 or $100 to enter a race if that could happen?

Some people have more natural ability than others, and that accounts for a lot of the variation in marathon times. I run 40 miles per week even when I'm not getting ready for a marathon, but I will never be able to keep up with some of my running partners who run considerably less, because they are just natural runners. No amount of training will make up for that difference.

I'd say that 'slow' people could do a lot worse than train to run (or walk) 26 miles. They benefit themselves by being active and setting fitness goals, they benefit marathons by participating in (and paying entrance fees for) races, and they benefit running in general by showing that anyone can do it. Whatever the pace.

take-a-knee
12-03-2009, 23:46
Those who run 15 miles/week achieve the same longevity as those who run four or five times as much. Most marathon runners cannot jump flat footed onto a 24in tall box. Nor can most deadlift their own bodyweight, much less put their body weight overhead and hold it. Hardly an example of fitness, and, if they screw there legs/hips up to where they can't run, as many do, then they'll be worse off than those who never ran at all. In fact they'll all be in the same nursing home together.

JJJ
12-07-2009, 23:23
I sort of agree, take-a-knee, marathoning fast or slow is not the begginning or end of fitness.
But, distance running has helped me maintain a positive outlook and joie de vie that I've been hard pressed to find elsewhere.
Duration as a metric for life may be from a qualitative perspective, over-rated.