So, last night I spotted a tweet by @marathontalk (http://www.marathontalk.com/) linking to this NY Times article about people who "plod" around marathons. I posted a link to the article on Facebook and invited my friends to comment. Safe to say, it's a touchy subject.
Just read this article thanks to Marathon Talk on twitter. According to "seasoned marathoners", anyone who runs a marathon slower than 4 hours is ruining the skill of running a marathon. I disagree (obviously, with my 4:58 PB). What do you think?
A Finishing a marathon without collapsing is a minor miracle by
itself. Comments like that completely undermine the massive personal
achievement of anyone who completes a Marathon.
B That's outrageous! What a ridiculous point of view. Anyone who
completes a marathon has my total and utter respect. End of.
C Why not make it sub 3 hours? Idiots...
D Hear hear that! My cousin has power walked 10 marathons and raised
heaps for cancer research. That’s awesome in my mind.
E I think anyone who has completed a marathon even once has my utmost
respect. Regardless of time. It's a personal best and a free country and it's
usually those who do it even once raise a ton of money for good causes.
ME Good. I'm glad you all agree with me. Thought I was going mad for a
moment.
F It's all relative is it not?
By that I mean, if you are fast then a fast
marathon is an achievement, if you are slow a slow marathon is an achievement
no? My target for MK is finishing, then finishing under 4hrs is my next
target.... My training was done so I could complete a marathon not race a pro!!
G It's a foot race not a running race....it doesn't matter whether
you run, skip, walk or shuffle. Walking a marathon is hard work, you are on
your feet for a long time. The Long Distance Walkers Association (LDWA) organise some
fantastic marathons......and quite often the opposite applies here....the
runners are 'gatecrashing' on the walkers event!
H Taking 6hrs to complete a marathon is harder than taking 4......
G but only if you are
capable of completing a marathon in 4hrs
J Does annoy me slightly people walking marathons that are hard to
get into, a big part is the time you have spent training in the build up to the
event, if you want to enter a mara you gotta be prepared to put in the training
hours not just turn up on the day
K As you all know, I think anyone who isn't an Olympian should just
quit. I mean anything over 4 hours is just a nice stroll...
J I think time is irrelevant as long as its the best you can give on
the day, but walking isn’t an achievement for most and they are taking up
places of people who are prepared to push themselves
K Should every runner be
pushing themselves to the limit then? I would say the way the race is marketed
dictates who enters it. If the race says 8hr cut off, you'll get those doing it
in 8hrs.
If it was 4hrs then you'll get only faster runners. Its a commercial thing
though.
More runners, more money. Personally I think both sides are right, its down to
the organisers to decide who they want.
If London decided on a 3.30. Cut off I wouldn't mind. I'd just not enter.
Probably train to get in though....
D Does that mean power
walking too! As i know my cousin trains v hard!
ME I think power walking
counts D, because as I've found out,
R can walk faster than I can jog! It
definitely counts!
I think K is correct when
he says it's up to the organisers who they're marketing. A 4.5 hour cut off
would put me off from entering, whereas a 7 hour marathon opens it to most.
L There is always someone faster and always someone slower than you,
so its always dangerous to comment on what a good pace is.....
If people get round giving it their best then that is the achievement not the
time it takes.
D After going to watch the London one, my first, I was impressed with
all of them specially watching an 81 yr old coming to the finish after 6
hrs...god bless him xx
M I think that is why tiered starting waves are really important...
The annoying people are those who submit a much faster estimated time just so
they can start upfront - and then get in the way!
N I haven't got a problem with how long anyone takes. If you've won a
place in the ballot and want to walk it in 7 hours, go you ahead... just don't
start near the front so everyone has to weave around you!
P I completely disagree with this article. When I completed the VLM
in slightly over 4 hours, I was physically broken afterwards. The people I had
real respect for though, were those who finished around 5 hours something. In
my mind, they would probably have still run the whole thing or most of it, at a
pace that challenges them but they had spent longer on their feet running than
me. That must be more knackering. A bloke I know from our club has completing
many marathons sub 4 hour but when he walked the xxx walkathon he said that
felt harder!
Q I haven't got a problem with how long anyone takes either, but just
to play devils advocate - you have 2 people, ones run it in sub 3 and the
others walked it in 8. Both get the same medal and can call themselves
marathoners - surely it must devalue it for the runner!? Maybe they should have
separate entry categories I.e marathon runners and marathon walkers - some
races do this.
ME I don't think the time
someone else finishes a marathon in devalues the race for someone who ran it
faster (you could say the same for a 10K race, who worked harder for their
medal, the person who ran 45 mins or who ran 75 mins?). It's about the personal
challenge in my opinion.
You challenge yourself to run sub 3, you do it, you're thrilled. You challenge
yourself to complete the distance, you do it in 8 hours, you're still thrilled.
And then you rechallenge yourself at a later date to run it again but faster!
Exactly why when I completed my first marathon (sub 5) I was thrilled at first
and then became less thrilled as the year passed because I realised I wanted to
do it again, but faster.
R Surely its all about the personal achievement. We all have
different goals in life and are all at different fitness levels. Finding
running difficult I would love to be able to complete a marathon in 4 hours but
will be delighted whatever time I complete xxxx in.
S I think the fact that you're timed and that there is a 'winner' -
the person who is the fastest racer, is a hint towards what you're meant to be
achieving - your fastest possible time, whether that be running or walking for
you.
I think in answer to your question though, if you could do it under 4 hours,
you should. In my opinion the same applies to 3 and 5 hours.
I saw a picture of a guy who walked it after having a heart bypass a few years
previous and he looked shattered, so I think there is a place for walking it if
that's the best you can achieve at that time in your life, or if it's a
marathon organised by a walking association.
For me personally my biggest battles have been staying injury free and pacing
(not going off too fast) so they're the skills I aim to learn at this point in
my journey.
I'd best get a good time when I do my first marathon in June now!!!
I would however make a sprint finish compulsory....even if you are walking
J I honestly don’t think the length of time taken makes a difference,
but most of the population could walk a marathon (normal walk) if you want a
stroll then do a LDWA event, if you want to be a marathoner then put in the
training hours.
Big achievements are hard earned and individual some peoples 5ks are the equivalent
to a marathon for some but they have trained from walking to run/walks etc
Q Yeah I think if you've
covered the distance great, but unless you've run the whole distance
(regardless of time taken) you shouldn't call yourself a marathon runner
ME LOL Q you really are taking
"devils advocate" seriously, I feel I should run all the way round MK
now to earn my medal Z finished
xxx in 3:52 by run-walking from mile 18, I like his style.
K I look forward to the
day I can call myself a marathon runner
C Harsh Q! Couldn't care
less if people did it in 2 hours or 12, don't need other peoples efforts to
justify your own achievements. If I ran 20 miles and broke down and had to
run/walk/hobble the last 6 I would still consider that I'd 'ran' it. For me,
unless you have ambitions to win a race you shouldn't really worry about the
strategy of everyone else. For example you can have no idea about others'
stories. You might have a 600lb man have lost half their body weight with a
goal of walking a marathon, that would be more of an effort than a fitness
freak jogging round in five hours, no? In football parlance, concentrate on
your own game
J That 600lb man would
have put in the training and done fantastically well to lose half his
bodyweight, deserves his medal, its the people who enter do little or no
training turn up on the day and just plod, as runners we know that a marathon
finish started months/years previously with a lot of time and effort in
training, if you have put the graft in and do your best on the day and achieve
8hrs then you deserve your medal, if you just turn up and saunter round then im
not sure you do
C All I'm saying is that
the only medal I'm worried about is mine. If someone wants to rock up and walk
round then so be it. Wouldn't devalue my achievement. You worry too much J
Q I think I just heard
Pheidippides turn in his grave
C Haha. Look at us having
reasoned debate. It will never last...
J Certainly wouldn’t
devalue your achievement C, just
they are taking the place of other people who would have put in a lot more
effort
T Who the @*!! do they think they are? If I want to run backwards on
my hands I will. It's no one else's business. If some self-pontificating
pillock needs his achievement validated by my or anyone else's time, then that
says more about his sad life and attitude than others or the sport.
J "If you walk
briskly at 15 minutes per mile, that's six-and-a-half hours to do 26.2 miles -
most people could sustain it."
J "Training needs
real commitment. Personally I think training for a marathon is more of an
accomplishment than running it."
ME J I completely agree, training for a marathon is harder than the
race itself. Although when it's pissing down with freezing rain for 4 hours
it's pretty hard, eh H?
H you forgot the wind <we’re
referring to Preston Guild Marathon>
J Do think the 4hrs thing is complete b#ll###s anyone going sub
4 is officially quick
Q I've only done it once
in 3 attempts.
C So J are you just
talking about the big over-subscribed races J? If someone strolls round in 8
hours in a local marathon which didn't reach its limit is that more acceptable?
I suppose if I actually trained for one my opinion might differ...
J If there making cut offs
in a local race that hadn’t filled up then fair enough, that’s prob a good
thing supporting local events
G I take my hat off to someone who doesn't train and manages to
complete a marathon
H you would be quicker if
you didn’t run in a hat!!
H just for information in the 2012 London marathon 36,705 runners
finished..........if they had a cut off at 4 hours only 11,051 would have got a
medal..........a 3hr cut off would reduce this to 1,245 medals.....they could
make a massive saving.....
N If we are going to ban plodders from marathons as they are not real
runners, then surely anyone not wearing proper running attire should be banned
as well??? I mean how can you validate your existence if you happen to be
beaten (not run as quickly) by the above <I had posted a pic of G in fancy dress at London this year>
G That's what I was
telling everyone I ran past in the last few miles!
G serious runners - fancy dressers - charity fun runners - plodders -
walkers can all exist in perfect harmony. Only an elitist-spoil-sport would say
otherwise
H unless Mo Farah is on your shoulder waiting to pounce in the last
mile and you are going to win some money out of where you finish.....the only
race you are running is against yourself.........if you are seriously worried
about your time and worry that people will over estimate and get in your
way...........over estimate your own time......you are in control of where you
start the damn race!!!
V I entered the ballot but some of you guys are scaring me lol
ME Sorry V I'll remove that photo of G
K Remember Brendan Foster suggested Mo Farah should quit marathons as
he could only run 2.08
J He is still reeling from
being beaten by me and G last year
lol
.JPG)
