I will be very sad when the Brighton marathon is over .....

41 to 60 of 322 messages
Cheerful Dave    pirate
22/03/2013 at 09:33
kittenkat wrote (see)
seren nos wrote (see)
..without any knowledge of their background, size , self confidence or history.then it can be more amazing for one person to do a 7 hour marathon than for someone else to do a 3 hour marathon as a training run........

Conversely you don't know the background of the 3 hour runner, and what their journey has been. It works both ways, I don't see how a slow runner automatically 'trumps' a faster runner in this every time in some people's opinion, without huge assumptions being made about people and their circumstances.

Except that seren did use the example of someone running 3 hours 'as a training run'.  She's not saying that slower runners automatically trumps faster runners, it's just a counterexample to the view that the only thing that matters is the finish time.  Unfortunately the amount of effort put in, or the 'journey' to get there (whatever that means) are laregly subjective.

22/03/2013 at 09:37

Dave you know there's a culture on here regarding assumptions that slower people put more effort in or it's hardert. I think effort can be equal irrespective of pace.

22/03/2013 at 09:44

I do actually think though that some slower people probably are working quite a bit harder than I am. Not all of them, obviously, but even though I am training quite seriously for a marathon I don't find that I suffer serious pain or find it hard to get through my training sessions or feel knackered or discouraged. Those are all things that some people who post on threads for support and encouragement talk about. Also, I could not imagine making the effort involved in spending 6 hours running a marathon just in terms of sheer grinding hard work and time on feet.

seren nos    pirate
22/03/2013 at 10:16

I don't think faster trump slower or slower trumps faster..............never seen anything on the forums to see that everyone thinks slower is better......I have great respect for the faster runners on these forums....their dedication to training amazes me.......the hours to get to a sub 3 marathon for the women and men  is amazing and i love reading about their training...

I do think that a lot of the fast runners get their praise on the day with their prizes and do not need the type of encouragemnet that slower runners need........

you cannot equate speed to effort.......so why not just let people be happy with their times..if you don't think that they have deserved praise then don't give it.....but why knock someone who is obviously stuggling and trying to do something




David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

But on a more serious note, had I wanted to follow my own advice, what I would have done was post directly on the Brighton Marathon thread, telling her that attempting to do 20 miles tomorrow is pure folly, that she is clearly way behind on the training schedule, so therefore should not be trying to stick to rigidly to it, just because 'thats what the plan says' ........ however if I did do that I know two things would happen.

1) I would get a volley of abuse for being 'mean'.

2) She would still ignroe what I said, do her 20 miles, she will walk 17 of them ..... probably injure herself, meaning she'll do f... all until the marathon starts as she recovers ..... she'll then do the marathon ...... probably register a time of around 7 hours and will pat herself on the back for completing the marathon and hang the medal up on a mantlepiece somewhere.

Some people just dont want to hear the truth, so therefore its not really worth my time giving them the truth.


and Dave...why do you think that her doing 20 miles this weekend is wrong........I would say going out and walking 15 miles and running 5 miles might be the perfect long run as they have time to recover from it..............it would give them time on their legs and would give them confidence...........lots of walking with reduce the chance of injury...........

22/03/2013 at 11:49
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

With all the advice given on here, I was thinking I was the only one thinking this way. I do find it all a bit unnecessarily PC to say 'Yeah everyone is trying equally hard and they all deserve equal recognition.' ...... well actually not really.

I know for a fact if I pushed on a little more in training and had trained a bit smarter and incorporated some more long runs into my routine I'd be a lot further ahead than I am now, 1 year after getting my a..e off the couch.

In around the same period of time Also-Ran is doing sub 1:30's, because he trained smarter and probably spent more time than I did training. So having said that should we be equally applauded for our efforts? Well the reality is no? I didnt put as much effort in, so why should I be given the same credit as someone else?


Name checked for the second time. Please stop as I'm the shy and retiring type. I'm not sure about effort compared to other - all I know about is what I put into running, and I don't get hung up about what others do or don't do. I have some reasonable results from the last year:


But do I feel smug or that I'm putting more effort in, or that its so easy? Not really - it's not something that comes up in my thoughts. All I know is that there are plenty of 40 somethings out there getting better times.

The only thing I find irritating is when hard working, talented guys like PhilP join the 40 somethings. Just plain unfair - you  stand no chance and remain an also-ran.

Put what you want to put into running DF3.

22/03/2013 at 12:01

Interesting to see you took a minute off from Wokingham to Reading Also Ran.

What do you put that down to?

I've only done the pair as a double header once, but it wasn't really a fair trial, as I spent a week off with a locked back in between, and having smashed Wokingham, I'd mentally eased off I think...

ps forgot to say, cracking progression over a very short time....

Edited: 22/03/2013 at 12:02
22/03/2013 at 12:02

Also-ran - It's all relative.  I need to make hay while the sun shines; I know some very quick 39 year olds, just in my own club! 

seren nos    pirate
22/03/2013 at 12:09

and with martyn rees still doing under 72 mins in a half at 60....there si still plenty of time to improve lads

22/03/2013 at 12:13
seren nos wrote (see)

and with martyn rees still doing under 72 mins in a half at 60....there si still plenty of time to improve lads


A 14.20  5000m result in 96 when he was a mere 43.

Wonder what he'd have run if he'd started 20-25 years earlier.

seren nos    pirate
22/03/2013 at 12:18

he would have been faster no doubt.but he still wouldn't be running now probably..........

and to be 60 and out running all the youngsters much bring its own kind of reward


22/03/2013 at 12:19

PP - more of them? Doomed.

SG - Mid marathon training and Reading came at the end of 8 weeks doing a 6 - 7 miles at  threshold pace, so I think I benefited from the extra weeks training after Wokingham. Used different strategies as well - Wokingham paced evenly, Reading went off far too fast, sufferred, and then came back strong (sure I picked that approach  from an SG race report)

22/03/2013 at 12:30

AR - I reckon you could take a few more minutes off your HM time: You finished a couple of places ahead of one of our club guys at Bramley, he did Fleet in 78:30...

22/03/2013 at 12:32

Also ran, very impressed with the sub 3 just a week after running 3:04

How much did that hurt?

22/03/2013 at 12:34

 That's the beauty of the half. You can repair it if you go off too hard.

I started a 5k way too fast recently, and realised there was no chance at all of coming back strong.

Another person saying it's the marathon training bringing on the improvement though..it's like someone's trying to tell me something!

Seren, it must be both terrific and frustrating that he discovered his skills at a late age....

22/03/2013 at 12:39
Dustin wrote (see)

AR - I reckon you could take a few more minutes off your HM time: You finished a couple of places ahead of one of our club guys at Bramley, he did Fleet in 78:30...



Guaranteed he'll imrpove for sure. But you have to be careful about time comparisons as it depends what someone's strength is.

For instance, from my last 2 races,

last half marathon  I beat a local fast lady by 3mins. Yet she's done a 2:42 marathon.

But lost to a guy by 20secs over 5k, who has a very slightly slower half marathon time (10secs?) . And his last marathon was 2:49....


22/03/2013 at 12:45
AgentGinger wrote (see)

Also ran, very impressed with the sub 3 just a week after running 3:04

How much did that hurt?

AG, it hurt, but it didn't hurt as much as not going sub3 the week before which I had set my heart on. It was a long story, got injured, little running possible, went camping/trekking out in Jordan and got ill and lost load of weight. I really shouldn't have run Leicester but wasn't able to engage my brain - it was a last minute decision to run it. Then after the disappointment, I had another brain failure and ran Abingdon. That was touch and go all the way around. Ouch. Not recommended!


Are we allowed to hijack a DF3 thread?

Edited: 22/03/2013 at 12:47
seren nos    pirate
22/03/2013 at 12:48

if you  ran 3:04 at tenby then you have a much faster marathon in you somewhere.if you get it a coming together right for the day

22/03/2013 at 12:59

seren, looks like he ran 3:02 in Tenby.

No races before 2012? Have you really been racing less than a year Also Ran? Wow.

and might i add. Wow.

22/03/2013 at 13:04

You fast improvers make me sick.

Some of us take the more "scenic" route up the pace scale

22/03/2013 at 13:09
You fast improvers will never beat 11 hours to 4 hours............
41 to 60 of 322 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums