Tell me if you think my definition of running a marathon is 'correct' .....

1 to 20 of 171 messages
seren nos yn canu    pirate
26/02/2013 at 15:02

so if you do 3:45 in a marathon but run all the way......you think you are better than the guy who ran/walked it in 3:30...........

you might have got more satisfaction from the running it the whole way but would you have been more satified from running it all but getting a slower time than when you walked part of it.......a PB is a PB......

so i think its all individual..we all get our satisfaction in different ways..........so why not race the race how you want to and let others run the way that they want to.......why measure your happiness by comparing it to others........find true happiness from within yourself.....

Edited: 26/02/2013 at 15:03
WiB
26/02/2013 at 15:08

I know someone who had a moment a Brighton marathon last year after setting off too fast and stopped to walk for a bit. Still came away with a PB of 2:54 from that race.

WiB
26/02/2013 at 15:11
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

No person who does a 3:30 is going to need to walk at any point ......

This guy would disagree.

26/02/2013 at 15:13
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

No person who does a 3:30 is going to need to walk at any point ...... 

 

I've seen many people coming in under 3:30 walking in the final stages of a marathon.

WiB
26/02/2013 at 15:15

Or by your rules he did complete it but didn't run it. No idea how long he stopped to walk for.

WiB
26/02/2013 at 15:18
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

Let me guess, the guy who came up with 'run-walk-run' is American by any chance???


No need to guess, his biog is on the website.

26/02/2013 at 15:19

If I run the whole way, I can honestly say that I ran a marathon.

If I DON'T run the whole way, I can honestly say that I COMPLETED a marathon, but not run one.

Personally, I feel much more satisfaction from running the whole of a race.  If I have to walk, it means I've not done the training right, or I've not judged my pace right.

 

26/02/2013 at 15:22

am guessing you are talking about a 'flat' marathon not a trail or mountain one.

Edited: 26/02/2013 at 15:22
26/02/2013 at 15:22

For me there is "doing" or "completing" a marathon - for which walking may well feature - either as a planned in strategy from the beginning (I've heard of people doing sub 2:30 marathons with planned walking breaks), and there is "running" a marathon for which you have to run the whole thing.

One isn't "better" than the other - i "best" is simply the best time, and so it could well be that walking breaks lead to a "better" marathon, but simply that they mean slightly different things.

26/02/2013 at 15:23

you have to run 51% of the race distance.

26/02/2013 at 15:24

+ some of the back markers in the VLM don't appear to have broke into a run at any stage in the race. 

26/02/2013 at 15:25

Well obviously Wilkie is correct. However I don't understand why you feel the need to ask the question?

I don't really think a person finishing in 7 hours really thinks they are the equivalent marathoner to the person who runs it in just over 2 hours.

However ON THE DAY, the person doing the 7 hour marathon will probably have had a  shocking time and felt pretty terrible for a lot of those loooong hours.  I wouldn't knock their acheivement even if I wondered at the sanity of bothering to do something like this. 

 

Is there someone you know who is lording their marathon acheivment over you and it's bugging you or something?

XX1
26/02/2013 at 15:29
This reminds me of the movie Speed... Perhaps all "runners" should have a bomb strapped to them and the bomb will explode if they drop below DF3's average pace at any given moment
XX1
seren nos yn canu    pirate
26/02/2013 at 15:32

why does it bother you so much david.i'm sure the elite athletes don't lose any sleep over it........and many people find a dedicated walk run strategy gives them faster times than a run stategy and yes they can do sub 3:30 with it.surely its about doing the fastest that you can on a given day........

and if you saw coverage on the snowdon marathon most of the podium places walked at some stage................

but someone ran ( very slowly ) the whole way........so in your mind they should have been on the podium even though the ran all the way........

and i have also been in races where i have walked past someone who is running......they are running so slow that i can walk.so surely then you should have a minimum pace for running.......like 6 min miling 

26/02/2013 at 15:33

ah well, i know a few people who would disagree with you where off road marathons are concerned.
But as this thread is all about your opinion, i guess thats by the by

seren nos yn canu    pirate
26/02/2013 at 15:33

my average pace at the moment is around 11 min miling..as I am training specifically for something........gives me as much satisafcation as running at faster rates

26/02/2013 at 15:34
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

No person who does a 3:30 is going to need to walk at any point ...... ask RicF or Also-ran, bet they never stopped to have a chat along the way.

"you might have got more satisfaction from the running it the whole way but would you have been more satified from running it all but getting a slower time than when you walked part of it.......a PB is a PB......"

Well it would be a lot harder to have run/walk and done better than just running but lets assume thats the case, actually in all honesty I would get more satisfication at knowing I never stopped for 13.1 miles than 'run like hell .... walk .... run like hell ...... walk .....'

 

 

Confession time. Seven marathons between 2:46 & 3:05, only the during first did I run non stop.

I've stopped for shoe trouble, socks trouble, to sink a pint, hit the wall, walked some, stopped for a stretch or two, stopped for a car.

If anything has ever gone wrong in any of my races, it was a marathon.

26/02/2013 at 15:34
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)
WiB wrote (see)

I know someone who had a moment a Brighton marathon last year after setting off too fast and stopped to walk for a bit. Still came away with a PB of 2:54 from that race.

Well Im sorry but rules are rules, he did not complete a marathon then

I think for the sake of realism, stopping to retie your shoelaces etc or needing a  moment like you say above doesnt count. Im talking about deliberately setting off knowing full well you are going to have to walk/run/walk/run the thing.

1 walk only for the entire race for less than 1 minute is the only caveat I'll make to the above rule that Ive set

I agree with your principle. But I'd be more generous with the definitions.

If you walk for (say) 25% of the course, then you can say you completed the marathon, but surely you haven't run it.  Not sure where I'd draw the line but maybe walking 1 mile, or stopping for more than 5 minutes would negate your claim to have run a marathon.

seren nos yn canu    pirate
26/02/2013 at 15:41

I'm sure you would rather have your own marathon time running than Ric F's 2:46.........even it means no GFA for you

26/02/2013 at 15:42

The first time I broke 3 hours I walked for about 20 yards - I had hit the big wall big time and just stopped - and couldn't give a sh*t about the time - As soon as I stopped I realised I did care and off I went. I still consider I did the marathon and that time still stands - the last time I did London - I stopped and spoke to a friend, walked through nearly every drink station - and finished in 3:03 (mind don't really consider that one as I was 27 minutes outside my target and stopped running marathons)

1 to 20 of 171 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