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

So theres often a debate, particularly say with the VLM about people finishing the thing in 7 hours, and saying they 'ran' a marathon and putting them at the same level as the guy who did it in 2 and a half hours (they both have the same thing to show for it).

So for me, my definition of running a marathon, is you need to have run the whole course at all times with no stopping. It doesnt matter if you are a going slowly but I think once you begin to walk, thats it, you can't truly say you've ran a marathon.

Thats my personal view anyway. Feel free to open up with your vitriolic remarks as to why Im wrong

Oh and the reason I have formed this view is that in my first HM, I needed to walk a couple of times, but in my 2nd I ran the whole thing, and I got a much greater satisfaction out of doing than even completing my first HM, because lets face it, any idiot can get around a 13.1 mile course with enough time (and same with 26.2 miles), but to truly say you ran a marathon, I think you need to have actually 'run' it.

Oh and for the record, I have NOT run a marathon.

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.....

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 .....'

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.

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.

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

AgentGinger wrote (see)

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.

How on earth can you 'invent' the run-walk-run method .......... every newbie does that as the default mode anyway.

Ok then Ive developed this method where if you breath in, youre breathing in mostly oxygen, and when you breath out, most of it will be carbon dioxide ...... I will call this the 'Falconer breathing technique'.

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

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.

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

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.

Eggyh73 wrote (see)

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.

Sorry doesnt count then. Just because they ran out too fast so needed to walk towards the end well thats their own fault. They know the distance is 26.2 miles, and they should have prepared for that. In fact if anything your example if a prime case of what Im talking about. Its up to you to pace yourself correctly to finish 'running' a marathon after 26.2 miles ..........not 20 miles and then walking the rest.

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.

AgentGinger wrote (see)

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.

or yes is the actual answer. big surprise there then.

Wilkie wrote (see)

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.

 

Finally a voice of reason appears from the fog.

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

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.

you have to run 51% of the race distance.

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

Max's Mum wrote (see)

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

As soon as you introduce caveats, you end up having to draw lines all over the place as to what qualifies and what doesnt, so sorry, I mean ANY marathon. 

Im doing a marathon in May which has quite a steep hill to climb (the Neolithic one if anyone cares to look on walkrunjog for themselves) and I will say right here and now that if I dont do the whole thing without stopping then I wont say Ive 'run' a marathon, nor will I take any great achievement from it.

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?