I don't know if anyone was watching Sky News last night but it was about the 7.15 hour mark and they were doing a broadcast from the VLM finish line.
The people drifting through behind the journo were people who had walked the majority of the race. In fact I expect a lot of them would have planned to.
It was very noticeable that there was no elation on their faces, no relief, they were just dog tired and, if anything, fed up.
Now I've never actually seen anyone finishing a marathon after this amount of time but it rather proved to me that walking the whe way definitely isn't the easy option.
What does everyone else think?
unless you have trained to be on your feet that long.its going to be a very long day out and you are going to be in pain....
to be honest there can't be many people who do one without being in pain.
best way is to be trained and fit.....and to do one at a training pace for the fun of it.....or to run with someone slower to help them through their first one.........
all other ways seem to evolve some level of pain........the faster you are the pain will only be with you for a short time.....if you finish in 7 hours the chances are you have had to live with the pain for many hours
the only time ive "walked" that distance is doing the Yorkshire 3peaks challenge, and we finished that in just under 7 hours, the last few miles were misserable to say the least.
When i ran it the following year it was harder physically but mentally it was a lot easier,
Walking for someone who has had a little bit of training would be fine. Walking for someone who has not had any training at all is where the pain element comes in.
This thread only proves my point. Any idiot can complete a marathon, which makes the achievement of covering 26.2 miles in of itself not that impressive, so therefore the only real way you can measure it is by time. You might say that marathons need to be completed in under 4 hours. If that sounds unfair, well tough, marathons arent supposed to be easy.
From my point of view, lets say I do my marathon and I take 5 hours. Fine, but Im not going to make a song and dance about it. Im not going to cross it off some kind of 'bucket list' . I know the time is poor and not good enough so therefore not worthy of being considered any kind of achivement. I don't know why people think simply covering 26.2 miles is somehow this monumental achievement in of itself. Covering it in a quick pace is an achievement.
why pick 4 hrs.any young fit man who puts in effort should be able to go sub 3:30 easily.to be honest 30 yrs ago most clubs would laugh at you if you got over 3 hrs.
so either make it sub 3 hrs or not bother at all.......anything else david is a just varying degrees of crapnes......
covering the distance is an achievement,,,,,,
Let's be honest seren, there are guys running under 11 seconds for 100m at club level. So that's roughly within 15% of the WR. So the equivelent at marathon distance is about 2:22.
Even if you allow and extra few percent given that the marathon takes longer to complete so has more variables, chances for issues etc then its got to be sub 2:30 before it is considered to be running fast!
seren nos wrote (see)
why pick 4 hrs.any young fit man who puts in effort should be able to go sub 3:30 easily.to be honest 30 yrs ago most clubs would laugh at you if you got over 3 hrs. so either make it sub 3 hrs or not bother at all.......anything else david is a just varying degrees of crapnes...... covering the distance is an achievement,,,,,,
I picked 4 hours as a figure from thin air, Im quite happy for it to be 3 hours .... no problem. Make it 2 and a half if you like.
I run a lot and I have completed a few 2hr 1/2 marathons, 10ks etc. Never ran a marathon. I beat my hm PB by 2 mins this year. If I ran a 5 hour marathon I would count that as a major achievment. In my opinion a marathon needs to be ran not walked, not walked at any point. If I walked or stopped even for a minute I would count it as a failure.
According to pace charts I should be able to complete a 4:30 marathon but I think on the day that would be very difficult. Kudos to anyone who completes one....as long as they dont walk or stop!
" In my opinion a marathon needs to be ran not walked, not walked at any point. If I walked or stopped even for a minute I would count it as a failure."
I agree, but it would be hard to imagine running so slow that you continously do it and still take over 5 hours to do it.
Also policing when someone 'walks' is difficult. Using time based based measures, although not perfect is just easier.
Sticking to a plan (whether that plan is to run, run/walk or walk from the start) is easier than being underprepared, and having no choice but to slow down, walk and then finally trudge home.
But then maybe it's easier to suffer 7 or 8 hours of exhaustion than spend 16 - 20 weeks training?
David, you are young and, if you'll forgive me, quite ignorant in some ways. Either that or you suffer from a complete lack of human empathy. Most people could imagine running at that sort of pace even if they don't themselves.
There are, for example, people out there who decide they want to run a marathon at 50 or 60. They may train regularly and diligently but, let's face it, they are going to be pretty slow.
If you can give me a good reason why a person like that (and that's just an example off the top of my head) shouldn't bother running a marathon then I'd like to hear it.
Im talking about running continuously ....... I would doubt someone was so slow that they could run (ie not walk at any point) a marathon in over 5 hours ... and if you had the ability to do that, you would be better off just adopting a run/walk policy and Im sure you could cover the ground much faster.
If I hadn't stopped during my first marathon I'd be dead. Sometimes you have to stop, to cross a road or two perhaps and if the roads aren't closed and there are big bad trucks you do what the marshalls say and stop. Heroics won't unsquash you. That's when I discovered how had it was to get going again 23/4 miles into a marathon. Had to stop and stretch and walk 100 yds just to make the legs start working again. Guess running a sub 4hr marathon just ain't ever going to be good enough for some folk.
There are enough people on here who have walked run to a sub 3 hr marathon and they aren't ashamed of that. Certainly no shame in walking the hills on some of the trail marathons either.
I know that I'm going to walk run Giants Head. I have every intention of still being able to run afterward. Really don't care. It's down to the individual.
"I would doubt someone was so slow that they could run (ie not walk at any point) a marathon in over 5 hours"
Then you are wrong. That's all there is to it.
I have every intention of walking part of my marathon. The point being is that when I get to the finish I won't have a false sense of achievement over what Ive done. I know I'll just need to do better next time, and this is really about doing a 'Mo' (ie testing out the course, learning things for next time lol)
Screamapillar wrote (see)
"I would doubt someone was so slow that they could run (ie not walk at any point) a marathon in over 5 hours" Then you are wrong. That's all there is to it.
I wonder how many people who finished over 5 hours in the London marathon yesterday never stopped once during the race. Not many I'll tell you that much.
"I wonder how many people who finished over 5 hours in the London marathon yesterday never stopped once during the race. Not many I'll tell you that much".
You don't actually know anything of the sort.
Tell me you're not going to turn into one of those people who spouts a load of codswallop and then states "FACT" afterwards?
people do a marathon for themselves..........if they manage a time that they are happy with then its great.
If others are noit happpy with their own time then go out and train harder and wiser and then get a time that you are hapopy with.why on earth do people try and put down other peoples achievements just to feel better about themselves......
and david i know one person at least who didn't walk a single step yesterday that came in at 4:55..so I imagine there are others who could walk over 5 hours.............
but it doesn't really matter as no one on here is going to win the olympics.we all do it for our own reasons and our own satisfaction........
so be happy or not in your own achievements without trying to belittle others.....
walk/ run, stagger or crawl.it doesn't matter.a marathon is about getting form point A to another point B which is 26.2 miles away on your own feet....
So there you are DF3 - Seren has already given you a solid example to counter your idle speculation.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |