London Marathon Good For Age

is it or not???

201 to 220 of 404 messages
29/04/2013 at 18:34
Paul Addicott wrote (see)

@runnerman until after the run they had last years times on display. This us the issue, they can, and will need to change times according to need. However, there was nothing posted on their official website until after the race. The issue for me and many others is we structured our run accordingly... If they gave notice (as with other majors) then at least we would know what to aim for!

Yes but that's GFA for 2013, not 2014. They did remove it eventually. But that is not a god given right to expect the same for next year. I fully understand your frustration, but the sad fact is the organisers went ahead and change this. Life can be a little unfair, but that's life. They are not going to go backwards and make as DF3 would say, a cockup! Or in my words, tits-up! I didn't see many moaning about the organisers moving the start time forward 15 minutes a month before the event this year. Or they bringing in a deadline of 6pm or no medal. Or when they moved the finish in 1994. The fact is its their event, their decision, they went ahead it.

29/04/2013 at 18:34

KK - how did you get on this year?

seren nos yn canu    pirate
29/04/2013 at 18:40

there was a discussion onhere a couple of weeks ago and one of the blokes actually phoned up the VLM offices and asked them if they were changing and he was told they had no plans to change them this year.now he is pised off andf i think he has good cause........they could have said we are looking at it and haven't decided yet...

29/04/2013 at 18:42

Me too! I'm just using them...

Well worth the £15 subs though, and I've probably made that back in post-club-run G&Ts.

Edited: 29/04/2013 at 18:43
29/04/2013 at 18:42

Yes, 3:15:48   

29/04/2013 at 18:45

1:32 

29/04/2013 at 19:01

I know - I need to sort my shorter distances out. It's just so much harder running faster. 

My autumn marathon will be in the North East. 

29/04/2013 at 19:44

I'd run a marathon over a 10k anyday. And over a Pot Noodle come to think of it.

29/04/2013 at 20:35

Minni. Many could run better if they target for it. I ran Brighton then london. I knew I could do this and get 3:10, in London my legs were not fresh and I ran it to do what I needed, I could have run 3:00, but going all out would risk failure, I knew 3:10 was enough, and I wanted to leave more to come for future! For me it's all about the jack of notice!

29/04/2013 at 20:49

 Someone on another thread has started this petition, for those interested:

www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Give_the_London_marathon_good_for_age_times_one_year_grace/?LncFeb&pv=4

29/04/2013 at 22:26

Paul - I understand what you're saying. I know if I was desperate for a gfa I wouldn't hold back to just scrape in but instead run as fast as I could on the day (With the knowledge that no times had been confirmed for 2014). However, can see why some  would take a safer approach to finish just within the time needed to qualify for that year.

Are you a member of a club? Hopefully you might get a club place? I hope you get your sub 3 at another marathon, if not London. 

29/04/2013 at 22:59

I have to say, a sub 3.05 is much harder for men than a sun 3.45 for competant woman club runners.  The womans time should be sub 3.30, and realisticly sub 3.25.  

29/04/2013 at 23:06

Christopher - I agree that the ladies should be a bit tougher but there are much fewer women running the faster times, for whatever reason. My ladies position was 240 ish (can't remember exactly) but what time would that position be for a man - much faster.   So I guess it is fair. 

30/04/2013 at 06:47

Minnie I see what you are saying, but although I have fast half/ 10 k times, prior to this month I had only ever ran one marathon. London 2 years ago in 5:33. To be fair I was wearing a rhino costume and was under prepared. I did not get a place last year and it was too late to get into another, so this year for my second and third marathon I did Brighton and London in consecutive weekends.

achieving 3:08:53 was a big deal for me. I know I have sub 3 there for next year, then who knows, but for now I thought, why push myself to risk injury or failure... All I wanted was to get my place in London, so I prioritised that, and I finished feeling great!

 

i think if the times were sub 3 this year, I would have struggled to reach that, but 3:05 I could have done, genuinely... I know there is nothing I can do, but I feel really let down. I've been telling everyone what I was working towards, then that I achieved it. With a baby on the way in 3 weeks, completing another before July is very unlikely

30/04/2013 at 08:48

Interesting stats...7.7% of male runners aged 18-39 came in sub 3.05 in VLM this year (can't do 18-40 which is the GFA age range, but near as damn it). 10.5% of women aged 18-39 came in under 3.45....so more women are getting the time than men (in percentage terms at least).  I haven't looked at the other age groups to compare but it might be interesting to see if it is similar.

I noticed there was one unlucky man with a 3.05.00 and one woman with a 3.45.00  Hopefully they have the time from another race if they want GFA.

Minni - 240th place overall in the mens would have been 2.42, so a champs place. So does that mean it's actually easier for a man to get a champs place?

30/04/2013 at 09:12

Overall London GFA has always been easier for women and it looks like it still is - particularly at the older end where the differential is an hour!

Not sure what the logic is, but it's their event so the organisers can do what they like I suppose.

Think it would have been more sensible to announce the new GFA standards once GFA entries for VLM2013 closed as this would have avoided the "I've done it - Oh know I haven't" disappointments.

On the positive side my MV56 GFA time is now 5 minutes easier.  I got it last time out, but unfortunately that was more than 2 years ago...

 

30/04/2013 at 09:17
40 minutes wrote (see)

Overall London GFA has always been easier for women and it looks like it still is - particularly at the older end where the differential is an hour!

 

 

 

 

are you saying the over 50s are old 40 mins ? us grannys need all the help we can get 

Edited: 30/04/2013 at 09:18
30/04/2013 at 09:17
Cheerful Dave    pirate
30/04/2013 at 09:34

A bit disingenuous though, that petition: "Thousands of runners have dedicated months and months or their time training to try and run under 3.10 in the marathon, only to now be told that their time no longer qualifies."

Just taking the VLM results, there are 408 18-39 male runners between 3:05:00 and 3:09:59.  Even allowing for runners at other marathons, there are never going to be 'thousands' who no longer qualify.  Thousands may have tried, most didn't make 3:10 let alone 3:05.

Also this: "Not only is the guarantee important for many club runners so that they can represent their clubs in the UK national marathon championship,...." is incorrect.  Only championship entries count towards the club competition.

Misrepresenting the facts simply makes it easier for the organisers to dismiss the petition.

30/04/2013 at 10:09

Morning all, after some help please, I have a 2:59 from autumn last year and now a 2:44 from the weekend. Both GFA, and champs start. However I've never been in a club, will the 2:44 count if I find a club or do you have to run the time as a uka club member Thanks if anyone can help as not really on topic.

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