London Marathon Good For Age

is it or not???

281 to 300 of 410 messages
02/05/2013 at 16:48

There are many people missing the point in this thread... Yes vlm can change the times, but to not give sufficient notice leaving people training and focusing on a set time is disappointing to say the least.

i find it highly amusing the number of people who have said 'you should just run as fast as you can'. That us ridiculous, if running London next year is your goal, then pacing yourself to ensure you achieve this is a sensible tactic.

I ran 03:08:53... I could have run 03:05, but I slowed, enjoyed the atmosphere, ensured I got the advertised gfa (and may i add times were confirmed to me by vlm staff at the expo)

02/05/2013 at 16:51

Yes badly managed but other marathons are available. If he is as good as you say he is then he should make the grade for 2015. 

On the plus side it should mean shorter queues for the toilets for me next yr. 

cougie    pirate
02/05/2013 at 16:52
Its a bugger I'll give you that.

The VLM has finite places though - so they could have given extra notice of the change - but that would mean the GFA slots would be too big ? More people qualifying ? In which case they'd have had to reduce the times to thin this out again. You might still have missed out.

Book another race and try again - just think how sweet it will be to make London eventually.
02/05/2013 at 16:52

I could have run 03:05, in fact I think I could potentially run sub 3 if I ran as fast as I could. But I would be foulish to run faster and risk the gfa (which was my priority). The way I see it, I had more in reserve for another pb next year, and I would fulfil my target... Do for all you nah Sayers, it is perfectly logical to run a structured well paced race to reach your desired targets. Vlm have really not thought through their communication strategy on this one I'm afraid

02/05/2013 at 16:59

Is London marathon actually any good as a runner?

Seems very congested by runners - I did the GNR once and it was a nightmare - it was like the start of most races for about 6 miles, kept having to dodge round people or get slowed up by a wall of runners.

I presume it is at least flat?

 

cougie    pirate
02/05/2013 at 17:01
I think its pretty good. Ok first mile might be a bit congested - but if you're GFA then its a pretty clear run. And there's no hills of note at all.

Much better run than GNR - that's more of a fun run than a PB place.

Paul - at least you got to run this year - a lot of people would kill for your place. This way they're sharing the places out eh ?
02/05/2013 at 17:07

Paul, I actually do agree with you (and said so earlier), but another poster claimed: (1) that his son had trained really hard and only just managed the previous GFA, (2)  if he'd known he'd have trained even harder and got 3:05, and (3) that it would be galling if he managed 3:05 next year and then it changed to 3:00. In that case the only logical solution would be for him to train as hard as he possibly could the next time!

I do however think that VLM could have thought this through better (even just as a business) in order to present this aspect of their product (i.e. GFA entries) in a more positive light. We all know about the charity/celeb aspects of the race, but VLM has the opportunity to also sell itself as being similar to Boston in being something for 'serious' runners to aspire to. That's why it should present its GFA times as targets to aim for, even if that's not the real reason it has them.

SFF, I just ran it as my first marathon and it was ace. And flat.

Edited: 02/05/2013 at 17:07
02/05/2013 at 17:07

But Paul that was the advertised gfa for 2013, not 2014. 

Skinny - it depends on where you start. The faster you are the better start you get. 

02/05/2013 at 17:10

Yeah Cougie - actually I ran it (the GNR) dressed as a banana so my peripheral vision was a bit limited which made a bad situation even worse! Thanks for reply - I will keep it on my list of marathons to possibly do if I ever do one (probably have to do another first to try and get a GFA)

Edited: 02/05/2013 at 17:12
02/05/2013 at 17:34

Through Virgin London Marathon General conditions of entry.

7. CHANGES TO THE EVENT
7.1 We reserve the right to change the course, or make any other amendment to the Event that we deem necessary to stage the Event. Any change to the Event will be communicated to you at the Event or sooner if practicable.

7.2 Should the course distance be reduced in accordance with Condition 7.1 for the avoidance of doubt you agree that the Event is still deemed to be staged and that we will not be liable to you for any refund.

So in a nutshell, they can amend anything of the event at the event or sooner which in their case was Monday April 29th.

03/05/2013 at 18:32
runnerman wrote (see)

Through Virgin London Marathon General conditions of entry.

7. CHANGES TO THE EVENT
7.1 We reserve the right to change the course, or make any other amendment to the Event that we deem necessary to stage the Event. Any change to the Event will be communicated to you at the Event or sooner if practicable.

7.2 Should the course distance be reduced in accordance with Condition 7.1 for the avoidance of doubt you agree that the Event is still deemed to be staged and that we will not be liable to you for any refund.

So in a nutshell, they can amend anything of the event at the event or sooner which in their case was Monday April 29th.

 

runnerman wrote (see)

Through Virgin London Marathon General conditions of entry.

7. CHANGES TO THE EVENT
7.1 We reserve the right to change the course, or make any other amendment to the Event that we deem necessary to stage the Event. Any change to the Event will be communicated to you at the Event or sooner if practicable.

7.2 Should the course distance be reduced in accordance with Condition 7.1 for the avoidance of doubt you agree that the Event is still deemed to be staged and that we will not be liable to you for any refund.

So in a nutshell, they can amend anything of the event at the event or sooner which in their case was Monday April 29th.

runnerman,

I think the issue here is between whats is "legal" and what is "fair" 

Just because someone CAN do something , it dosen't mean it's RIGHT.

No real conflict of intrest as I am luck enough to still have aGFA time. However I feel for those who have lost out. Would even six months notcie really be too much to ask?

 

03/05/2013 at 20:16

I do feel for those who missed out and I would have been devasteted, too. Sometimes if feels this is the only marathon.

However, I had a GFA place ever since 2008 and even though the GFA target was raised in 2010 I always aim to run at least within the old targets. It was always in the cards that they change it again and this time to cut times.

I think runners should understand that these times are not set in stone. It is better to be on the safe side and aim to run it well under the target time, if one is capable of doing so.

 

03/05/2013 at 22:45

Personally, I started with the goal at the beginning of the year to come under the GFA time of 3:10 but training went so well I thought I would have a crack at sub 3.  Heat got to me by mile 16 and slowed up, cramping in the last 1/2 mile to finish in 3:11.  Was a little gutted not to come under 3:10 but always knew there are plenty other marathons so have no regrets at all at my 'shit or bust' strategy.  There is always the option to choose a charity place for 2014 if anyone feels VLM is the only marathon for them.  Otherwise, if you don't get in by ballot, choose another marathon that is flat & fast in 2014 and go for the sub 3:05 time that will get you back in for 2015 (unless VLM reduce the time again!!!!!!!!!!!)

04/05/2013 at 16:38

Ran my first marathon this year and was very pleased with my finishing time of 3.05.35 but a little bit disappointed with the new GFA time. The most annoying thing is that I didn't enter the ballot as I thought my time was good enough until I listened to the Marathon Talk podkast today! Could anyone recommend a nice a flat marathon near london for 2014?

04/05/2013 at 17:02

If it's all just about fairness then stop every one running the VLM next year who has already run it in the past, and make it available only to first timers. That would be fair, wouldn't it?

Or do people only mean fair as in getting what they want?

20/05/2013 at 17:53

Tenjiso is quite right: people say fair when they mean unfair to them. For years the GFA time for 40 to 59 years old has been 3:15 across board which is a 78% WAVA grading for a 59 year old male. Now it is 3:20 which is a mere 76% WAVA grading. If you are a regular runner, say 25 year old male, then 3:05 is 68%. Even for a 40 year old, 3:05 is only 69%.

A 25 year old woman gets in with a GFA of 3:45 which is 56% WAVA.

Yes it is unfair, but it depends how you define unfair. It is not an even field, it is easy for young women, it is hard for old men. Did they promise something and change it? No.

24/05/2013 at 12:26

i ran london in 3.05 and NINE seconds. Do you think they may still let me have a good for age spot - I heard they round up 30 secs?

 

24/05/2013 at 13:06
Where did you hear that?
I heard they were usually pretty strict on it.

Your best bet is to phone them and see.
24/05/2013 at 13:53

Simon, they are strict. Even if you one second outside, you're not in.

24/05/2013 at 16:01
The website says "Sub 3.05" so i`d assume it will be a no.
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