should there be a universal time limit for marathons? (Page 10)

I'm not familiar enough to know, but is 17 hours universal, or just for the branded races? Either way, I 'm OK with it more because that's wjhat the race directors deem is appropriate. If some independent RD wants to pay for support and services for a 20-hour cutoff, that would also be OK with me.

Don't hate on Springer.  I've seen some soooper fast marathoners using Springer intervals as a key part of their training.

And I'll be really short with my take on this subject....for a cutoff time, there are only two viewpoints that matter....1) the RD's - they establish a cutoff time for logistics.  Either you finish in that time, or you don't, period. Black and white.  2) The participants' viewpoint.  No matter what the time, if they want to say they ran it, great - they've got the finisher medal just like you.  They're out there, they paid their entry fee, and 3rd party viewpoints just don't matter.  Get over it.

Bottom line:  IMHO, the folks bucking for a cutoff so that the event becomes more 'elite' and the 'marathoner' label means something special are fighting a losing, and pointless, battle. It's a feeble attempt to protect a the 'marathoner' label for their own self-validation, but the barn door is open and the horses all hauled long ago...they're gone....anyone can run a marathon, period.  That's part of the growth of the sport, and it's reality.

But the good news is...If there are enough of folks out there that are looking to maintain an 'elite' label and are willing to plunk down some cash to participate in a an 'elite' event, then a new class of races will emerge that has a 3, or 4 hour cutoff (whatever).  That's the free market at work...But until then, marathons are open to all comers (except Boston) and you sign up for the race knowing you've got the same right to call yourself a finisher as the 2:20 kenyan and the 7:45 walker.  If you don't like that reality, don't sign up.  That simple.

Man, sorry for being caustic, but this one kinda chafes me.  Carry on.

I'm with Rick on this one, no, it doesn't have anything to do with speed, no, I'm not being elitist, and no, I don't think one is better than the other, just different. The verb is used to describe the action you're performing, if you're running then you ran a marathon, if you're walking then you walked it, if you're running with walk breaks then that's exactly what you did. I've completed marathons using all three verbs.

Certainly there's some gray area in there, but IMHO Rick's definition works for me.

I'm with these 2. I never say "I run marathons" I 'do' or 'complete' or 'participate' in them. Although 'participate' leaves open the possibility that you didn't actually finish.

I believe the correct verb for that is "SMOKED"!

Daremo - 2006-11-03 9:12 AM

Comet - 2006-11-03 9:53 AM I'm with these 2. I never say "I run marathons" I 'do' or 'complete' or 'participate' in them. Although 'participate' leaves open the possibility that you didn't actually finish.

So then in my three marathons I've registerd and started I've got a: "participate" "completed" and one "ran" (And a BQ coming in three weeks ........)

Are those bad things? I don't see anything wrong with those verbs.

I know you RUN marathons D. I was referencing people who complete marathons in 6 hours (which I've done once!), shouldn't call it 'running'.

Smoked=BQ, has nothing to do with run, walk, or crawl. And yes, you could BQ by "running with walk breaks," maybe even by walking, but no, neither would be "running" a marathon. Again, see my original comment, the verb has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with the action that gets you there. Not sure why it's "funny" to you, but that's your assessment.

The appropriate answer, of course, would be "I walked/completed XXXXX Marathon."

Boy, I didn't think semantics could get me hopped up on a Friday, but they did. 

Now Hear Ye:   We are forming a committe that will be in charge of verb adherence relating to marathons.  We'll have to wrestle with the tough questions to qualify as a run, including:

• Does it qualify if you stop for a bathroom break?
• What if you 'walk' 20 feet at the start due to the crowds getting across the start line?
• How 'bout stopping to stretch a cramped muscle?
• What if you stretch out a water station walk break 50 yards longer than allowed?
• Why is it OK to walk a brutal hill and still say you ran it?
• Why is it Ok to walk water stations?
• Did the guy that won the Chicago Marathon actually run it?  I saw the film, and he wasn't running the last 10 feet.

Point being...I'm a 4:00 marathoner, and occastionally I'll have to stop or slow down for something - whether it's in my control or not.  And if I ran (or jogged or whatever) for 3:50 of it, and walked 10 minutes, I ran the marathon.  And it's arbitrary, by individual what constitutes a jog, a run, or what the valid exceptions are.  

IMHO, nitpicking the verbs people use to describe their marathon accomplishment, whatever it is, seems pointless. It seems more like a way of creating a 'tiered' structure for marathon finishers using an inconsistent/arbitrary means.  That results in me being fired up toooo early in the morning.

7 pages over the definition of "ran"? How utterly amazing and very Slowtwitch...

Yeah, that too.  Sheesh.

Debate less, train more. 

Be defined by what you 'do', not by what you've 'done'. 

If you bothered to read the thread, you'd see tha only the last half dozen posts were on "the definition of 'ran'"

Man, that is SO deep.

I've been marvelling over how long this thread has gone on for, 8 pages and counting...