should there be a universal time limit for marathons? (Page 5)

Wow, slowtwitch must be down today...

Let me guess, you can run a marathon in less than five hours, and you think the cancer-survior grandmother who can run/walk a marathon in seven hours somehow diminishes your effort (or ego)?

To make you feel better, remember that the popularity of sports go in cycles.  Cycling boom in the 60's; Tennis boom in the 70's, Running boom in the 80's.  Sooner or later the current interest in mass marathons will fade and you and all your elite wannabe buddies will have the marathon to yourself again, no doubt bemoaning the fact that no one pays any attention to your races anymore.

Happy training. 

Mark

That's pretty elitist talk out of someone who does 8:30 miles in sprint tris. Some us us might call that a pretty good jogging pace.

I think the consensus was that the race director and logistical concerns should be the determining factors in establishing cutoff times for specific events.  As I stated a long time ago, I'm perfectly fine with that, especially having volunteered and served on race committees in the past. 

The two problems I have are:

1. When it is suggested that lack of performance is due to lack of effort and/or commitment on the part of an individual.  
2. When arbitrary standards are set to exclude participants (not related to race logistics), allegedly to preserve the "traditions" or integrity of the sport.  That's  just flat out elitist.  IMHO, it's not in the spirit of BT, where participation and commitment have always been encouraged and celebrated, regardless of performance or ability.

This is just a sport, not life.  Our finishing times in races shouldn't define us as persons.   When I'm gone, I want my participation in triathlons to be just a footnote to my life, not the main thing people remember me for.

Mark

I was thinking the same thing with his sub-21mph 6-mile bike leg. Were you Gallowalking the bike? That shouldn't be allowed!

<to be fair, he may have a red bike>

Imagine how slow that pace will be when he's 60.

I absolutely agree with you. 

Mark

If he does then he's definitely walking. Or using your skinny- legs to pedal.

Great line!  LMAO!

Mark

Heh. It never gets old.

totally agree with red corvette on this but just wanted to add a couple of articles which may open up the debate even more...

Still partially paralysed down his left side, he bears not a drop of malice towards Eubank.

"After the fight, the only thoughts that I had were of major disappointment. I so badly wanted the world title," he says.

"I was gutted. I couldn't believe what had happened. But when I met him, I realised he was suffering too.

"He has carried a lot over the years. When I first met him I just felt that I could forgive him and all I felt was love."

To some that is an extraordinary attitude. Yet Watson was no ordinary boxer, no stereotypical street ruffian who took up the sport to keep himself out of trouble.

He was, by his own admission, a shy kid from Hackney who began boxing aged 14 after being beaten up by the local bully.

"When you get into a ring you have to be focused and have to want to win or beat your opponent, but I could never feel animosity as I am a committed Christian and always have been," he says.

"When I was younger and used to train at the gym, I used to hate marking people and drawing blood.

"After the first Eubank fight (which Watson controversially lost on points) I couldn't get Chris out of my mind because I wanted to beat him so badly. But I never hated him and I never will."

For Eubank, a far more intelligent and deep-thinking individual than the monocled clown of popular myth, the Watson fight left him questioning whether he could ever box again.

What brought him back was the realisation that he had done nothing wrong, that had he failed to climb off the canvas when Watson floored him in the 11th round he would have been cheating himself.

When Eubank talks about that fateful 12th round, he talks of being so tired he could barely stand, so battered he could barely think.

Above all he talks of integrity, of having to keep fighting and punching until there was nothing left. To lose without knowing he had given absolutely everything there was to give would have made it impossible for him to live with himself.

Twelve and a half years on, each has made their peace with each other and themselves.

 

and...

Diving suit marathon runner does it again

Lloyd Scott has improved his time

More than five days after the rest of the field and clad in an old fashioned diving suit, Britain's Lloyd Scott has finished the New York marathon.

The former fireman from Rainham in Essex staggered around the course in the 58kg suit in a time of five days and one hour to raise money for cancer charities.

His effort to run "The Slowest New York Marathon" attracted considerable media attention.

Scott has intrigued the US media

Mr Scott caused a similar stir in April when he "ran" the London Marathon in his vintage suit and raised £100,000.

His New York time was a great improvement on the five days, eight and a half hours of his April effort in London, suggesting Mr Scott is getting used to the heavy suit including lead boots weighing 11kg each.

The 40-year-old cancer survivor was also burdened by an 18kg brass helmet that severely restricts his vision.

As well as raising money for leukemia research, Mr Scott has also taken on the cause of the children of firefighters killed in the 11 September attacks.

Taking regular breaks for rehydration, Mr Scott has been able to tackle four and a half miles of the course running through New York's five boroughs each day.

He spent the nights staying in fire stations near the course.

Mr Scott did the London Marathon

"I decided to wear the diving suit because it is quite simply the worst thing that anyone could run a marathon in," Mr Scott told The New York Post.

He said the diving suit was a symbol of his battle with cancer.

"It's a good example of what it's like for cancer and leukemia sufferers because it's slow and painful - but like me they'll win out in the end," he said.

Marathon winner Rodgers Rop of Kenya finished the course in two hours, eight minutes and seven seconds.

 

Of the 19,110 finishers of last year's Marine Corps Marathon, 8,009 people finished in over 5 hours. Of those, 3,582 finished in over 6 hours.

Guess they shouldn't show up this weekend, should they? I probably shouldn't either, cause it's not likely that I'll pull out a sub 5 hour run.

I have no problem with individual races that have time limits or qualifying times to enter.

I do have a problem with the idea that those of us who take more time getting to the finish line shouldn't bother. If someone thinks their marathon experience is somehow diminished because I can say I did it too, just not as fast, they need to take a long hard look at themselves and figure out why they are doing this in the first place.

Actually you are allowed to finish in less than 17 hours.  

Sassy commercial break over...back the original programming.

Your statement is NOT true...IM Switzerland has a 16 hour limit.  I KNEW one of the euro events did....

http://ironman.ch/en/02_wettkampfinfos/03_reglement.htm

For those who don't want to follow the link:

Time Limit for course security

Wow, I'm so sorry I got to this party late.  At least I made it.  Hi gang!

{looking around}

Hey, who's the dude with the attitude?  Is he the guy who wrote that article we went over a month or so ago about marathons?  Because that statement above is almost exactly the same as a statement from that article and I think that is really the heart of the matter. 

Marathoners who finish in ~5 hrs or more don't slow you down if you start where you should.
Marathoners who finish in ~5 hrs or more don't raise the price of your entry fee.
Marathoners who finish in ~5 hrs or more don't mess up your finisher's photo.
Marathoners who finish in ~5 hrs or more don't eat your post race food.
Marathoners who finish in ~5 hrs or more don't steal podium spots from you.

There is only one way in which these MARATHONERS affect a 3 hour marathoner.  When a 3 hour marathoner tells someone that they do marathons they are not seen as quite the exclusive group that they used to be simply because more people are doing them.  They don't usually get the opportunity to say "Yes, but I do marathons in 3 hours" and even if they do the person they are talking to has little idea what that really means.

So if you want to get rid of slower people just to maintain some ego thrill you get, guess what?  It's too late.  We're already here.  And there is WAY more of us than there are of you.  And you're right about one thing.  Cash is king, and as a group we've got it and you don't.  That doesn't bode well for your desire to get rid of us.

If you want people to widen their eyes a little more when you tell them what you do "for fun" then you might find that you have to do something a little more impressive.  What a concept! 

Do you think that Dean K. is diminishing the marathon by running 50 in 50 days?  Doesn't that make running 1 or 2 a year seem paltry in comparison?  I suppose we should make rules against him too.

Did I miss anything?  Is there any other angle about this subject that your opinion could be so radically opposed to the prevailing opinions on BEGINNERTRIATHLETE.COM?  Notice I didn't say your opinion was wrong.  Is there an ELITISTNARROWMINDEDRUNNERWHOWISHESPEOPLE
WOULDBEMOREIMPRESSEDWHENHETELLSTHEMHEHASRUNAMARATHON.COM?

And just to establish my credentials on this subject, I've never run a marathon.  I do however, own several water coolers. 

\III/