should there be a universal time limit for marathons? (Page 6)

Forum guidelines BT super discount
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » should there be a universal time limit for marathons? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 12
 
 
2006-10-26 11:23 PM
in reply to: #576753

User image

Elite
2468
20001001001001002525
Racine, WI
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
Gotta hang with HL on this one.


2006-10-27 8:58 AM
in reply to: #580542

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2006-10-27 11:09 PM
in reply to: #577892

Extreme Veteran
499
100100100100252525
Racine WI
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
duggar1 - 2006-10-24 11:55 PM

OK. Read my lips. The marathon is not your weight loss vehicle. It is not your feel-good ego boost. It is not for people who need something to boast about around the water cooler. The marathon is the symbol of true distance running. And as such those who are not ready to do it right, should gracefully bow out. There are plenty of other ways for you to loose weight, avoid heart attacks, and participate in a similarly long distance running event. Unfortunately the damage is already done. Just read the pathetic whining posts on this thread desperately trying to express some justification for running a marathon at little better than walking speed. Your cries of elitism smack of your own over inflated sense of self-worth as a runner. And the fact that thousands of people finish between 5 and 10 hours helps make the point you miss. Perhaps you think it is your right as a runner to be in a marathon. Well wake up jogger, you have been sold a bill of goods by the race organizers and their charities who see you as dollar signs, and the name recognition of the marathon as your bait. Not to mention the over crowded coaching industry. (Oh, but Jeff Galloway said I could run the marathon if I walk a lot). Madison Avenue has you believing you are a marathoner. You're not. You are someone's income. Period. No, you shouldn't be in a marathon if you can't cut the mustard. Go run a 25K road race instead. So, in summary, when it comes to the marathon... cut 'em off at 5 hours. And no tee shirt either.


Ok Duggar1, I'm game, let's play on with your own rules and see where we get:

1. Ever get a speeding ticket or ticket for an accident? If so, you don't deserve to drive because I've never gotten one and if you can't live up to that arbitrary standard, you shouldn't be allowed to drive on the same road as me, my family or my friends....Guess you can walk (or run) or take the bus from now on.....

2. Your kids ever get below a B in school? I guess its community college for them because they aren't good enough to get into a quality university because major quality universities are full of students who only got A's in high school.

I could go on Duggar1, but I'd really like to read your reply.


2006-10-27 11:54 PM
in reply to: #576753

Veteran
217
100100
Redondo Beach, CA
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
Hey Markkk, my rant was way better than yours. But I sure must have really gotten up into your kitchen. What are you afraid of? That by me expressing my opinion that the marathon (and only the marathon) should be a higher standard, that it actually might become law and marathons will be cut off at 5 hours? (Only in my dreams.) Try a little less coffee and a lot more laxative. Then put on your shoes and go out for a run.
2006-10-28 12:10 AM
in reply to: #577892

Elite
2796
2000500100100252525
Texas
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

duggar1 - 2006-10-24 11:55 PM OK. Read my lips. The marathon is not your weight loss vehicle. It is not your feel-good ego boost. It is not for people who need something to boast about around the water cooler. The marathon is the symbol of true distance running. And as such those who are not ready to do it right, should gracefully bow out. There are plenty of other ways for you to loose weight, avoid heart attacks, and participate in a similarly long distance running event. Unfortunately the damage is already done. Just read the pathetic whining posts on this thread desperately trying to express some justification for running a marathon at little better than walking speed. Your cries of elitism smack of your own over inflated sense of self-worth as a runner. And the fact that thousands of people finish between 5 and 10 hours helps make the point you miss. Perhaps you think it is your right as a runner to be in a marathon. Well wake up jogger, you have been sold a bill of goods by the race organizers and their charities who see you as dollar signs, and the name recognition of the marathon as your bait. Not to mention the over crowded coaching industry. (Oh, but Jeff Galloway said I could run the marathon if I walk a lot). Madison Avenue has you believing you are a marathoner. You're not. You are someone's income. Period. No, you shouldn't be in a marathon if you can't cut the mustard. Go run a 25K road race instead. So, in summary, when it comes to the marathon... cut 'em off at 5 hours. And no tee shirt either.

I'll do my best not to pile on here... I wonder if this opinion is held by any elite marathoners. And I have to ask why you feel that way. Heck I'm faster than you over the sprint distance and I'm a borderline clydesdale who's had seven knee operations. Really.

It seems your point is that the 26.2 mile distance specifically is sacred somehow, and it's been desecrated, commericialized, exploited by people running it slower than 5 hours. Think about it. Seriously. You want to establish turf or pecking orders, get into cage fighting, rugby, etc... That's the good stuff. You will find out very quickly where you stand. That attitude fits there. But not in running for Pete's sake. Little girls run, some faster than both of us. Hamsters run, a lot. It's not an elite "sport" and requires no unique ability. You just go run, and if you want to win you employ strategy to help you do that both in training and on race day. But the bottom line is some people are just  faster, some are slower. Period. IMO.

Now to play devil's advocate, I'll tell you how I can relate to your line of thinking. When I was leaving the army after almost 11 years (specifically the 75th Ranger Regiment) back in 2000 the Army Chief of Staff decided that in order to boost the morale of the army as a whole the Ranger black beret would be issued to every soldier in the army as their uniform headgear. I (along with about 2400 other guys) wated this guy's head on a stick. What kind of j#cka$$ would do something like that? Taking a symbol of one of the most decorated and ELITE fighting units in the history of our military and GIVING it to anyone with a head, basically. I was devastated personally, and pi$$ed, and it helped seal my decision to get out of the army because it was clear that the army's leadership was completely out of touch with what motivated soldier's to fight (CLUE: it's not a $9 piece of wool). Ultimately, with some perspective I realized that symbol was not what made my unit elite. It was the years of living under harsh conditions, our dedication to our mission and to our comrades, and our belief that there was something in our lives far more important than our personal wants and needs that characterized my unit as being elite. Not my hat. I still cringe when I see army recruiter types walking around town with that black beret on. Some days I want to walk up to them and tell them "You know I wore that d@mn beret when it mean't something". But it only takes a second to remember that HIS hat doesn't characterize his service either, and he didn't ask to wear it. I did.

Whatever 26.2 symbolizes to those who are pi$$ed about people running "too slow", what would you tell your kid if they asked you to explain your point of view? I have to check myself from time to time when my daughter asks me to explain my point of view. Does your viewpoint pass that test?

2006-10-28 4:49 AM
in reply to: #581776

Extreme Veteran
392
100100100252525
Northern California
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
Bill - 2006-10-27 10:10 PM

...what would you tell your kid if they asked you to explain your point of view? I have to check myself from time to time when my daughter asks me to explain my point of view. Does your viewpoint pass that test?

 

This is sorta off the subject, but I love this statement, Bill.  I've had the same experience with my daughter.  Well put, about so many things in our lives. 

2006-10-28 8:18 AM
in reply to: #581769

Crystal Lake, IL
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

duggar1 - 2006-10-27 11:54 PM  That by me expressing my opinion that the marathon (and only the marathon) should be a higher standard, that it actually might become law and marathons will be cut off at 5 hours? (Only in my dreams.)

You are entitled to this opinion.  Just as we are entitled to think it sucks.  It's America - check the avatar.

The point is that you have yet to provide a cogent explanation for it.  Here, let me help you. 

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
co?gent  [koh-juhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective

1.convincing or believable by virtue of forcible, clear, or incisive presentation; telling.
2.to the point; relevant; pertinent.

—Related forms
co?gent?ly, adverb
 I've provided reasons why it shouldn't matter to a 3-5 hour marathoner (not sure where you fall in here since I don't think you've ever said) who or how many people finish after them unless they are insecure divas with bruised egos. 
Also, why do you keep telling people to go run?  It's juvenile and makes you sound like a jag. 
Oh, one more question, do people over 16 y.o. really use phrases like "up in your kitchen"?  Ha!  That cracked me up.  How about "I'm rubber and you're glue" or "I know you are but what am I?".  I think that people here might actually engage you in a serious discussion about this subject if you didn't come off like such a jerk in your posts, but then again maybe that's what you are afraid of.


Edited by hangloose 2006-10-28 8:18 AM
2006-10-28 8:30 AM
in reply to: #581776

Veteran
217
100100
Redondo Beach, CA
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
A fine story indeed Bill, well expressed and it makes an excellent point. I wish to take nothing away from that.

Prior to that though, you make several assumptions that are completely unfounded. I never said the 26.2 mile distance is sacred. My contention is that the marathon is an important symbol with a history and traditions. People are drawn to it because of that. The large number of participants in any marathon is the proof that the marathon is something far more than just an athletic contest. Some might say is a metaphor for achievement. But it is the event, not the distance that is my focus. As a matter of fact I even stated on a earlier post that after a certain point you’re not really running a marathon anymore, you’re just dragging yourself down 26.2 miles of road. The term 26.2 miles vs. marathon… yes, a subtle difference in our normal discussions, but highly relevant if one is not to miss the point of my posts on this thread.

Next, I never said the marathon had been desecrated, commercialize nor exploited by people running it slower than 5 hours. I said that race organizers and their charities, as well a highly competitive professional coaching industry have done that. I’ve said that they have done this through the process of using the mystic of the marathon to attract customers (a.k.a. runners) to an event that they are not really ready to participate in (in my rude opinion). My suggestion for those not able to realistically shoot for the hypothetical 5 hour limit, was to keep training until they are ready. In the meantime run in another kind of long distance event, like a 25K road race. The real objection that should be raised here is; should people who are unable to run it in 5 hours regardless of how much they train be excluded from entering a marathon? And if they are allowed to enter, should everyone be cut off at 5 hours, such as older age-group runners and handicapped athletes for example? I don’t believe anyone raised that objection, but it would be food for thought. I guess the best argument, with the more valid reason posted so far, for being lax on time limits is that the marathon has indeed become a great entry point into the great sport of running. Anyway, in the original context of my post(s), it isn’t really a call for creating a dog-eat-dog pecking order, but rather a plea to have a little respect for the ol’ gal.

Your analogy of little girls and hamsters being fellow runners may fit your argument, but that position stems from a false assumption not expressed by my posts. I never said that running is an elite sport but I do consider the marathon to be an elite event. That's how they have been able to pump up the entry numbers into the tens of thousands while increasing the entry fees. We all know that some people are faster and some are slower, but not once did I ask for anyone to not run. Just the opposite. I am not pi$$ed about people running too slow, that’s your assumption. I’m saying one should save the marathon for when you are ready for it, and just say No! to the insincerity of those collecting your ever increasing entry fee. And especially to those who are targeting those couch potatoes as a lucrative market segment to hock their cookie-cutter marathon training plans.

Perhaps some of your wrong turns on this may be due to the general assumption you read in most of the posts here that I am putting my own egotistical marathon runner standards on everyone else. They seem to think that because I call for a 5 hour cut off, and have said that 3 hours is “par” for the course, that these are my achievements and that I distain those of lesser ability than me. This theory and it’s many ham-fisted attempts to attack me as opposed to the actual statements, goes right out the window when I tell you I am not a marathoner. Other people’s slow finishing times do not diminish me in any way. When I responded to Chirunner134’s original question I don’t recall that only marathon runners were qualified to respond. I do not compete in marathons; I compete in triathlons. That’s why I check out BT from time to time.

As was ranted out by someone before, my opinion is not in keeping with the prevailing opinions on BT. How sad. However, I think the real excitement came from the insulting and venomous way in which I responded to those who tried to address my early posts, but couldn’t put out a focused argument, just poorly written accusations based on their own false assumptions. Of course I had to ream them.

You’re faster than me over the sprint distance for a tri? How is that even remotely relevant to this topic? Are the opinions of the fastest athletes the best? Of course not, but you already know that. Anyway, it’s easy to say you’re faster, might even be true. Why don’t you give us a link to the results page of a triathlon you’ve done in the last couple months and I’ll let you know if I can confirm that?
2006-10-28 8:55 AM
in reply to: #581840

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

duggar1 - 2006-10-28 8:30 AM  You’re faster than me over the sprint distance for a tri? How is that even remotely relevant to this topic? Are the opinions of the fastest athletes the best? Of course not, but you already know that. Anyway, it’s easy to say you’re faster, might even be true. Why don’t you give us a link to the results page of a triathlon you’ve done in the last couple months and I’ll let you know if I can confirm that?

You're suggesting a mostly arbitrary cutoff for marathons. It would be easy (based on your race reports) to do the same for triathlons in a way that would exclude you. That's the reason I pointed out your slow times. Not that my opinion is better, just that yours is exclusionary and could be turned around to exclude you. Mark did the same with his driving and school analogies.

Most of my race reports have links to the event websites, which include the results. Out there for the confirming, if you so choose.

2006-10-28 9:43 AM
in reply to: #576753

Champion
6931
5000100050010010010010025
Bellingham, Washington
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

I wonder what all the Kenyans think about this?

 

2006-10-28 9:57 AM
in reply to: #581856

Champion
8936
50002000100050010010010010025
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

I'd imagine that they don't care in the slightest.  It doesn't affect them one way or the other.  Much the same way it shouldn't affect a 3 hour marathoner.

BellinghamSpence - 2006-10-28 9:43 AM

I wonder what all the Kenyans think about this?

 

2006-10-28 12:42 PM
in reply to: #576753

Champion
6999
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
I did not realise this would be such a big Topic. hehe Wow I am the king of the world. ok maybe not.

Marathon is my favorite distance. I just love it.

well for those of you who have no cut off requirements I seriously thinking about start what I think would be teh world largest marathon. Well that is the goal. Have it in NY city. Run loops around central park. Race starts Friday at 8:00 am and ends at 11:59 Sunday night. you get your miles in and you get a finishers medal. limit to people on the course at a time to maybe 5000 or something. so you can come in friday afternoon do like 9 miles then maybe come back at saturday only do like 9 and then Sunday 9 miles and bam you become a marathoner.

I think there is a nice middle ground. MY goal for next marathon is going to be about 5:30. I think I can do it if I really train for it but at 5:00 I do not know if I can every make atleast for many years.


2006-10-28 2:59 PM
in reply to: #581903

Elite
3650
200010005001002525
Laurium, MI
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

i really sit on the fence with this issue.  One side of me says that finishing the 26.2 mile distance is a huge accomplishment and if you can do it, then more power to you.  The other side says that a marathon is a race to run 26.2 miles and walking that distance over 14 hours is not running a marathon.  It's simply walking 26.2 miles.  Frankly if I wanted to go out and walk 26.2 miles, I could think of some more scenic places to do it then 90% of marathon courses out there.  I think there are way too many people doing "marathons" just for the ability to claim that they did one.  Losing weight and adopting a healthy lifestyle doesn't seem to have enough bragging rights, so lets add a marathon to the end of it.  Isn't that being elitist too?

The point that rings strong with me is that if you aren't ready to run a marathon, then accept that you aren't and train harder.  Don't just show up anyway and take 14 hours to walk it.  I think everyone has the potential to run (not walk) a marathon, but they need to accept that not every one can get it done by the fall while the idea tickles their fancy.

2006-10-28 6:12 PM
in reply to: #577792

Champion
5495
5000100100100100252525
Whizzzzzlandia
Silver member
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

I'm reading through all of this mindless drivel about how long it should take to finish a marathon... does it count, doesn't it count... etc etc... and I get to this

 If you really want to respect the traditions of THE marathon, then what about dropping dead like Phidippides after you finish? 

And I bust out laughing! That's just hilarious and RIGHT on point. Relax people!

Whizzzzzzzzzzzz

2006-10-28 6:17 PM
in reply to: #576753

Champion
8936
50002000100050010010010010025
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

My question is about who sets this arbitrary cutoff.  If it's you, it's anybody a certain length of time slower than you.  If it's the top guys, maybe it's you they want to cut off.

Get over yourselves, people.

2006-10-28 6:48 PM
in reply to: #581769

Extreme Veteran
499
100100100100252525
Racine WI
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
duggar1 - 2006-10-27 11:54 PM

Hey Markkk, my rant was way better than yours. But I sure must have really gotten up into your kitchen. What are you afraid of? That by me expressing my opinion that the marathon (and only the marathon) should be a higher standard, that it actually might become law and marathons will be cut off at 5 hours? (Only in my dreams.) Try a little less coffee and a lot more laxative. Then put on your shoes and go out for a run.


First off, lets stop with the "my Dad can beat up your Dad" attitude and the personal attacks against those who dare disagree with you and want to engage you in an adult conversation. Personal attacks really aren't appreciated or accepted on this website and they do absolutely nothing to bolster or enhance your arguement.

But now the real point of this post, and I will try again with another angle. So why make the cutoff 5 hours? Why not 4, why not 6, why not 8? I think some of us are missing your reasoning for that specific cutoff. Does it equate to a certain pace that you think is only acceptable to complete the marathon? Or do you think that people who have taken longer than 5 hours haven't run the whole thing and spent part of the time walking and therefore shouldn't consider themselves as marathon runners/finishers. You might get a little less grief if you can justify the arguement for a five hour cutoff (I don't remember seeing it in any of your prior posts). Why do you want to exclude such a large number of people from achieving this accomplishment no matter what their finishing time? So what if someone runs the entire 26.2 miles at a 11:30 pace (a little over 5 hours if my math is right), how is that taking away from the intergrity of the marathon or the accomplishments of those who finish in front of that person? Are you saying that people who cant complete it in 5 hours aren't in good enough shape and therefore are risking their health by running it or are you just saying that the "marathon accomplishment" has just become too watered down because so many people are attempting it? Again, just trying to get an idea of why you say "5 hours".



2006-10-28 8:56 PM
in reply to: #581840

Elite
2796
2000500100100252525
Texas
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

duggar1 - 2006-10-28 8:30 AM You’re faster than me over the sprint distance for a tri? How is that even remotely relevant to this topic? Are the opinions of the fastest athletes the best? Of course not, but you already know that. Anyway, it’s easy to say you’re faster, might even be true. Why don’t you give us a link to the results page of a triathlon you’ve done in the last couple months and I’ll let you know if I can confirm that?

As to all you had to say, fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion and I don't agree. No problem.

Heh, wow. Okay. You're right, it's probably not relevant. Seems more an illustration of who's "less slow" than who's faster, but since you brought it up:

(Edited to remove actual results... you asked for a link, not a display the actual times.) Here's a link if you really need it. Austin Cactus Challenge Sprint.

http://www.3disciplines.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=59&Itemid=36

 



Edited by Bill 2006-10-28 9:22 PM
2006-10-28 9:12 PM
in reply to: #576753

Champion
6999
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
Well My last marathon proved 1 thing to me. no more 6+ hour marathons for me unless I am on vaction and plan on trying to party that night.

I can run a 5:57:32 marathon I am sure when I drop like 90 lbs that should not be a problem.

Does anyone like my 8 hour idea? yes maybe it seems silly because its a long time but frankly it gives even people who want to walk regularly a chance to finish pretty much any marathon. I know alot of races like Chicago would always be less, but I like that as a maxium time.

I can understand the 5 hour marathon people's point. I totally respect it. Honest alot of people including myself would probably be alot better off doing more half marathons that tackling the marathon but hey I like the whole. . I am jsut crazy that way.

2006-10-29 8:10 AM
in reply to: #582050

Veteran
217
100100
Redondo Beach, CA
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
Bill - 2006-10-28 6:56 PM

duggar1 - 2006-10-28 8:30 AM You’re faster than me over the sprint distance for a tri? How is that even remotely relevant to this topic? Are the opinions of the fastest athletes the best? Of course not, but you already know that. Anyway, it’s easy to say you’re faster, might even be true. Why don’t you give us a link to the results page of a triathlon you’ve done in the last couple months and I’ll let you know if I can confirm that?

As to all you had to say, fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion and I don't agree. No problem.

Heh, wow. Okay. You're right, it's probably not relevant. Seems more an illustration of who's "less slow" than who's faster, but since you brought it up:

(Edited to remove actual results... you asked for a link, not a display the actual times.) Here's a link if you really need it. Austin Cactus Challenge Sprint.

http://www.3disciplines.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=59&Itemid=36

 




Bill, I’m glad at least someone is allowing me an opinion. Thank you. As to who’s less slow, it is hard to compare triathlons, especially in different parts of the country and with their different distances, terrain, etc. It’s also especially hard to compare a lake swim to an ocean swim, not to mention that the swim time usually includes a considerable run from water’s edge to T1, so it’s almost impossible to tell how fast a swim split really is. I hadn’t really considered that when I asked you to put some facts behind your claim that you’re faster than me over the sprint distance. But as it turns out you’re not. That is the correct Bill from Beaumont, TX I saw in the 35-39 age group results isn’t it? All my splits at the Hermosa Day at the Beach Triathlon http://www.mesp.com/datb/results.htm a couple weeks ago were faster than yours at the Austin Cactus Challenge Sprint, pace wise. But then so was my pace in the Los Angeles Triathlon Olympic distance tri http://www.y-events.com/06laoly.htm last month, and that had over 3 times the swim distance, over 2 ½ times the bike distance and twice the run distance. Look them up if you want, I’m the Doug in the 50-54 age group. Bill, I’m not pointing this out to diminish your fine performance in any way, nor to claim that I am better than you, but only to close out the topic you broached.
2006-10-29 8:13 AM
in reply to: #582006

Veteran
217
100100
Redondo Beach, CA
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
MarkK - 2006-10-28 4:48 PM

duggar1 - 2006-10-27 11:54 PM

Hey Markkk, my rant was way better than yours. But I sure must have really gotten up into your kitchen. What are you afraid of? That by me expressing my opinion that the marathon (and only the marathon) should be a higher standard, that it actually might become law and marathons will be cut off at 5 hours? (Only in my dreams.) Try a little less coffee and a lot more laxative. Then put on your shoes and go out for a run.


First off, lets stop with the "my Dad can beat up your Dad" attitude and the personal attacks against those who dare disagree with you and want to engage you in an adult conversation. Personal attacks really aren't appreciated or accepted on this website and they do absolutely nothing to bolster or enhance your arguement.

But now the real point of this post, and I will try again with another angle. So why make the cutoff 5 hours? Why not 4, why not 6, why not 8? I think some of us are missing your reasoning for that specific cutoff. Does it equate to a certain pace that you think is only acceptable to complete the marathon? Or do you think that people who have taken longer than 5 hours haven't run the whole thing and spent part of the time walking and therefore shouldn't consider themselves as marathon runners/finishers. You might get a little less grief if you can justify the arguement for a five hour cutoff (I don't remember seeing it in any of your prior posts). Why do you want to exclude such a large number of people from achieving this accomplishment no matter what their finishing time? So what if someone runs the entire 26.2 miles at a 11:30 pace (a little over 5 hours if my math is right), how is that taking away from the intergrity of the marathon or the accomplishments of those who finish in front of that person? Are you saying that people who cant complete it in 5 hours aren't in good enough shape and therefore are risking their health by running it or are you just saying that the "marathon accomplishment" has just become too watered down because so many people are attempting it? Again, just trying to get an idea of why you say "5 hours".



Mark, if you wanted to engage me in adult conversation why didn’t you just say so to begin with? After all, how could I possible take you seriously when you come up with such far-fetched analogies in response to my repeated explanation that the hypothetical 5 hour limit is to the marathon, period. Not any other race or event. Certainly not to traffic laws and college entrance requirements (by the way, you’re dead wrong about that A student/major quality university claim). I must have failed to impress upon you that my premise is that the marathon is a different beast, whether others are willing to admit it or not. And as arbitrary as it is, the cut ‘em off at 5 hours limit is one possible way to let people know that they should not take this particular event lightly as it deserves the respect of the running community (please re-read my previous posts for the background on this and spare me the need to type it out once again).

Now, as to your question, why 5 hours and not 4, 6 or 8? My original thinking was that 5 hours is pretty slow for a runner (my opinion), plus it’s an awful long time to be running. This tells me that if you can actually run for 6 or even 7 hours, in most cases there is nothing wrong with your legs, lungs, heart and other body parts involved. Perhaps the reason such a person isn’t running faster is that they are only motivated to finish. But the marathon deserves more than such minimal effort (my opinion explained in my previous posts). How many thousands would successfully set their goal to break 5 hours if they had to, if they wanted to be able to finish their race? I think this would be a positive development for people who aspire to run the marathon and for the marathon itself.

But why not 6 hours? Well, OK, if it makes you happy, cut ‘em off at 6 hours. Yes Mark, I think the “marathon accomplishment” has been watered down because so many people run it (or run/walk it) so slowly (my opinion). But seriously, I think 5 hours sets the bar pretty low as is (my opinion). And I appreciate that you don’t agree with that (your opinion). But think about it. Tens of thousands will still be entering these events, and those not ready for them will ideally continue to work on their goals.

But this talk of specific limits is unrealistic. It is never going to happen. For one, as I’ve said before, there’s too much money to be made with the status quo. What race director is going to make a change that reduces their revenue? Also stated in my other posts is that specific limits may well be too simplistic a solution. Do we really want to eliminate those who will never be able to run a 5 hour marathon no matter how much they train, such as older age-group runners and the handicapped? Does it need to get so complicated as to giving them their own separate race? Even though there are triathlons just for women, should there be marathons just for the over-5-hour-crowd? Do we just give them a head start? Or a time advantage like women runners get in some marathons when competing against men for prize money? The more you try to think of how it would work the more you realize it’s not going to. Although I have no problem booting out poorly trained runners, I would have a real problem booting out people who are trained as well as they will ever be. Rather, it’s my hope that people that know they have no chance to run a 5 hour marathon will opt not to enter the race on their own, and focus on other long distance races until their training is going well enough to meet that standard.

I was a little surprised that you wondered if I thought runners unprepared to complete the marathon in 5 hours were risking their health. Not necessarily. However, 2 people did die while running the Los Angeles Marathon last year. Were they 5 hours marathoners? I don’t recall. But this does serve as one more reminder that the marathon is no walk in the park, and perhaps this is after all a very good reason to be fully prepared, whether there is a time limit or not.
2006-10-29 8:28 AM
in reply to: #581849

Veteran
217
100100
Redondo Beach, CA
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
the bear - 2006-10-28 6:55 AM

duggar1 - 2006-10-28 8:30 AM  You’re faster than me over the sprint distance for a tri? How is that even remotely relevant to this topic? Are the opinions of the fastest athletes the best? Of course not, but you already know that. Anyway, it’s easy to say you’re faster, might even be true. Why don’t you give us a link to the results page of a triathlon you’ve done in the last couple months and I’ll let you know if I can confirm that?

You're suggesting a mostly arbitrary cutoff for marathons. It would be easy (based on your race reports) to do the same for triathlons in a way that would exclude you. That's the reason I pointed out your slow times. Not that my opinion is better, just that yours is exclusionary and could be turned around to exclude you. Mark did the same with his driving and school analogies.

Most of my race reports have links to the event websites, which include the results. Out there for the confirming, if you so choose.



Bear, yes it is mostly an arbitrary cut off. But hopefully by now you have been able to learn why I suggest a cut off and why I think 5 hours is a good bench mark. And that all this is my opinion. Perhaps you have even learned why I think the marathon should be held to a higher standard than all other races. I hope that I have been able to get across to you that my theory that such a limit on finishers applies only to the marathon, and not to any other running event, any other endurance event, any other athletic event, or even any competition whether it be from a starting line to a finish line, or from a high school to a major quality university. Yes, you could take what I’ve said about marathons and create analogies to one of my sports, such as triathlon, and try to make me feel the pain of exclusion that I suggest others should feel. But by doing so you stray from the point I’m trying to make. And that is, once again, that the marathon is different than everything else, deserving a different level of respect (my opinion). In the context of my posts and the question posed by Chirunner134 (who is easily the most polite person in this thread), all other analogies are irrelevant. That being said, I understand your point, but no one is saying these people should stop running, or stop run-walking, or stop participation in long distance events. But I’m saying that they should save the marathon for when they are really ready (my opinion again).

I was also hoping to tell you that my red bike is faster than your red bike, but after looking at your race reports, I see that your red bike has served you well. Perhaps you should get a red Speedo too. Even better, might I suggest Terry Laughlin’s Freestyle Made Easy DVD?


2006-10-29 8:45 AM
in reply to: #582154

Expert
994
500100100100100252525
Dallas, TX
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
duggar1 - 2006-10-29 8:10 AM
All my splits at the Hermosa Day at the Beach Triathlon http://www.mesp.com/datb/results.htm a couple weeks ago were faster than yours at the Austin Cactus Challenge Sprint, pace wise. But then so was my pace in the Los Angeles Triathlon Olympic distance tri http://www.y-events.com/06laoly.htm last month, and that had over 3 times the swim distance, over 2 ½ times the bike distance and twice the run distance. Look them up if you want, I’m the Doug in the 50-54 age group. Bill, I’m not pointing this out to diminish your fine performance in any way, nor to claim that I am better than you, but only to close out the topic you broached.




You know what? I'm even faster than you in an Olympic distance. The point is, there is always going to be someone faster than you, and getting in a giant p1ssing contest about it is pointless

Edited by sebjamesm 2006-10-29 8:45 AM
2006-10-29 7:26 PM
in reply to: #582156

Extreme Veteran
499
100100100100252525
Racine WI
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
I guess we are going to just agree to disagree on this issue.

The analogies from my previous post where designed soley to apply an arbitrary limiting factor to an everday event that could possibly negatively impact you. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you agree that an arbitrary and unrealistic restriction on your driving abilities would negatively impact you? In my opinion, a time restriction on a marathon completion (other than one established by an RD for safety reasons or community considerations) is an arbitrary restriction that does nothing other than negatively impact people who desire nothing more than to participate in a marathon.

Your five hour cutoff has continued to be an arbitrary number. You have provided no factual data which would convince me that a five hour cutoff would establish a bar that ensures that participants who are participating are motivated to finish with more than "minimal effort" (your words not mine). There are an enormous numbers of people who participate in marathons who are giving the event the full effort that they are able to and that is "respectful" of the event whether they finish in 3 hours or 6 hours. Whether they are limited by their training opportunities, by their genetics or by their lack of experience in a race of that distance, a finish in excess of 5 hours in no way dimishes their accomplishment or the marathon as an event.

In one of your prior posts you stated "Par for a marathon is 3 hours, so 5 allows for an awful lot of duffers. After that... cut 'em off" and when asked why 3 hours is par your reply was a "It just is. Trust me on this. Now put your shoes on and go out for a run" Where did you come up with this statistic? According to Marathonguide.com, the avg finishing time for a marathon in 2005 was 4hrs 45mins.
Here's the link: http://www.marathonguide.com/features/Articles/2005RecapOverview.cf...

According to the same article, approximately 30% of the 2005 marathon finishers took over 5 hours to complete the event. Your comment that "the cut ‘em off at 5 hours limit is one possible way to let people know that they should not take this particular event lightly" is at best an inconsiderate remark. How would cutting out such a significant number of participatnts could be considered a "positive developement" (again, your words not mine) for the marathon? Who are you to state that people who take longer than five hours are taking the event lightly or "only motivated to finish"? I am sure that there are plenty of people on this website alone who would disagree with you.

You stated "it’s my hope that people that know they have no chance to run a 5 hour marathon will opt not to enter the race on their own, and focus on other long distance races until their training is going well enough to meet that standard." What better training technique exists towards meeting a well ran marathon other than a proper training plan and experience in running the marathon. I just ran my first one in Chicago. I did ok, but I learned a lot of lessons that I hope will help me run faster in my future marathons. Why should anyone be excluded from running a marathon and being able to gain the experience which will eventually benefit them and help them get faster?






Edited by MarkK 2006-10-29 7:27 PM
2006-10-29 8:22 PM
in reply to: #582447

Champion
6999
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
Mark. Thanks for the page. Wow it was great. Very intersting. cool I ran number 2 and number 8 marathons last year. I am ofiicially cooler than everyone here. . jk.

Interesting the section on over 7 hours. Honolulu and LA have over half of those finishers.

over 7 hours 14,663 out of 382,000 or 3.8%. Now that is counting marathons on marathon guide. There is a really nice one I do which is not on the guide at all. No fans but all on trails only 1 street crossing so really your free to do your think. That race this year had no runners over 6 hours. I know I was DFL that race. my first one. It is more for the hardcore marathoners since like I said you want fans you have to bring your own. otherwise only people chearing you on are the other runners. It only has 74 runners so frankly small marathons like that really do not effect the avg anyway.

if 3 hours is par then why did only 1.6% make it in that time?

7 hours is sounding better and better for a top maybe 8 but really 7 sounds good. Its a nice middle ground between 5 hours and infinitey. Honestly a race is a race. There are plenty of century bike rides people do for fun and those in thoery may take as much effort as a marathon. Maybe I am wrong and if I am let me know. They do not get metals or have the same prestiage that marathon have though.

Honestly though pike peak or the death march though can understand 7+ hours as well as races over 80 degrees but really no reason for people to take longer than that. If I came out with the Iron tri which is same as distance as the iron man but had 34 hour finish would it upset you as an IM finisher. even at 34 hours those 140.6 miles are hard but there is a difference ebtween a 17 hour finisher and 34 hour finish. people who do 10 - 14 hour marathons are about the same as 34 hour finisher. distance is tough but the it would still be alot easier to do.



2006-10-30 1:06 PM
in reply to: #582154

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
duggar1 - 2006-10-29 8:10 AM
As to who’s less slow, it is hard to compare triathlons, especially in different parts of the country and with their different distances, terrain, etc.


Forgive my newbie innocence, but why wouldn't this be true of Marathons, to a degree, also? Different weather, altitude, hills, crowds, road conditions, etc. Someone who runs a 3:30:00 in Chicago isn't necessarily going to run 3:30:00 in New York, San Francisco, Moscow, etc, right? Or more to the point, someone who runs a 4:50 in one race might easily fall to 5+ in another, given the conditions. So, all the more reason that this 5hr thing becomes arbitrary. And if the "universal time limit" isn't based on something other than an arbitrary figure, then it isn't really "universal", is it?

this isn't about "respecting the Marathon", anyway. That's just smoke. This is about personal glory and ego, and nothing more, and to pretend otherwise is silly. And, what's funny is, it's not even about earning the respect of other marathoners (who obviously understand the difference betweeen a 3-hr finish and a 9-hr finish.) It's about earning the adulation of people who know nothing about the sport. And why care about that anyway, really? If I tell a person who knows nothing about golf that I shot 10-under par at Augusta, and they have no idea what that means, does that diminish the accomplishment? It wouldn't to me. And it wouldn't to the millions of people around the world who know what that means.
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » should there be a universal time limit for marathons? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 12