General Discussion Triathlon Talk » should there be a universal time limit for marathons? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 12
 
 
2006-10-24 9:55 AM

User image

Champion
6992
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
IM give you 17 hours no more no less.

should there is a maxium time limit for marathons and if so what should it be?

Honaloolou (sorry about the miss spelling) had 1/3 or about 7000 of its runners finishing after 6 1/2 hours 2000 after 8 hours about 300 after 10 hours and 10 after 14 hours.
Cleveland had 74 people they were calling finishers given 11 weeks. ok that was a JR high get get active program but telling them there all marathoners now since they did avg 2 miles a week is also kinda silly. Under that plan my mom who barely walks would be a marathoner. Chicago had a better one though. take intercity teens and have adults train them and run with them during the marathon. I can respect that alot since well you are changing someone's life and really making an impact.


Its great to see people go out there and do these things but where do we draw the line if we bother to draw it and should we bother?


2006-10-24 9:57 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image

Queen BTich
12411
500050002000100100100100
,
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

No.

Let each race director and city determine how long they want to keep the course open. Its all about money. The shorter time limit, the less people who can enter, less money for the race and city.

2006-10-24 10:03 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
Agree with Comet. Should there be a limit? Probably. I don't know about a universal one, though.
2006-10-24 10:06 AM
in reply to: #576761

User image

Elite
2421
2000100100100100
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

As well as size, certain conditions/climates will drastically affect the overall average finish time.  If the RD wants the crew to stay out there until midnight, power to them.  If they close the course after 8 hours, that's reasonable too.

bts

2006-10-24 10:13 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image

Extreme Veteran
694
500100252525
New Haven, CT
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
An RD can set any cut-off time they darn well please, as long as it's advertised. I think that even five hours is reasonable if they want it to be a marathon for faster runners.
2006-10-24 10:18 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image

Champion
6992
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
I guess it also ask the question races with time limites just how strict should they be? one race I run in march very popular has a 2:55 time limit. one of my club members do it every year in 3:25. they wait for her and keep the line up but is it fair to keep it open that late?

I agree some races benefit alot from keeping the course open alot longer. Frankly marathoning would be dead if everyoine had to run a sub 4 hour marathon. maybe not dead but it would not be what it is today that is for sure. being open longer really does help people get more active. It did for me. I like it in nice and long. I would never gotten into running if all there were was 5k and 10ks. Those do not appeal to me at all.

I do think weather and terrain as alot to do with it. frankly if its a really hot day like in des moine last year, which was my slowest marathon, I really could not go any faster and would been hoisitlized I bet if I tried. 86 degrees and only power aid at every other station is just not a good combination.

Cooling running had an interesting report about cals consumed during a martathon and they figure on those boards that 8:00 min miler and 12:00 min miler at the same weight in theory only burnt 300 cals more over 26.2 miles. I guess to me its more about keeping moving then a casual hike. if you stop rest for a couple hours eat lunch then go back out there I guess it feels to me to defeat the purpose but if you walk 26.2 miles straight and takes you 14 hours and that is the best you can do then I say good job.

I guess its more about effort one puts into it then the time for me.


2006-10-24 10:26 AM
in reply to: #576802

User image

Champion
7036
5000200025
Sarasota, FL
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

chirunner134 - 2006-10-24 11:18 AM  one race I run in march very popular has a 2:55 time limit.

A 2:55 cut off time for a marathon?  That's way under the Boston qualifying times for most age groups.  Seems a bit severe.  What race is that?

Mark

2006-10-24 10:29 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
I've done several races with cut-off times. And they are pretty strict about them. They have to be, because of logistics purposes: they're trail runs, and the medical support and the permits for the park run out at a certain time. Plus, they have to remove the course markers.
2006-10-24 10:30 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image

Champion
6992
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
sorry. 2:55 was for a half marathon In Cary IL. very popular race since well its the real first race of the running season. I think 1 year there was 1 foot of snow on the ground during the race.


I know boston used to have like a 3:30 time limit but now its 6:00 I think. If I ever BQ I am doing it in 6:00 I think only because I do not want to get injuried. It would definetly be a marathon to finish for me. If I could BQ my views on it might change also.
2006-10-24 10:31 AM
in reply to: #576817

User image

Queen BTich
12411
500050002000100100100100
,
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
RedCorvette - 2006-10-24 10:26 AM

chirunner134 - 2006-10-24 11:18 AM  one race I run in march very popular has a 2:55 time limit.

A 2:55 cut off time for a marathon?  That's way under the Boston qualifying times for most age groups.  Seems a bit severe.  What race is that?

Mark

He didn't say marathon. He said race. Big difference and unless he says its a marathon, I'm not assuming so.

ok, we were typing at the same time. Nevermind!



Edited by Comet 2006-10-24 10:34 AM
2006-10-24 10:33 AM
in reply to: #576802

User image

Queen BTich
12411
500050002000100100100100
,
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

chirunner134 - 2006-10-24 10:18 AM
I guess it also ask the question races with time limites just how strict should they be? .

I don't really understand the point of all this, but if this is your question then its an easy answer:

A cut off is a cut off. Plain and simple. Now, if you're close to the finish they might not make you get into a support vehicle to get to the finish area, but if you're not close then they will pick you up. There are reasons for a cut off, and others already listed them.



2006-10-24 10:36 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image

Elite
2661
20005001002525
DC Metro, slowly working my way to NC
Bronze member
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

I don't see a reason for a universal time limit for marathons. I think IM's are a bit of a anomaly among races as far as the time limit goes.

Most of the time limits that are in place are based on how long roads can be kept closed in the city hosting the race. If you've got a city that is willing to keep those roads closed longer, I see no reason why you shouldn't have a longer time limit. If an RD wants it to be a "fast" race, they can certainly set shorter limits and qualifying times if they want. Personally, I like the idea of longer time limits as it brings more people into the sport.

I don't mind time limits, I just want to know what they are before I register!

2006-10-24 10:42 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image

Master
3019
20001000
West Jordan, UT
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

well considering most people can walk 3mph, how about 9 hours? 

 

 

2006-10-24 10:48 AM
in reply to: #576837

User image

Champion
6992
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
BodyCheck - 2006-10-24 10:36 AM

>p>I don't mind time limits, I just want to know what they are before I register!



I agree. I was told 2 hours before streets were to open as far as I knew that I had to get off the road in chicago because the streets were about to open.

Top half of the marathon maybe closed for a long time after I go through and yet at the same pace the bottom half is trying open it up before I finish and I finish within 10 mins of when streets were to open up. I understand losing water stations and such things since they need to be packed up and cleaned up. when I get to a water station is cleaned up more almost clened up I make sure I through my cup in the garbage or aleast in a big pile of other cups. Its only a respectable thing to do. i

it was something the IM at 17 hour thread made me think about and that is why I am curious. If you do a IM after 17 hours your not an IM should there be one for a marathon as well?

were does a finishing time go from acceptable to just plan ridicous or is there not a point? Can you do a marathon over 22 hours and still be considered a marathoner?

Edited by chirunner134 2006-10-24 10:51 AM
2006-10-24 10:49 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image


8763
5000200010005001001002525
Boulder, Colorado
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

chirunner134 - 2006-10-24 7:55 AM IM give you 17 hours no more no less. should there is a maxium time limit for marathons and if so what should it be? Honaloolou (sorry about the miss spelling) had 1/3 or about 7000 of its runners finishing after 6 1/2 hours 2000 after 8 hours about 300 after 10 hours and 10 after 14 hours. Cleveland had 74 people they were calling finishers given 11 weeks. ok that was a JR high get get active program but telling them there all marathoners now since they did avg 2 miles a week is also kinda silly. Under that plan my mom who barely walks would be a marathoner. Chicago had a better one though. take intercity teens and have adults train them and run with them during the marathon. I can respect that alot since well you are changing someone's life and really making an impact. Its great to see people go out there and do these things but where do we draw the line if we bother to draw it and should we bother?

Good question. Back in the day the Boston Qualifying time was 2:50. Also, back then our Olympic Standard was 2:17 - which means if you didn't run under 2:50, male or female, you couldn't run Boston and if you couldn't run under 2:17 (for Males) you couldn't go to Olympic Trials. In 1984 with these standards in place, we had 300+ men qualify for the Olympic Marathon. Today the standard is a weak 2:22, and we had about 20+ athletes qualify for the Olympics. Why is is that we lowered the standard and less people qualified? There are many theories to why this is.

To answer your question, let me ask this question. At what point is it no longer considered, 'running a marathon'? Is it 5 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours?

My personal opinion is that IF there were a stricter cut-off, fitness levels would go up, and we'd be a healthier country. That's a totally different soapbox and I am not about to get on it in this forum. I think if IM raised the standard to 14:00 you'd have faster times as well, and that has been talked about too.

I think anyone completing a marathon or an Ironman has accomplished quite a bit, as you don't know their background or where they started from. I do think raising the bar will help us get out from the obseity dilemna we are in now however.

2006-10-24 10:52 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image

Champion
8766
5000200010005001001002525
Evergreen, Colorado
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

I seem to recall that one of the euro-IM's had a different cutoff than the 17.  I'm sure the "universal 17" is just because the same "company" (yes, I realize IMNA are run by a different group than euro-IM's...I am merely referring to M-dot really) run them all.

Marathons are run by so many different groups that they can do whatever they want.  I know IM's have different courses too, but marathon courses can REALLY vary.  The Leadville Marathon STARTS at 10,000 feet and climbs up...steeply!  My sister runs 2 hours slower on that than her average marathon.  That can't have the same cutoff as say, Chicago, ya know?



2006-10-24 10:55 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image

Queen BTich
12411
500050002000100100100100
,
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

Very interesting ideas Mike. I like those ideas and think people would work harder to meet those cut off times. Some couch potatoes would be put off by them, but then you can argue how motivated were they in the first place. Very interesting thoughts, but you're right, this isn't the area for it to be discussed.

2006-10-24 10:55 AM
in reply to: #576793

User image


8763
5000200010005001001002525
Boulder, Colorado
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

summer_2005 - 2006-10-24 8:13 AM An RD can set any cut-off time they darn well please, as long as it's advertised. I think that even five hours is reasonable if they want it to be a marathon for faster runners.

"five hours is reasonable if they want it to be a marathon for faster runners"

I don't think five hours and faster runners should be in the same sentence. ;-) Well, only if you are 80 and over according to the Boston Marathon:

BOSTON QUALIFYING TIMES*
AGE GROUPMENWOMEN
 
18-343hrs 10min3hrs 40min
35-393hrs 15min3hrs 45min
40-443hrs 20min3hrs 50min
45-493hrs 30min4hrs 00min
50-543hrs 35min4hrs 05min
55-593hrs 45min4hrs 15min
60-644hrs 00min4hrs 30min
65-694hrs 15min4hrs 45min
70-744hrs 30min5hrs 00min
75-794hrs 45min5hrs 15min
80 and over5hrs 00min5hrs 30min



Edited by mikericci 2006-10-24 10:55 AM
2006-10-24 10:57 AM
in reply to: #576862

User image

Pro
4675
20002000500100252525
Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
mikericci - 2006-10-24 10:49 AM
I do think raising the bar will help us get out from the obseity dilemna we are in now however.


Mike, not sure I follow you...for those people that are obese, probably the last thing on their mind is doing a marathon or Ironman, so how would raising the bar in those events affect those people? i.e. if you make the cutoff in the IM 14 hours instead of 17 hours that isn't going to get an obese person off of their butt. I do agree for those that are currently doing these events, it would give them an incentive to train harder.

I guess this isn't the right thread to discuss this.

Edited by Birkierunner 2006-10-24 10:59 AM
2006-10-24 11:05 AM
in reply to: #576880

User image

Champion
7036
5000200025
Sarasota, FL
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

Birkierunner - 2006-10-24 11:57 AM I guess this isn't the right thread to discuss this.

This actually seems more like a ST thread.  Last time I checked this was BT where we were supposedly more worried about getting people off the couch and active rather than qualifying or cutoff times. 

Mark



Edited by RedCorvette 2006-10-24 11:05 AM
2006-10-24 11:06 AM
in reply to: #576880

User image

Champion
6992
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
Birkierunner - 2006-10-24 10:57 AM

mikericci - 2006-10-24 10:49 AM
I do think raising the bar will help us get out from the obseity dilemna we are in now however.


Mike, not sure I follow you...for those people that are obese, probably the last thing on their mind is doing a marathon or Ironman, so how would raising the bar in those events affect those people? i.e. if you make the cutoff in the IM 14 hours instead of 17 hours that isn't going to get an obese person off of their butt. I do agree for those that are currently doing these events, it would give them an incentive to train harder.


I weight 325 at my 3rd marathon. I was 295 about at chicago on Sunday which was my skinnest marathon. I completed 7 of them fastest is about 5:57:00 slowest being 6:41:00. I even done 2 50ks and I am looking to do a 50 miler next year but I may drop that goal and do a HIM instead. Too many aches and pains this year. figure I need to stay off my feet for awhile. Yes I would like to get to an IM some day. so knowing knowing I ahve 17 hours means I will train to finisin in 16:50:00 giving me 10 minutes to play with. if it was 14 hours I will have to train to 13:50:00. I agree with his point atleast to a point. I am still porbably good 85 - 100 lbs over weight and I ahve done 9 at a marathon+ distance. yes most of my goals are to finish within the time allowed even though I like to get into the sub 5s.

I want to do a marathon while my sister lives in russia for a couple of years. There cut off time is 5 hours. So basicly that means I need to get into better shape. People will compete as hard as they have to if they want something to do something.


2006-10-24 11:08 AM
in reply to: #576893

User image

Champion
6992
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
RedCorvette - 2006-10-24 11:05 AM

Birkierunner - 2006-10-24 11:57 AM I guess this isn't the right thread to discuss this.

This actually seems more like a ST thread.  Last time I checked this was BT where we were supposedly more worried about getting people off the couch and active rather than qualifying or cutoff times. 

Mark



good point. but there are few couch to marathoners. even though I am one of them. .

Honestly I been better off buidling a stronger faster base then to go out and do 9 marathon+ races in 2 years. What point is there to getting someone off the couch to put them right back onto it.
2006-10-24 11:09 AM
in reply to: #576880

User image


8763
5000200010005001001002525
Boulder, Colorado
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

Birkierunner - 2006-10-24 8:57 AM
mikericci - 2006-10-24 10:49 AM I do think raising the bar will help us get out from the obseity dilemna we are in now however.
Mike, not sure I follow you...for those people that are obese, probably the last thing on their mind is doing a marathon or Ironman, so how would raising the bar in those events affect those people? i.e. if you make the cutoff in the IM 14 hours instead of 17 hours that isn't going to get an obese person off of their butt. I do agree for those that are currently doing these events, it would give them an incentive to train harder. I guess this isn't the right thread to discuss this.

What I am saying is the standard is the standard. So, if it's 5:00 hour cut off, people WILL work harder to get to that 5 hour cut off. Do you think IM would have a different popularity and races would fill up less quickly if the standard were 16:00? How about 15:00 or 14:00? Of course not. Its all a matter of perception. We SET the bar higher and people will reach it. Mankind isn't any different with flight, going to the moon, Mars, Jupiter etc. We keep raising the bar right?

We have had 2 guys that we coach go from 400+ to 250, and finish an IM in around 15:00 - and we have two more we are working with right now. These guys don't see the 17:00 hour time limit as a barrier, they see 12:00. So, if you are motivated to change your life, you will do it. Setting the bar higher is where we start. If I said to you, while you were in high school, "If you get straight B's for 4 years, you will get into Harvard, and upon graduation, you will be compensated $1,000,000 a year", do you think you would strive to do it? Probably. If I said, that you had to get straight A's, would you do it? More than likely. So, what I am saying is that the satisfaction of being fit, being an Ironman, changing your life is the REWARD - and if someone wants it - NOTHING will stop them from getting it, be it 17:00, 16:00, 14:00 etc. The cream will rise to the top so to speak.

2006-10-24 11:12 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image

Champion
6992
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
my only concern though about the creme though if you set it too high then you will scare people off. I would never gotten off the couch if I had to do a marathon in 4 or even 5 hours. 6 I could handle and deal with. I personally like 6:30 for a finisher time because it allow alot of people to do it but you still have to maintain a decent avg walking pace at 15:00 min miles.
2006-10-24 11:19 AM
in reply to: #576753

User image

SF Bay Area, Mountain View
Subject: RE: should there be a universal time limit for marathons?
it's 100% up to the organizers of the race where they want to set the cutoff time.

THEY set the rules and the rules are posted way ahead (usually at least a year) of the race. if people don't like the rules then they shouldn't enter. it's not up to the world to cater to the needs of slow people. it's NOT discrimination.

besides, it's hard to keep roads closed in major cities for an unlimited amount of time.
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » should there be a universal time limit for marathons? Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 12