/ Is running a marathon all that impressive?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Orgsm on 22 Feb 2013
As per http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/2013/feb/20/running-a-marathon-really-that-i...

Running a marathon is common place, and no longer impressive. Do you agree?
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Do you have an opinion of your own? (I have)

Have you run a marathon? (I have x3)

Are you a troll?
mick.h on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: I don't think that running a marathon is impressive......running one in 3 hours ish is impressive though, most people can't.
Orgsm on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino:

Yep, I don't think it is impressive (unless sub 3 hours) I have run several 100 mile ultras over the years and 26 miles is just a warm up really.
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

I see.

So in your view running 26 miles is too short and the only criteria for impressive is time completed? Is that your view?
Orgsm on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino:

I think people see it as an endurance distance when it really isn't , more like a vs of climbing. Needs time and commitment, but most punters can manage it...
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

It's as black and white as that eh.

Well I don't know why you asked. You've already made your mind up. Nothing to see here is there?
mrchewy - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: Are ultras that impressive tho? Only if you can run the whole way and do a good time. Anybody can do one and finish - I did and I'd never ran past 17 miles before. I'd be impressed if someone said they'd finished the Spartathlon mind... no easy legs there. Just timed checkpoint after checkpoint.
Eric9Points - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Running a marathon is not a particularly big deal if you do it in 5 hours. Running a marathon is impressive if you do it in less than 3 hours.

Do you agree?

John_Hat - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

A marathon is impressive to me...

I am not a runner.
wilding - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
> (In reply to Rampikino)
>
> Yep, I don't think it is impressive (unless sub 3 hours) I have run several 100 mile ultras over the years and 26 miles is just a warm up really.

Depends what speed. Under 4 hours is my cut-off for marathons. The same logic applies to Ultras - if you aren't doing sub-9 minute miles then I just don't think it is that impressive, no matter the distance.

Running a sub 5 minute mile is impressive - this shows you have really pushed yourself in training. In fact, fast shorter 5Ks or 10ks tell me a lot about a runner.
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

I'm not going to put down all my thoughts, but simply this:

What is the definition of impressive? What does it take for someone to be impressed?

One person's impressive is another's mundane.

I would not demean a persons personal achievement by an arbitrary categorisation
Orgsm on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
>
> I'm not going to put down all my thoughts, but simply this:
>
> What is the definition of impressive?

I'd say striking or remarkable, and running 26 miles doesn't come under that category, unless as someone says they do it very quickly.

So in return I'd say impressive if only a few people are capable of such a feet. Since millions have , and do complete marathons, not so impressive.

Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Impressive to you is different to someone else. You seem to think it is black and white.

I'm delighted for you that you have achieved such feats of running.

I'm more impressed by someone who steps out of their ordinary life to run a marathon as a very personal battle. Even if they take 6 hours.
Lord_ash2000 - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: I havn't and currently couldn't run a marathon but I don't think it's any great feat really. Like someone said it's probably like climbing VS, A non climber would need to do a fair bit of training ot climb a VS but in the climbing world it's just run of the mill.

If long distance running is your game then I don't think just being able to run 26 miles without stopping is a mega deal, just look at how many non runners do the London Marathon every year with just a bit of training.

But as people say, doing one in a quick time is another matter
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

What about climbing that VS with only one leg? Or blind? Same with the marathon.
Eric9Points - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
> (In reply to Rampikino)
> [...]

> So in return I'd say impressive if only a few people are capable of such a feet. Since millions have , and do complete marathons, not so impressive.

As a matter of interest what's your best time for a marathon and which one was it?

It's "feat" by the way, not "feet".
Wonrek - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: Yes it is for a whole host of reasons unique to each competitor.

I ran seven marathons and four ultras last year but I can see pride and personal achievement for every runner that crosses the line.

But then most people don't set out to run a marathon to 'impress'
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Wonrek:

Exactly.

Personal circumstances.

It's not just about time and distance.
Liam M - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Eric9Points: I'm not sure I find the absolute time per se is what makes a particular performance impressive - for some a sub 3 marathon would be fairly pedestrian, but for others amazing.

I think what I find impressive is someone commiting to, training hard for and executing a great run on the day. I'm less impressed by people taking a half arsed approach and (relatively) pootling around just as some sort of bucket list event - such events should be done because they inspire you, not for some perceived bragging rights.
Lord_ash2000 - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino: Well yes, if you drag yourself 26 miles using only your chin then it's pretty impressive but I'm talking about a normal fully functional human being.
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

That wasn't the original post though was it?
Orgsm on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino:
> (In reply to Lord_ash2000)
>
> That wasn't the original post though was it?

He does make point though. If you're a fully functioning human being then it is not impressive. My best time is 2 hours 51 in the Boston marathon a couple of years ago.

Kevin Woods - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: I tend to distrust anyone who's reason for doing something or not, is because it's too popular.
Orgsm on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Kevin Woods:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!) I tend to distrust anyone who's reason for doing something or not, is because it's too popular.

And a lot do do the marathon because it is popular. London marathon seems to be dominated by big charities.
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

I don't even think "fully functioning" has too much to do with it either.
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
> (In reply to Kevin Woods)
> [...]
>
> And a lot do do the marathon because it is popular. London marathon seems to be dominated by big charities.

So what? Good for those charities say I.
Orgsm on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino:

Argumentative tonight eh? ;-)
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Nope. I just don't think it's black and white.

To me there is the personal element which is complex and down to the individual.

It's not just about any distance or time.

And I don't know what the charities have to do with the debate.
Milesy - on 22 Feb 2013
Hate running on concrete and the boredom organised races so marathons never appeal to me.
Orgsm on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino:

There may be a personal element, but you don't realistically find it impressive that people run the marathon, or do you? Why do you find it impressive?
dek - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
I'm really impressed by a 100 year old running and finishing a marathon, but a fitness fanatic 70 years younger? Nah, I'm not impressed in the slightest.
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

You're simply thinking distance and nothing more. In which case it feels pointless to give examples as you've already made up your mind.


impressive[ im-pres-iv ]
adjective
1. having the ability to impress the mind; arousing admiration, awe, respect, etc.; moving; admirable: an impressive ceremony; an impressive appearance.

There are many things in life that meet these criteria.
Orgsm on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino:

No I haven't, and no I'm not, please indulge me.
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

If you feel that a marathon distance isn't impressive and the only way to be impressive is through sub 3 hours then I would say that you've already made up your mind
tom_in_edinburgh - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Over 4.30 and it's not running.

Under 3.30 and it's respectable.

Under 3.00 and it's impressive.
Dauphin - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

I'm always impressed by anyone who takes part in sport after school.

Running a marathon shows commitment to practice, devotion to personal goals and an insight into how much suffering they are prepared to undergo to achieve said goals. Depth of character. Always impressive.

D
DancingOnRock - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: I think running 26miles is impressive. The time taken to learn what pace you have to run at so that you can continue running upto and past 20miles is huge.

If you've been running several years you conveniently forget the first time you tried to run 10k or race a half marathon.

I think running a marathon is impressive. There are things that people do that are more impressive but that doesn't take away the fact that running a marathon is impressive.
Rampikino - on 22 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

I think you have your answer:

Yes it is to some.

No it isn't to some.

I personally find that really easy to accept.
Twisty - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

I'd say it becomes impressive at sub 2.50
IainRUK - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: Aye.. I do agree...

An FB friend just ran 700 miles 50 miles a day on road.. nice enough challenge.. but he's now after 100 marathons in a row.. beating dean kenanzes record of 50 in 50 in 50 states..

Why?

I run a half marathon every day trying to run one good one..

There's an Aussie Marathon Man running something like 160 marathons in a year.. but they are all poor times..

Over a year he'll run 4200 miles which is what a serious runner would do training for that one quick one..

I almost posted about that the other day..

Another FB friend.. in the states everyone ruddy FBs you.. has just ran 300 marathons so is on Fox news.. yet they've all been average..

Maybe its just me but I'd trade 1000 2:40's for 1 2:20....
IainRUK - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Twisty:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
>
> I'd say it becomes impressive at sub 2.50

2:45 london championship entry...

TBH I always thought 3:00 then the first time I ran sub 3 I ran 2:46:09... unrested, the week after a 50 miler but took years beating that.. but after 3:00 the only thing I had envisioned was sub 2:45... but now I've done that a few times it's sub 2:40 which should be on.. at the right race..
IainRUK - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Milesy:
> Hate running on concrete and the boredom organised races so marathons never appeal to me.

I thought that.. a mate did NY 8 years ago and I laughed at him.. he said just try a big city one.. I did... and honestly finsihing Boston surrounded by thousands, running down the final section of road to the distillary on Jura with tens clapping.. running the final section on my solo winter paddy totally totally alone.. were all equally emotional..

In fact after the paddy I sat in my car.. said 'yes' did a wee punch and drove home to bed.. after Boston I lay down and promptly shat blood for 6 hours... after Jura I had a few beers and a good night.. so that wins. :-)
I like climbing - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
I think your running is really inspirational. Reading your posts have given me more focus especially when you dd that 72 mile one recently......
I've never run a marathon and hope to one day. If I get it done I will be really happy.....
IainRUK - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to I like climbing: It was only 62.. :-)

Thanks.. but I just love running but am far from the top guys.. very far.

I do see Ramps point.. it depends on the person..

For some.. doing a marathon will be.. I just dislike repeated performances of what is fairly average being seen as better than the guys knocking out 2:18 marathons with full time jobs..

Those guys are for me, the heroes..


I like climbing - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
Good luck and I hope you manage to achieve even faster times.
AdrianC - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Well I've run sub 2:50 (just) and I take my hat off to anyone who finishes a marathon - it's not an easy day out. And for me the real tough boys & girls of marathon running are the 5-hours-plus brigade. When I finish I'm sooooo happy to sit down and not move and there are people still out there girding their loins for another 15 or 20 kms!
Jonny2vests - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
> (In reply to Rampikino)
>
> Yep, I don't think it is impressive (unless sub 3 hours) I have run several 100 mile ultras over the years and 26 miles is just a warm up really.

What DO you sound like.
andy - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to AdrianC: i'd agree - i'm slower than you but tend to be finished just over 3hrs, and the thought of being out there and running for another two hours or so makes my eyes hurt - my "good" marathons have been the fastest and the easiest - i'm impressed by people that can dig in and grind it out when they're not really "runners".

And to the OP - if you just wanted to wave your willy about running ultras why didn't you just post a "look at me" thread then we'd have all known what was coming?
Ava Adore - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

To me, yes. Most definitely. I have wanted to be able to run one since I watched the very first London Marathon all those years ago but until recently it was something completely unattainable for me. Last year I actually started training for it but had to give up when I had a knee injury. So the training starts again this year :-)
jjmacewan - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

The idea of running a marathon actually scares me a bit and I'd impress myself if I ever did one!

I'm actually a regular hill runner and I've done plenty hill races including quite a few long ones like Jura, Wasdale, Stuc a' Chroin. Did a half marathon once and I found that tough, so not sure about doubling the distance but think I'll try it sometime.

The problem is going to be all those flat miles you probably have to do on tarmac, a mate attempted the NY marathon on a diet of hill racing and training and its not the way to do it.

I'm impressed by any runner who can do the Ben Nevis race in under 2 hours and thats my target for this year.
Al Evans on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to jjmacewan: I think just running a Marathon, in say 4-5 hours is equivalent to a VS, sub 3 hours is in the E grades.
Owen W-G - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

My mum did her first (and last) marathon (london) last year on her 64th birthday, 5h20m, I was impressed, she claimed to have no aches after
Orgsm on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!) Aye.. I do agree...
>
> An FB friend just ran 700 miles 50 miles a day on road.. nice enough challenge.. but he's now after 100 marathons in a row.. beating dean kenanzes record of 50 in 50 in 50
>


Does he have a job? It does start to show what is really possible. Most have not explored what they are really capable of when running, including myself. I wonder if someone is capable of running round the world (18,000) miles min, in a year?

puppythedog on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: i think running a marathon is impressive, I recently ran 4.6 miles for the first time and my friend with whom I have been on and off running was impressed (she's building up to 5k without stopping). The impressiveness dims quickly because by other people can run further and quicker. If MrsTheDog ever ran a Marathon all of us who know her would be proud and impressed. Sporty things aren't for her.
I think if and when I run a marathon I will only be impressed with myself if I run in a time that I consider reasonable for me.
I am with Rampinko here, you don't know everyone's back story so you can't know what is impressive for them. You are (it seems to me) judging everyone else by your own experience with little understanding that everyone has different experience and history. You are applying a very narrow classification for something with so many variables.
It would not be very impressive if you ran a marathon in 4.5, if a mum of three who is a single parent, works part time, is a few stone over weight goes on to run a 4.5 hour marathon from nothing in a few months I would be impressed For example.

@IainRUK, I am deepl inspired by you and look forward to heading into the hills when I can run a bit more distance.
J Brown - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to wilding:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
> [...]
>
> Depends what speed. Under 4 hours is my cut-off for marathons. The same logic applies to Ultras - if you aren't doing sub-9 minute miles then I just don't think it is that impressive, no matter the distance.
>
> Running a sub 5 minute mile is impressive - this shows you have really pushed yourself in training. In fact, fast shorter 5Ks or 10ks tell me a lot about a runner.

I'm afraid I'd say your comment re ultra pacing sounds a bit stupid to me, less than 9 min miles "no matter the distance" - so every single competitor who has completed the West Highland Way Race, even the new record holder, was unimpressive? Rubbish.
J Brown - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to J Brown:

Just to clarify the point, the new record, set last year is 15:39, which is not much quicker than 10 min miles.

Unimpressive eh?!
Steff - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

For a healthy fit individual completing a marathon is not impressive. Significantly improving one's time by putting in hard work is impressive. For some natural talents this may be going sub 3 hours, for others it maybe going sub 4 hours. It's all relative and depends on background. I am far more impressed by an overweight individual changing his way of life and managing after a lot of hard work to do 5 hour marathon (and continue to live a healthier life) than by a natural talent running a 3 hours marathon straight away without much training.

I do agree however, that the marathon distance is way overrated. It's an interesting distance but very doable for any healthy runner with a bit of training. It should not be idolised as the ultimate endurance limit.
Pero - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Steff: I'm not impressed by people that start and stop and walk a lot of it, but I think running 26 miles is still a good effort, even if it takes 4 or 5 hours. And, a 3-hour marathon is, I believe, a major achievement, way beyond leading VS.

A 3-hour marathon is perhaps equivalent to doing the Skye Ridge in a day?
Messners Yeti on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
Yes. I tried to run one once. It was really hard and I hurt for a long time afterwards. While lots of people do it each year, most of them have to work quite hard for quite a while beforehand. There are some exceptions and the Ultra runners can quite rightly dismiss it as a trivial distance, but not many people can get round it without really wanting to.
Pete
ads.ukclimbing.com
FrankBooth - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
all depends where you're starting from. If you're in your fifties, overweight, never ran before then yes, a marathon is impressive because it represents overcoming a significant personal challenge. On the other hand, if you're quite sporting anyway and regular run/cycle/climb or whatever then it's clearly less of a challenge.
Goucho on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
> (In reply to Rampikino)
>
> Yep, I don't think it is impressive (unless sub 3 hours) I have run several 100 mile ultras over the years and 26 miles is just a warm up really.

I suppose it's all about context. Not impressive to you as an ultra runner, but very impressive if you're not a runner, and decide to have at go one, and succeed - irrespective of time.

It's about 'personal'context, not elitist benchmarking.

You could apply your comments to climbing - doing an E2 is impressive for some people, but to others it's just a 'warm up' solo!

IainRUK - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to AdrianC:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
>
> Well I've run sub 2:50 (just) and I take my hat off to anyone who finishes a marathon - it's not an easy day out. And for me the real tough boys & girls of marathon running are the 5-hours-plus brigade. When I finish I'm sooooo happy to sit down and not move and there are people still out there girding their loins for another 15 or 20 kms!

thats true.. in many ways..

I just dont see how that remains impressive..
IainRUK - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: similarlt too an ultra runner.. we all start off as one of those who just wants to complete but you want more
wbo - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: Running 26 miles as a race is going to hurt. It doesnt really matter how fast you go, and I would agree with the poster above that Išve had a sneaking admiration for punters flogging round in 4.30 who are suffering like dogs every single second. I know a couple of old geezers who've run every London marathon, and they are slower than what many people here would consider respectable, but for these boys in their 60's and 70's, running 4 hours on smashed up legs takes some steampower.

I have never suffered on a VS, though I might have scared myself a little bit. They are too different to compare.
DancingOnRock - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to AdrianC)
> [...]
>
> thats true.. in many ways..
>
> I just dont see how that remains impressive..

Because to OP is very badly worded.

Does it impess you - No.
Does it impress me - It depends on who you are.
Does it impress the average man in the street who's limit of sport is a beer on the sofa watching foorball on the TV - Yes.

DancingOnRock - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Is Mo Farah running 10k impressive? - No.
Is Mo Farah running a 10k in under 30mins impressive? - Yes.
Is Mo Farah wining two golds at the olympics impressive? - Let me think about that...
Byronius Maximus - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

A professional marathon runner who has an easy day and cruises round in 2:30 is not impressive.

A clinically obese person who works their arse off to get fit enough for it and suffers round in 5 hours is impressive.

So it's all relative. In most cases, I think running a marathon is impressive.

I've never done a marathon but I've done a lot of long distance cycling, but that doesn't mean I can't be impressed by someone who gets round their first century in 10 hours.
Byronius Maximus - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Twisty:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
>
> I'd say it becomes impressive at sub 2.50

I'll bear that in mind come October ;-)
DancingOnRock - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Byronius Maximus:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
>
> A professional marathon runner who has an easy day and cruises round in 2:30 is not impressive.

So you don't think that someone that could just turn up to a race and cruise round in 2:30 in order to put in a qualifying time for an A race later in the year would be impressive?

I'm kind of with IanR. I'll run 13miles on a week night after work and then do bits and pieces round the house. Not impressive to me, I do it regularly (not every night) I'll go to work the next morning and when people ask what I did the night before and I tell them, they are clearly impressed.

It's a personal viewpoint based on your own experiences and capabilities not an absolute.

I think what the article is about is sponsorship. Last year on our contract there were 4 guys asking for sponsorship for "The Marathon". I didn't get in and ran a couple of others. No one on the job was particularly more impressed by the guys running sub 4:00 or the ones running 5:30+. All of them took the Monday off to recover. However, next year the guy who did it at 15stone in 5:30+ will have set the standard for anyone else attempting it - "Well if Kev got round you'll have no trouble." will be the replies.

Meanwhile my two marathons went fairly unnoticed as I didn't ask for sponsorship and the wern't "The Marathon". Although I got the impressed raised eyebrows when I turned up to work on Monday and was asked what I did at the weekend and whether the marathons I ran where as long as "The proper marathon".
Ava Adore - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

In a similar vein, I had to drop out of Birmingham Half Marathon last year because of injury. A friend at work who was doing it too (in fact I encouraged her to enter) was full of sympathy -

Debbie - "awww you don't get to run a half".
Me - "Well, actually I have already run a half".
Debbie - "Which one?"
Me - "Erm....round the roads near home - run 15 miles in fact".
Debbie - "Yes, but it's not the SAME, is it?"
DancingOnRock - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Ava Adore: I guess she does have a point. Probably running a marathon where the field is so small that after 18miles you only see another runner if they've stopped to walk isn't the same as crowds lining the streets and being hemmed in with 200runners all running at the same pace.

The whole aspect of the race, getting to the start line uninjured, without an illness, on time for the gun, having travelled or stayed the night somewhere unfamiliar, timed breakfast right. In fact everything has to slot in exactly right or you won't get to the start line, let alone the finish line.

Compared to running 15miles on a Sunday, get up, amble around a bit, go for a run.
Pursued by a bear - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: Yes, it is. Now when you've been told by others that it is, will you change your mind?

If yes, good for you. If not, then why did you ask?

T.
IainRUK - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: No.. well yes organising races so doing these are good publicity.

He's been a decent runner, ran sub 3 hr marathons in his teens, 20's, 30's 40s and 50s..

Which is impressive..

I just don't see the marathon challenges as that impressive.. once you can run the distance its all about how fast you can run the distance.
Pursued by a bear - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: I think for very many people it isn't once you can run the distance, but can you run the distance once...

T.
IainRUK - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Pursued by a bear: I know.. I think that what we've all said..
Pursued by a bear - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: Indeed. I just couldn't resist turning your phrase around to a rather pithy summation.

T.
Dave Kerr - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Jesus is this still running? (boom boom)

If lots of people can do something it ceases to be impressive so I don't think and able bodied person running a marathon is impressive.

This doesn't detract from the personal challenge and most people who do marathons do so for that reason, not to impress.
Ava Adore - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

No she doesn't. 15 miles un-spurred on by crowds and the whole "event" is a decent 15 miles. :-)
DancingOnRock - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Ava Adore: Have you done a half marathon? I've done well over 20 and I've done hundreds of 13-20 mile runs. They're not the same. Even half marathons are not the same. Tomorrow's half will start and end in a field, it will probably be snowing, if there are any spectators they'll be at the end and long gone by the time I finish. ;)
Ava Adore - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

The difference as I see it that any fool can be spurred on to do more miles than normal in a better time than normal by hordes of people cheering them on. If you can spur yourself on to complete the distance, you rock.
Uluru on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Ava Adore:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> The difference as I see it that any fool can be spurred on to do more miles than normal in a better time than normal by hordes of people cheering them on. If you can spur yourself on to complete the distance, you rock.

I totally agree :). It is loads easier running, no matter what the distance with a large crowd cheering you on. You get energy from them and also the shame/embarrassment factor if you stop or slow down! When you're hurting that helps a lot.

DancingOnRock - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Ava Adore: I suppose it depends on how you train. My long runs are done at a very low heart rate, probably 60-90secs a mile slower than marathon pace, and a minimum of 13miles. Whereas a half marathon is done at least a minute faster than marathon pace.

That's not any fool running a bit faster for a bit longer, that's someone who has sensibly trained for the distance and put in a good race performance.

If you train at anywhere close to race pace over race distance you will injure yourself. Any fool knows that.
CJD - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

I think running 26.2 miles is impressive. It's beyond the realms of comprehension for me, but my best friend will happily go out for a 30 mile run and not think anything of it (though she doesn't feel any great urge to tell everyone about it).

Lots of people can do it? Great. Just goes to show we're all capable of more than we think. Still doesn't make it a mediocre achievement.
Wonrek - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to CJD: Yep, did one today ;-) and had a few hours to mull this thread over...

Firstly, why should it be impressive, who deems that running a marathon should invoke any emotion at all in others?

And secondly I think the vast majority of runners do it for their own personal goals, gain, benefit so the thoughts of others are irrelevant.

I ran an ultra distance today in training, I don't expect anyone to b impressed or actually have any opinion whatsoever on it.

I do it for me so what others think (or don't think) is neither here no there tbh.
Wonrek - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to CJD: But I'm glad you think it's impressive, I look at others achievements and I'm frequently impressed too whether they are running a 10k or a 100 miler at the front or the back of the race.

It's the person that impresses me not necessarily the distance they run :-)

CJD - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Wonrek:

All sorts impresses me, mind. I'm full of wonder at the world.

That said, one thing I do find intriguing is the 'marathon/ironman' phenomenon of recent years, where people do a marathon/ironman tri, then shrug it off and wander off to the next 'life tick', whether that's writing a novel or whatever. But as I say, we're all capable of more than we think, so it's all good.
CJD - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Wonrek:

Your achievements are pretty amazing, particularly considering you only started running in the last couple of years (if I remember rightly).
Gav M - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> after Boston I lay down and promptly shat blood for 6 hours...

I didn't realise that running could have that effect on you. Where does the blood come from?
Wonrek - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to CJD: thank you, I appreciate it :-)

I don't expect anyone to be impressed though, if they are then I'm very flattered but like most runners I do it (very selfishly) for me and not for others so whether the likes of the OP are impressed or not is really irrelevant.
ads.ukclimbing.com
CJD - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Wonrek:

Sounds like the OP just wanted an excuse to tell everyone he's an ultra runner.
Wonrek - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to CJD:
> (In reply to Wonrek)
>
> Sounds like the OP just wanted an excuse to tell everyone he's an ultra runner.

But what's he ever done on grit so they say ;-)
tom_in_edinburgh - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Gav M:
>> after Boston I lay down and promptly shat blood for 6 hours...

> I didn't realise that running could have that effect on you. Where does the blood come from?

The clue is in the verb immediately before 'blood'.
deepsoup - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to CJD:
> Sounds like the OP just wanted an excuse to tell everyone he's an ultra runner.

Indeed. Not all that impressive. ;o)
Orgsm on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to deepsoup:
> (In reply to CJD)
> [...]
>
> Indeed. Not all that impressive. ;o)

Indeed that's my point, we have yet to find what an impressive endurance distance for a runner is. Who knos what that may be?
Irk the Purist - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

I couldn't give two shits what anyone else thinks is impressive. I run, and race, for me. Anyone who feels able to judge anyone else's achievement is a bit arrogant I think. Maybe a bit insecure in their own achievements?





puppythedog on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: Depends upon the person seems to be the majority view on the thread.
Pursued by a bear - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: There are other Annapurnas in the lives of men. What is impressive relates firstly to the runner. Only anoraks bother about the numbers before this.

Have fun in your snorkel parka...

T.
IainRUK - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Gav M: 31 deg C.. severe dehydration, heat stroke and way too much iburpofen.. I think my gut wall just fell to pieces..

I was pretty worried but it stopped by the next day.

Orgsm on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to puppythedog:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!) Depends upon the person seems to be the majority view on the thread.

But does it, is something that anybody can do, and indeed millions have,be impressive? All those who've run a marathon (on this thread), agree it is nothing out of the ordinary. It Is only those who've never tried, who consider it impressive. Perhaps they are in awe, because they think its not something they can do, when they can.
Rampikino - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to puppythedog:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!) Depends upon the person seems to be the majority view on the thread.

Tricky concept for some to grasp

;)
Irk the Purist - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Balls, I've run marathons, yet I am consistently impressed by the achievements of others from the slowest 10ks to the fastest ultras.



IainRUK - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to CJD:
> (In reply to Wonrek)
>
> All sorts impresses me, mind. I'm full of wonder at the world.
>
> That said, one thing I do find intriguing is the 'marathon/ironman' phenomenon of recent years, where people do a marathon/ironman tri, then shrug it off and wander off to the next 'life tick', whether that's writing a novel or whatever. But as I say, we're all capable of more than we think, so it's all good.

Midlife crisis..

You do definitely see that.

The ultra scene has taken off recently though. A few years ago it was very small and you'd look at races and knew every name at the front of a race. Now it seems more and more runners, and good runners, are around.

I think these people who go from sedentary, unfit overweight and then get in shape and run a solid marathon are hugely impressive. Far more impressive than the guy running 10, 20, 30 marathons a year.

There was a you tube video of a guy in the states who set his heart on Boston qualifying and went from sedentary overweight to making it.

There was another guy who was overweight none runner and set his heart on London olympics marathon. So he got fit and aimed for a sub 2:14.. he ended up a fair way off but think he got down to something like a 2:35.. which was still a huge achievement..

CJD - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

As someone impressed by marathoners, I'll expand on my response a little - all sorts of things impress me but that's partly because I have no desire to do them. For me, what's impressive is that someone actually wants to do that, then goes and does it - partly the mental stamina, and partly that that's what they've chosen to go and do - it's a distance that I don't think should be sniffed at by anyone.

I imagine that perhaps some things I do could be 'impressive' for others, but mostly because others respect that I do those things, they look 'complicated' to them (but invariably aren't, from the position of knowing how to do them) and that they have no real desire to do those things themselves. I don't have to run a marathon to prove a point to myself that I 'could' do it; likewise I don't expect someone to transform a swathe of fabric into a tailored dress, a ball of wool (or two) into a jumper, or a roll of film, a load of paper and some chemicals into an image from start to finish. As PBAB quoted so eloquently, there are indeed other Annapurnas.
CJD - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

I think I saw a programme about someone going from sedentary and unfit to aiming at a very respectable London marathon time - might be the same chap. I found that inspiring - but in a 'getting on with achieving dreams' way, rather than a 'hey, let's RUN!' way...
puppythedog on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: Maybe running a marathon is not out of the ordinary for many people but for some it is. As I said higher in the thread you are consistently failing to see this from anything but your own frame of reference. You may not find it impressive but many do find it impressive.

What's most interesting is why you feel the need to define impressive in this particular arena. Is it so you can set yourself that goal or tell us you've already done it?
DancingOnRock - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
> (In reply to puppythedog)
> [...]
>
> But does it, is something that anybody can do, and indeed millions have,be impressive? All those who've run a marathon (on this thread), agree it is nothing out of the ordinary. It Is only those who've never tried, who consider it impressive. Perhaps they are in awe, because they think its not something they can do, when they can.

But can they. Many thousands have completed marathons. How many have run them? How many people have got to 20miles and had to stop and walk for a bit? Every person I know who has done London walked at some stage on their first two attempts. I walked on the first two marathons I did. Large numbers of people don't get to the start line due to injury, some line up on the start line injured, some pull out.

A sub 4:30 marathon requires running 26.2 sub 10:30/mile miles. Most people won't go below 1hour on a 10k on their first attempt.

Humans have a very good ability to forget how painful things can be. Not everyone will try a marathon for that 3rd time. Not everyone can train for 5 or 6 hours a week for 4 months to get there.
Wonrek - on 23 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to CJD)
> [...
> I think these people who go from sedentary, unfit overweight and then get in shape and run a solid marathon are hugely impressive. Far more impressive than the guy running 10, 20, 30 marathons a year.
>
So that'll be me then, went from massively overweight smoker, mum of three to lean focused runner in the space of a couple of years.

I'm not asking for you to be impressed.
deepsoup - on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
> Indeed that's my point
No, it isn't, you missed my point completely. (Which was essentially that starting this thread in the first place was the act of a very sad man.)
estivoautumnal - on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

I agree to some extent. Running for 3-4 hours isn't very impressive.

Eddie Izzard running 43 marathons in 51 days is one of the most impressive things I've seen.
deepsoup - on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to estivoautumnal:
> Running for 3-4 hours isn't very impressive.

As Iain and Clare said above, you can't simply generalise it that way. It depends who's doing the running and what they've overcome to reach that point. It could be a huge achievement, or just another Sunday morning.
IainRUK - on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to estivoautumnal:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
>
> I agree to some extent. Running for 3-4 hours isn't very impressive.
>
> Eddie Izzard running 43 marathons in 51 days is one of the most impressive things I've seen.

I'd say that was.

I just find things like Dean Kernanzes, ultra-marathonman, 50 marathons in 50 states in 50 days, averaging sub 4.. to be nothing more than a marketing ploy..

So at the extreme end of the scale its what we are all saying, sometimes is, sometimes isn't.



Steff - on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
>
> I just find things like Dean Kernanzes, ultra-marathonman, 50 marathons in 50 states in 50 days, averaging sub 4.. to be nothing more than a marketing ploy..

Yes, but a very "impressive" marketing ploy ;-) What I admire about Karnazes is not his running, but his skill of making a very good living out of it.
IainRUK - on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to Steff:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> Yes, but a very "impressive" marketing ploy ;-) What I admire about Karnazes is not his running, but his skill of making a very good living out of it.

For sure.. I think runners are harsh on the guy. He does mislead people, but he's just doing what marketing execs do, which was his job and he's applying that to make a career out of running and making money.
JamButty - on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: I've just done a 10 mile fell run with lots of big profile changes. Took me 2 1/2 hrs!. Not that impressive to most but I'm well impressed with myself and feel better for it, surely thats what its all about!
JamButty - on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to JamButty: This was a race route, and looking at the results I'd have come in the bottom 5%.

Building up to my first 1/2 in June, then perhaps a full one next year, but I'll continue to be slow as speed in the past has led to injuries.

So to answer the question I still think its impressive to run a marathon.
Ciderslider - on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!) I havn't and currently couldn't run a marathon . Like someone said it's probably like climbing VS, A non climber would need to do a fair bit of training ot climb.

Says it all. So many people have an opinion on stuff they know nothing about. 'Like someone said".....blah, blah.
Climbing a VS (and the effort taken to lead at that grade) is far easier than running (and that means running - not walking or completing) a marathon.
I've climbed lots of VS (and want to climb loads more) and have run one marathon and am not fussed ifI never run another !
Ciderslider - on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to Ava Adore: Good luck (and I hope you manage to achieve your goal).
Orgsm on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to deepsoup:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
> [...]
> No, it isn't, you missed my point completely. (Which was essentially that starting this thread in the first place was the act of a very sad man.)

Dear oh dear. I saw an article, which I agree with, and so posted it, to see what others thought , and THAT'S your conclusion! You can tell from the posts and reads it was worth posting, some find impressive, some don't. Seems pretty much 50/50 at the moment, and some good discussion so far.

I'm a very happy man thank you, and won't rise to your bait of trading insults, that usually happens on here :-)

Moley on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
I think the answer is fairly obvious, it's all relevant to the individual.
For an unfit office worker to decide to run a marathon next year, who is starting from base level, it is an achievement - that is to RUN the distance and not walk bits, their running time is irrelevant.

For Mo Farrah to run a marathon will not be an achievement, unless it is very quick and he beats everyone else!

Things are very, very different from 40 years ago. It is far easier now because there is an endless supply of information, advice and kit available to everyone, in 1970 we didn't simply click on Google to find out how to run a marathon, a 100 miles or climb mount Everest.

So yes, it is a great achievement for some but not for others. It is far easier to achieve than 40 years ago. The same applies for 100 miles as 26 miles.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Nutkey on 24 Feb 2013
In reply to Ciderslider:
> (In reply to Lord_ash2000)
> [...]
>
> Says it all. So many people have an opinion on stuff they know nothing about. 'Like someone said".....blah, blah.
> Climbing a VS (and the effort taken to lead at that grade) is far easier than running (and that means running - not walking or completing) a marathon.
Chalk and cheese. I'd say leading VS was easier than my marathons, and I'm a much better runner than I am a climber. But (if I hadn't screwed up my TFL) a four hour marathon would be no more than a long slow training run, whereas a VS would require me to do a bit of training, especially to get my head in the right place.

But what do I know, I've walked in all my marathons (through the drinks stations). The hardest one was my first (and slowest), the easiest was the fastest.
IainRUK - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Moley: Moley you grumpy old man.. 'in my day.. ' :-)


I do see your point and it's true.. What I would say is for some it's harder.. It's a far more sedentary society in 2013.. So I think many will start from a much lower level but you are right..sport, races, kit advice are far more at hand now... 30 years ago racing was more of an elite sport..
Steff - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Ciderslider:
>
>
> Says it all. So many people have an opinion on stuff they know nothing about. 'Like someone said".....blah, blah.
> Climbing a VS (and the effort taken to lead at that grade) is far easier than running (and that means running - not walking or completing) a marathon.
> I've climbed lots of VS (and want to climb loads more) and have run one marathon and am not fussed ifI never run another !

Interesting. For me it's the oposite. It took me a long time and a lot of training to lead VS and I have never really felt comfortable at that grade, i.e. be solid on all rock types and different climbing styles.
However, I have run many marathons and the first one took much less time to prepare than working up to VS.
Flat4matt - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

A marathon is impressive to different people. The guys and gals who are running them for different reasons may say its impressive, others may not even give a shit about how it impresses others, they're just doing it for their own reasons and not out to impress anyone or have anything to prove to anyone!!
dissonance - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to deepsoup:

> As Iain and Clare said above, you can't simply generalise it that way. It depends who's doing the running and what they've overcome to reach that point. It could be a huge achievement, or just another Sunday morning.

but having trained enough to make it just another sunday morning is impressive enough in itself.
Moley on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Moley) Moley you grumpy old man.. 'in my day.. ' :-)
>
>
> I do see your point and it's true.. What I would say is for some it's harder.. It's a far more sedentary society in 2013.. So I think many will start from a much lower level but you are right..sport, races, kit advice are far more at hand now... 30 years ago racing was more of an elite sport..

Grumpy old man......I plead guilty!
Seriously I beleive few people appreciate the differences that 40 years have made to the availability of knowledge and information.
In 1970 to non-runners the marathon was something of a mystical event, it came around at the Olympics and was contested by super athletes, we knew nothing and where did one start?
In the 80's I would have loved to do fell running, but I lived in Sussex and could find out nothing about it - it was something that mad sheperds did in the Lake district, nobody knew anything, not even what the FRA was. Nowadays a simple click on Google and off you go, all questions answered.
I might add I have never, ever trained for or run a road marathon, though I've lost count of the off road 25mile+ events up to 100. I have done 20 miles (Elan valley race) a few times years ago, that was enough tarmac for me thanks.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

What a bunch of running snobs we have here. 'Im not impressed by seeing people run 26 miles' they say.

Im assuming that most of you of this type are at a decent level and run regularly. Why not cast your minds back to when you werent and then post again. Imagine, you are in a room of people at a party and then one of them, an average Joe, said that they were to run a marathon to which you responded 'I'm not impressed by that, unless you have a 50kg pack on your back or you do it under 2.5 hours' whilst turning up your nose. probably the last party you'd get invited to.

I'm regularly fit, run 10ks without difficulty and I would be very impressed if I could run a half marathon let alone a full one.

Jimbo W on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

No its not impressive on a relative human scale, because its become common place, e.g. more in our dept. have done one than haven't (so in terms of competition, there is a reducing number to "impress"!). However, on a personal scale it is impressive and I'd be damned delighted if I could achieve a full marathon. I can quite easily complete half marathon distances, but I really suffer for it with my knees afterwards, i.e. not being able to run for a week or so afterwards. I really don't want to damage my knees further and so won't be carrying out a road marathon and am delighted for any of those who can and do. If I can sort out my knees, then I would definitely like to have a go.
tony on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
>
> I'm regularly fit, run 10ks without difficulty and I would be very impressed if I could run a half marathon let alone a full one.

Seriously? If you run 10ks without difficulty, a half marathon is easily within your range - it's not that big a step up. You should try it - you might suprise yourself.

What is a bigger step up is the step to a full marathon. Training for a half marathon can be done with a relatively light running schedule - even your long run needn't be beyond 12 miles, and you don't need to do many of those. For a full marathon, your long runs need to be much longer, and you need to do more of them - your committment to training needs to be much more substantial and hence much more time-consuming.
Jim Hamilton - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
> (In reply to deepsoup)
> [...]
>
> Dear oh dear. I saw an article, which I agree with, and so posted it, to see what others thought , and THAT'S your conclusion! You can tell from the posts and reads it was worth posting, some find impressive, some don't. Seems pretty much 50/50 at the moment, and some good discussion so far.
>
yes i dont know why you are getting so much flak for your reasonable posts - presumably you have touched the nerve of some slow runners !

As has been said the sheer number of people running marathons (37,500 finished London last year) means for the majority it can't automatically qualify as being "impressive" - even the unfit office worker. I think you need to put the times into perspective. A generally considered good time is sub 3 hour - the first man was nearly an hour faster. The womens winner (at 2.18) was presumably 5 1/2 min miling - try that for just the one mile to be properly impressed !

Ciderslider - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Nutkey:
> (In reply to Ciderslider)
> [...]
> Chalk and cheese. I'd say leading VS was easier than my marathons, and I'm a much better runner than I am a climber.

I think you're absolutely right re chalk and cheese. I'm really not a very good climber (but I try my best and put lots of effort in) but it took me a bit longer to muster up the bottle to lead my first VS (resulting in my first proper lead fall, although I went back with a bit more commitment about a week later and flashed it).
I only run very periodically to keep fit (I don't actually enjoy it at all) but have always wanted to run a marathon (just to see if I could do it).
I started proper training mid Jan 2005 and ran London in April 2005 and I can honestly say it's one of the hardest things I've ever done in my life !!!!! I can remember the night before feeling totally physically and mentally knackered and just wanting the whole thing done.
I lost over a stone and a half and don't think that there was a single part of my body that didn't hurt.
Looking back I'm glad I did it. I still run occasionally (only to try to keep weight off). It showed me that I am a bit tougher mentally than I thought, and although it sounds strange I was well chuffed with myself (as I honestly didn't think that I could do it).
I'm currently working towards leading my first E1 and I think that it will be far more of an achievement.
Like all things it's relative - E1 no big deal for someone like Mr Gresham, marathon no biggy for Mo.
But for the rest of us ordinary mortals relatively impressive.
Blue Straggler - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
>
>
> I just find things like Dean Kernanzes, ultra-marathonman, 50 marathons in 50 states in 50 days, averaging sub 4.. to be nothing more than a marketing ploy..


Genuine question (if you can put aside your general antipathy toward me) - what's the "ploy"? I don't know who this guy is, presumably he is sponsored if you are talking about marketing, but how is anything like this a "ploy"? Publicity stunt, aye - and that's fair enough.
Cheers
Ciderslider - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: And as for anyone who runs a sub 3hr marathon I doff my cap to you SIr or Madam !

E10 Equilibrium (all over in a flash, sloper and a heel hook - how hard can it be) ;-)
IainRUK - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler: Dean is fairly well known to stretch the truth.. winning non-existant age categories etc..

But his 50 marathons duped people really, he led people to believe he was running Boston Marathon, then NY marathon etc..

In reality he was just running the courses. So he just ran 26 miles a day..

Many of the Africans will run 20 miles a day, I'll run 13 miles a day.

So the way he sold it was not what happened. He just drove around the states running 26 miles a day slowly.. call it a stunt, I think it was more misleading than that.

But that's what he does, he's a marketing exec. he bullshits as a job and has taken that into running.

At least the aussie marathon man is running actual marathons, 160+ in a year, so its much more of a logistical challenge.


Steff - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

In general I agree with you that Dean exaggerates and as I have said above, I think he sells himself very well, but I have to say in the 50 marathon in 50 days film, it's seems fairly clear from the beginning that he's not running an official race every day. He also does not claim to go fast,
I felt that the achievement was exaggerated, as many people run that much every day and you don't hear about it that much, but in no way have I felt misled by the film.
GrahamD - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Steff:

> I felt that the achievement was exaggerated, as many people run that much every day ..

Err, not round here they don't !
IainRUK - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Steff: But then they aren't marathons? For me, by definition a marathon is a race..

what I found strange is he only did 2 official marathons, when there are marathons on every day of a weekend.. so I think he should have included a minimum of 14 actual marathons.
IainRUK - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to GrahamD:
> (In reply to Steff)
>
> [...]
>
> Err, not round here they don't !

But a top runner would..

I was chatting with a former top runner on facebook.. and he replied with the words 'as you're only running 90 miles a week'...

Steff - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to GrahamD:

> Err, not round here they don't !

There is guy around here in Spain in his 70s that runs a marathon almost every day. I know many people that get close and could do it 50 times in row easily if they saw a point in doing though.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 25 Feb 2013

I guess the definition of impressive for most people is 'No way I could do that myself.'

For me 3 hours for a marathon is impressive because I tried pretty hard and couldn't get there. 3.30 is respectable because I know how hard it was to get under that time. Anything over 4.30 isn't impressive at all because my slowest time was 5.05.

I totally don't go for the 5 hr marathon is impressive because an unfit guy really slugged it out argument. To get 4.05 from a fairly unfit state involved running most days for about 5 months. Doing it in 5 hours would have been easier: less training and walk the last bit.

I'd compare marathons with sport climbing grades rather than trad grades because there's no fear factor in a marathon. I'd say a 3.30 marathon is about equivalent to solid 6c and a 3 hour marathon 7a based on the amount of effort required.
Steff - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Steff) But then they aren't marathons? For me, by definition a marathon is a race..

Ture, in that sense he could have said 50 marathon distances in 50 days, but even though I think it was quite clear right at the start of the film what the score was.

> what I found strange is he only did 2 official marathons, when there are marathons on every day of a weekend..

Yes, he could have found more official marathons. Maybe, this would have meant more complicated logistics.
jkarran - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Yeah, I think it's impressive. Some finishes are more impressive than others but that's life, the fact 2:04 is incomprehensible doesn't mean and 'average' finish is unimpressive.
jk
Nutkey on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
>
> I guess the definition of impressive for most people is 'No way I could do that myself.'

My definition would be that something is impressive if my reaction is "No way could *they* do that".

One of my friends has done Ironman Hawaii, rowed across the atlantic, and walked to the North Pole. Amazing achievements - but there was no particular reason to doubt that he would achieve any of them. I would be far more impressed if my very overweight neighbour decided to - and did - a sub-5 hour marathon - not by the fact that they got round in sub-5, but by the fact that they decided to do something which was way outside their comfort level, and made the necessary changes to get there.
Liam Brown - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I'd compare marathons with sport climbing grades rather than trad grades because there's no fear factor in a marathon. I'd say a 3.30 marathon is about equivalent to solid 6c and a 3 hour marathon 7a based on the amount of effort required.

In terms of relative difficulty to the top athletes, or in terms of the effort required to achieve that level.

SteveRi - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Oh blimey, not another column in the grading table :)
tom_in_edinburgh - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Liam Brown:
> (In reply to tom_in_edinburgh)
>
> [...]
>
> In terms of relative difficulty to the top athletes, or in terms of the effort required to achieve that level.

In terms of the amount of training effort required for a healthy person to achieve it.
Padraig on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Not read the whole thread but I recall reading somewhere that according to scientists that running 26 miles SHOULD be impossible for the human form? I could have dreamt this but thought it might be important? ;-)
P (Completed 55 marathons & DNF 4)
GrahamD - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> But a top runner would..
>

And what percentage of the population are top runners ? I doubt that the average person has ever had contact with a good club runner let alone a top runner.

To my mind running a marathon is impressive. It requires a level of dedication to physical training way outside the norm.
DancingOnRock - on 25 Feb 2013
I still think it shows a complete lack of understanding of what most people running a marathon are actually doing.

Irrespective of ability each one will be trying to race the distance and put in the best effort they can. Last year I watched the London on TV. I saw some runners abosolutely exhausted and walking. I thought that they had done well to get to 22+ miles given the time. Then the TV announcer said they were at the 10k stage. That's one thing that doesn't impress me - enter a big race like that and don't put in the training. the drive to go out in all weathers, stick to a program and not say "I'll start training tomorrow."

For the rest who run the whole distance at their designated pace, be that 12:00/mile or 5:30/mile that's pretty impressive. I don't have the time to run 13miles in the morning then 13miles in the evening and probably don't have the drive or at my age the ability to recover. That's what the top guys do circa couple of weeks in the year in the run up to a big race.

Anything over 26miles is just a matter of getting your pacing right and training more.
IainRUK - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to GrahamD:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> [...]
>
> And what percentage of the population are top runners ? I doubt that the average person has ever had contact with a good club runner let alone a top runner.
>
> To my mind running a marathon is impressive. It requires a level of dedication to physical training way outside the norm.

But that's it.. it seems impressive.. but once you experience them that changes. When I started sub 3 hr was a huge aim and something I doubted I could do..

I do think Dean K gets too much abuse, but I do understand why some people have taken a dislike. He's a good runner but he's done things purely for publicity, and not in the way Killian Jornet has..

He's gone for cheap stunts, like the 50 marathons and running relays races solo when there is no solo event so he can claim to be the winner. Which is fine but it has alienated him somewhat.

Yet if he just stands on his running, like the Badwater win he's impressive.

But as Padraig points out a marathon is a great challenge, just on the limits of the humans but potentially possible for most with enough training.

But maybe that's why he's made a living out of it.
ads.ukclimbing.com
The New NickB - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

I am impressed by people being the best THEY can be, I am not particularly impressed by a lot of people running marathons, myself included, although one day soon I hope to do one I am happy with. Doing marathons well takes a lot of physical and mental strength, both in training and racing, what constitutes well will be individual to the person.
Orgsm on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Did you see tha Mo Farrah won a half marathon in 61 minutes? Be good to see he men's world record drop below 2 hours , which it will within a few years, looking at the gains in recent years.
The New NickB - on 25 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

I think it will take 20 years, maybe longer, no current athlete will do it.

61 minutes is a British record, not sure when Nick Rose set the old record of 61:03, but at least 20 years ago, in world terms it is a bit off the very best. That said it is still impressive.
Phil79 - on 26 Feb 2013
In reply to Padraig:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
>
> Not read the whole thread but I recall reading somewhere that according to scientists that running 26 miles SHOULD be impossible for the human form? I could have dreamt this but thought it might be important? ;-)
> P (Completed 55 marathons & DNF 4)

In evolutionary terms there's a school of thought that is actually quite opposed to this - it suggests that there are a number of specifically human characteristics (achillies tendon, nuchal ligament, etc) that can possibly be explained as evolutionary adaptions to long distance running for hunting purposes.
Jimbo W on 26 Feb 2013
In reply to The New NickB:

> I am impressed by people being the best THEY can be, I am not particularly impressed by a lot of people running marathons, myself included, although one day soon I hope to do one I am happy with. Doing marathons well takes a lot of physical and mental strength, both in training and racing, what constitutes well will be individual to the person.

Bang on.
DancingOnRock - on 27 Feb 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: Interesting that Mo Farah had never run a half marathon before Sunday even though he must have run further than 13miles in training lots of times.

He seems to think 'a marathon is much further, it's double the distance.'
The New NickB - on 27 Feb 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I am sure he ran the New York Half last year or the year before, the LaTonya Norton interview was confusing to say the least.
DancingOnRock - on 27 Feb 2013
In reply to The New NickB: Yes. I was discussing this with someone and I think the result was he had started the GNR but never run a half. He may have since then I think his exact words where he hadn't run that course. I've just heard it again.
tony on 27 Feb 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> I am sure he ran the New York Half last year or the year before, the LaTonya Norton interview was confusing to say the least.

Yes, he did New York in 2011, in a time of 60.23.
The New NickB - on 27 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
> Yes, he did New York in 2011, in a time of 60.23.

I wonder why that didn't count as breaking Nick Rose's British Record.
tony on 27 Feb 2013
In reply to The New NickB:

Might be to do with the nature of the course - too much downhill in New York perhaps?
IainRUK - on 27 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
>
> Might be to do with the nature of the course - too much downhill in New York perhaps?

The start and finish have to be within 50% of the race distance.. so it could be that too.. but yeah he ran quicker.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.