Marathon runners called fat and slow.

chris_bass

The London Marathon isn't a race in the same way sportives aren't races, they are events, admittedly in this case it is a running event, but mainly aimed at raising money for charity.

Would people be more likely to give money to someone who ran marathons for "fun" as it were to run it or to encourage someone to run it who was putting themselves through something they really don't want to do?

and if nothing else the minutes per £ return is much better!

Pross

Chris Bass wrote:

The London Marathon isn't a race in the same way sportives aren't races, they are events, admittedly in this case it is a running event, but mainly aimed at raising money for charity.

Would people be more likely to give money to someone who ran marathons for "fun" as it were to run it or to encourage someone to run it who was putting themselves through something they really don't want to do?

and if nothing else the minutes per £ return is much better!

Kipchoge, Kosgei, Romanchuk and Schar will be disappointed to learn this!

john80

Pross wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

The London Marathon isn't a race in the same way sportives aren't races, they are events, admittedly in this case it is a running event, but mainly aimed at raising money for charity.

Would people be more likely to give money to someone who ran marathons for "fun" as it were to run it or to encourage someone to run it who was putting themselves through something they really don't want to do?

and if nothing else the minutes per £ return is much better!

Kipchoge, Kosgei, Romanchuk and Schar will be disappointed to learn this!

Their winners checks should somewhat alleviate their disapointment. The podium ceremony was all just in their imagination.

bompington

Pross wrote:

I suspect the OP has never been near a 2:28 marathon (which would have put them just outside the top 50 in this year's race which no matter how much of a dickish post they've made would be a seriously good run) and is more likely to be one of our regulars under a new name stirring the pot.

Most likely.

Whether true or not, starting a thread to point out

a) I'm an elite marathon runner, look how much faster I am than all the plebs!
b) said plebs are insulting my exalted status and detracting from the dignity of my precious event
c) therefore they should just clear off and leave the race to us professionals

is pretty naff.

chris_bass

Pross wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

The London Marathon isn't a race in the same way sportives aren't races, they are events, admittedly in this case it is a running event, but mainly aimed at raising money for charity.

Would people be more likely to give money to someone who ran marathons for "fun" as it were to run it or to encourage someone to run it who was putting themselves through something they really don't want to do?

and if nothing else the minutes per £ return is much better!

Kipchoge, Kosgei, Romanchuk and Schar will be disappointed to learn this!

I meant for the non-elite athletes

Pross

Chris Bass wrote:

Pross wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

The London Marathon isn't a race in the same way sportives aren't races, they are events, admittedly in this case it is a running event, but mainly aimed at raising money for charity.

Would people be more likely to give money to someone who ran marathons for "fun" as it were to run it or to encourage someone to run it who was putting themselves through something they really don't want to do?

and if nothing else the minutes per £ return is much better!

Kipchoge, Kosgei, Romanchuk and Schar will be disappointed to learn this!

I meant for the non-elite athletes

I still disagree, large scale running races are a cross between a race and a sportive. Even low level club athletes like me are racing for a time. A sportive can't be classed as a race simply because of the regulations of BC and the legislation in respect of racing on the highway.

ugo.santalucia

Chris Bass wrote:

The London Marathon isn't a race in the same way sportives aren't races, they are events, admittedly in this case it is a running event, but mainly aimed at raising money for charity.

Would people be more likely to give money to someone who ran marathons for "fun" as it were to run it or to encourage someone to run it who was putting themselves through something they really don't want to do?

and if nothing else the minutes per £ return is much better!

Marathons are races and on occasions it has happened that amateurs won, ahead of bigger "pro" athletes... very recently in the female category of the Boston marathon (OK, she was runner up).

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... n-marathon

I think a Marathon should be ran, the soldier who first ran 42 km and inspired the event back in Greece a couple of thousand years ago did run and not walk.
Walking is not in the spirit of the event... if you can't run 42 km, don't enter a marathon, start with a parkrun and then do a 10 km and then a half marathon...

People want to climb Everest before they've been up Snowdon

tangled_metal

The cutoff in the pack was 7.5 hour pace before clearing up started. The runner pacing the 6 hour time for the event was caught up in the clearing up according to the report I read. How? The 7.5 hour pace runner should have been the line that clearing up started at not ahead of the 6 hour pacer. A pedantic criticism but still valid.

London marathon has for decades been treated by media and the general public as a kid of national event. Whether watching or taking part it is about the challenge and entertainment of the event for many. It's the two sides of the event to have the elite and the decidedly opposite. It is sold as that not least through the long history of costumes and charity runners. Rhino suit anyone?

Now, some on here are complaining that it's wrong. It's a race against time and should be for those who can run it. OK it's an opinion but not this event. If you wanted that and only that then you're probably 30 odd years late trying to get that. It started 30 years ago and became the event it is at least in part from attracting elite runners and fun runners. We used to watch it as kids, possibly from the first event. I bet we were not the only one who found the fun runners more interesting. In fact it often only got turned on after the faster runners just finished.

That's the history of the event. Face it and accept it. If you can't then perhaps you need to find another marathon to follow or run in. It is what it is and became that because of it.

rjsterry

See also: people bleating about riders on the Ridelondon event not being fast enough. :roll:

chris_bass

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

The London Marathon isn't a race in the same way sportives aren't races, they are events, admittedly in this case it is a running event, but mainly aimed at raising money for charity.

Would people be more likely to give money to someone who ran marathons for "fun" as it were to run it or to encourage someone to run it who was putting themselves through something they really don't want to do?

and if nothing else the minutes per £ return is much better!

Marathons are races and on occasions it has happened that amateurs won, ahead of bigger "pro" athletes... very recently in the female category of the Boston marathon (OK, she was runner up).

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... n-marathon

I think a Marathon should be ran, the soldier who first ran 42 km and inspired the event back in Greece a couple of thousand years ago did run and not walk.
Walking is not in the spirit of the event... if you can't run 42 km, don't enter a marathon, start with a parkrun and then do a 10 km and then a half marathon...

People want to climb Everest before they've been up Snowdon

I think you are right for a lot of marathons but the London Marathon is a special case (in the UK at least) and the vast majority of entrants see it as a large scale charity event rather than any kind of race.

timothyw

Bhf London to Brighton perhaps the closest cycling equivalent?

rick_chasey

Why does it matter?

What a weird thing to have an opinion of.


And that’s from someone who has an opinion on pretty much everything.

cougie

Of course London Marathon is a race. Sure I'm not bothering the elites but I'm racing for personal bests.

This new 8 hour thing seems I'll thought out. In the past I've seen them clearing barriers away at the 25m mark about 6 hours into it.

A lot of people watch the coverage on TV and it's all happy and jolly. Mainly because the coverage only goes to 3hours plus.

At the back there's a lot of sad runners often in tears and having an awful day. Few supporters. Rubbish all over the street. No razzamatazz. I'd not want to be out for 8 Hours running. You do wonder how their training has gone.

photonic69

Broom Wagon (bus) for stragglers? Otherwise let them get on with it on their own with no support after cutoff time?

awavey

but the point certainly some seem to be missing is the organisers provided pace runners for a 6hr+ completion time, the 7hr30min pacer finishes within the published cutoff time so whats the problem ?

and no one has complained about not getting a medal for completing from that group in that time. What they are saying is the course/water stations were being dismantled upto and including the 23 mile point, whilst they were still on schedule to complete before the cutoff time.

so that has to questioned as to why ? sure dismantle the start by that time, but why part of the course thats so near the end and still has runners on target for your cutoff, it smacks of bad setup and organisation, I bet the dismantling crew just started at the same time they always did,not realising the organisers had specifically extended the cutoff for runners like that this year.

as to the abuse and stuff for being fat and slow, yeah been there got the XL tshirt many times for stuff like that, its not alot of fun when you feel you are doing something thats at the boundaries, or often beyond, what you thought you were capable of fitness wise, Ive ridden lots of sportives like that where you end up at the finish thinking to yourself Ive done really well to get here, let alone in this time, its not the quickest Id accept I dont setout to do quickest times, Im pushing myself, not matching myself to other people, and yet here you are dismantling everything around me & theres no longer the massive buzz of finishing or lots of people around celebrating your achievement, its like come on hurry up we want to go home...you get this massive high of finishing completing something you didnt think you were capable of, and then this massive low of oh sorry Im in the way holding you up. Its a very deflating experience.

I know I couldnt do a marathon, run, walk or even crawl it, I did a 10-15 mile walk once & got blisters that hurt like hell I could barely walk the rest of the week, I once walked a 5mile fun run as my knees literally cant cope with running, so these people trained, they trained as best they could and they did something plenty of couch potatoes just watching on tv couldnt.

PhilipPirrip

oxoman wrote:

Boy did this thread touch a nerve, it's on its way to being as good as the trump one.

It's been a dog whistle for ignorance and intolerance to raise their ugly head just as happens here for cycling where some believe every ride has to be hard work and every ride a race. They see no room for those who don't share their narrow-minded approach to their sport, or should that be hobby.

On the other hand you have those who aren't self-interested taking an empathetic and holistic view trying to explain the organisers breached the agreement they set for the runners, the vast majority they knew were running for fun or charity fund raising.

Not so much opposite but more tangential views that are hard to reconcile.

robert88

I did a 28 mile walk once that took me nearly 10 hours. Never doing that again without a bicycle..

jgsi

Is this about dithering pedestrians on cycle paths, not knowing that they might lurch left or right without warning?

Bumo_b

Just done a bit of research and it seems it is fabled that the Greek "soldier" who ran back to Athens was actually a messenger on the day, who actually died when he got to Sparta, which leads to the questions:

1) If he is not going to be a proper soldier for the day, he should not of been there at all, taking up rations etc for those more able.
2) He died after reaching Sparta, so wasn't really fit enough to be doing that sort of distance and shouldn't of been allowed to do it.
3) Wikipedia (dubious at times) debates the distance as 150 miles each way, which would indicate the those who completed the London Marathon as a race might as well not of bothered as really they are competing in a fun run that is just over 273 miles short

Or alternatively, it was a heroic endeavour running to seek help and save other lives, irrespective of his welfare. A truly noble cause mirrored by anyone taking part and raising money for good causes!

tangled_metal

Yes, very good, but was he fat and slow? Important to know so we can get the insults right.

ugo.santalucia

Chris Bass wrote:

I think you are right for a lot of marathons but the London Marathon is a special case (in the UK at least) and the vast majority of entrants see it as a large scale charity event rather than any kind of race.

If London is special, then any big marathon is special... New York, Boston, Berlin, Chicago, Tokyo, Paris you name it...

capt_slog

Tangled Metal wrote:

Yes, very good, but was he fat and slow? Important to know so we can get the insults right.

He was almost definitely Greek, does that help?

ugo.santalucia

We live in an age where shame has been shamed... I would be too ashamed to walk 42 km in a marathon and would never enter it if I can't run it (or at least most of it), but these days it is perfectly acceptable and people are even proud of it.

Maybe my generation was too concerned of "what others would think", or maybe standards these days are so low that anything goes... or maybe the truth is somewhere in between

haydenm

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

I think you are right for a lot of marathons but the London Marathon is a special case (in the UK at least) and the vast majority of entrants see it as a large scale charity event rather than any kind of race.

If London is special, then any big marathon is special... New York, Boston, Berlin, Chicago, Tokyo, Paris you name it...

I was under the understanding that hte Boston marathon atleast has a relatively difficult to achieve PB qualifying time to get in. This all comes down to what the organisers are trying to do, I can't really see how there is so much debate about this

chris_bass

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

I think you are right for a lot of marathons but the London Marathon is a special case (in the UK at least) and the vast majority of entrants see it as a large scale charity event rather than any kind of race.

If London is special, then any big marathon is special... New York, Boston, Berlin, Chicago, Tokyo, Paris you name it...

I agree with that - what percentage of the non elite atheletes do you think have a running club, do multiple other running events do more than 1 marathon etc etc?

i think the vast majority of the main entry runners do it purely because it is a headline grabbing event and solely to raise money for charity and not because they would consider themselves a "runner".

for example, the marathon in stratford, picked because my sister actually won it a couple of years ago! had just over 600 finishers, compared to about 43,000 in the london marathon. if the london marathon was not a special case why is there such a big difference in turn out?

if you want another london marathon for a fairer comparison - richmond park had fewer than 300 runners take part

ugo.santalucia

HaydenM wrote:

I can't really see how there is so much debate about this

THere is debate about Earth being flat, so why not...

bompington

ugo.santalucia wrote:

We live in an age where shame has been shamed... I would be too ashamed to walk 42 km in a marathon and would never enter it if I can't run it (or at least most of it), but these days it is perfectly acceptable and people are even proud of it.

Maybe my generation was too concerned of "what others would think", or maybe standards these days are so low that anything goes... or maybe the truth is somewhere in between

You've got a point, but you're pointing your shaming at the wrong people: surely you should be having a go at all the unfit & overweight people who aren't actually getting off their backsides and making an effort?

ugo.santalucia

Chris Bass wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

I think you are right for a lot of marathons but the London Marathon is a special case (in the UK at least) and the vast majority of entrants see it as a large scale charity event rather than any kind of race.

If London is special, then any big marathon is special... New York, Boston, Berlin, Chicago, Tokyo, Paris you name it...

I agree with that - what percentage of the non elite atheletes do you think have a running club, do multiple other running events do more than 1 marathon etc etc?

i think the vast majority of the main entry runners do it purely because it is a headline grabbing event and solely to raise money for charity and not because they would consider themselves a "runner".

for example, the marathon in stratford, picked because my sister actually won it a couple of years ago! had just over 600 finishers, compared to about 43,000 in the london marathon. if the london marathon was not a special case why is there such a big difference in turn out?

if you want another london marathon for a fairer comparison - richmond park had fewer than 300 runners take part

I bet they would still have 40K entries if the minimum requirement was a more realistic 5 to 6 hours... but I feel they are banking on unrealistic runners... the more unfit they are, the more they will raise from friends and colleagues.
Ultimately, who will sponsor a sub 3 hour runner?

Pross

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

I think you are right for a lot of marathons but the London Marathon is a special case (in the UK at least) and the vast majority of entrants see it as a large scale charity event rather than any kind of race.

If London is special, then any big marathon is special... New York, Boston, Berlin, Chicago, Tokyo, Paris you name it...

Not really, London was specifically set up as a charity fundraising event on the back of the marathon. I'm not sure how many, if any, of the other marathon majors were set up on that basis (BTW Paris doesn't belong on that list).

Anyway, having missed out on the London ballot yet again last year I'm doing Newport Marathon on Sunday. If anyone wants to come and hurl abuse such as 'slightly overweight' and 'very mediocre' as I fight to achieve the elusive sub 4 hour run in my 5th marathon (in my defence, 2 of those have been Snowdonia Marathon which is a bit lumpy!) feel free. I'll studiously ignore you with my normal sullen glare fixed firmly on my face in exactly the same way I treat all the usual encouragement such as 'you're nearly there' and 'well done, keep going' at the first mile marker.

tangled_metal

Good luck on your sub4. Let us know how you get on.