Marathon runners called fat and slow.

Pross

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

But you are looking at it from the perspective of a relatively fit person with years of cycling behind you. Yes, if you or I turned up and trundled around in 7.5 or 8 hours it would be an embarrassment and a waste of a place, I certainly couldn't justify asking for sponsorship. However, if you were 25 stone when you entered and considered getting up to turn the TV over a chore then spent the next 6 months after getting accepted building your fitness to a level where you could walk 26.2 miles continuously I would suggest that would be something to be proud of and it could lead to that person turning their life around. I put the same amount of effort into trying for that 4 hour marathon as my friend does in trying to run sub 2.30 and some of those at 7.5 hours may well be working just as hard as both of us. As I've said earlier I do get frustrated by those that enter and then don't put the effort in either in training or on the day as was the case of the friend I mentioned earlier who basically treated it as a bit of a jolly.

On the other hand, some of those that really triumphed through adversity such as the paralysed person who completed the course last year weren't recognised in the results or given finishers medals and you would think that in circumstances like that the organisers would recognise the achievement. Obviously you wouldn't expect them to keep an official finish line or anyone around but at least give them a result and medal, maybe through a agreement in advance of the attempt.

Pross

Tangled Metal wrote:

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

Cheers, it should be well within my capability (I ran 1:42 in my most recent half back in March). My head tends to go around 17-18 miles though and on my previous 2 flat marathons I've made the mistake of taking a gel from a feed station rather than using the ones I'm carrying and in both cases left me with stomach cramps. I certainly won't be able to blame the weather, the forecast is about as good as I could want for this time of year (I struggle badly when it is warm).

sparquin

bompington wrote:

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?

An excellent point pointed out. Fat and slow . . . and faster than anyone who's still on the sofa.

Bumo_b

I congratulate anyone who took part and undertook anything out of their comfort zone, whether that be those seeking a fast PB or those challenged by getting off the couch!
I have a really annoying son who can do a marathon off the bat without blinking, a natural runner who after a night on the lash managed to crack out 3hr 52m at the Greater Manchester marathon last year in someone else's trainers and cargo trousers. I on the other hand concern myself on just beating the broom wagon on a continental sportive. Thankfully he was there to cheer me on and congratulated me on my endeavours over the last year in training to get to that place appreciating that if it comes easy it ain't a challenge.
For me, it is not about being in a world where shame has been shamed, but more those who sit in judgement be shamed. I know not of the history or journey of those who were slower so don't really feel I can say whether they should have been there.
To quote “Judging a person does not define who they are. It defines who you are.”

bobmcstuff

Pross wrote:

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

But you are looking at it from the perspective of a relatively fit person with years of cycling behind you. Yes, if you or I turned up and trundled around in 7.5 or 8 hours it would be an embarrassment and a waste of a place, I certainly couldn't justify asking for sponsorship. However, if you were 25 stone when you entered and considered getting up to turn the TV over a chore then spent the next 6 months after getting accepted building your fitness to a level where you could walk 26.2 miles continuously I would suggest that would be something to be proud of and it could lead to that person turning their life around. I put the same amount of effort into trying for that 4 hour marathon as my friend does in trying to run sub 2.30 and some of those at 7.5 hours may well be working just as hard as both of us. As I've said earlier I do get frustrated by those that enter and then don't put the effort in either in training or on the day as was the case of the friend I mentioned earlier who basically treated it as a bit of a jolly.

On the other hand, some of those that really triumphed through adversity such as the paralysed person who completed the course last year weren't recognised in the results or given finishers medals and you would think that in circumstances like that the organisers would recognise the achievement. Obviously you wouldn't expect them to keep an official finish line or anyone around but at least give them a result and medal, maybe through a agreement in advance of the attempt.

Agreed, if it gets people up and active it can only be a good thing. If the fact that the London marathon is a big prestigious event helps, then I don't see the problem.

ugo.santalucia

There is the inevitable dilemma: should I sponsor someone who has no intention to put the necessary training to run a marathon, but just to walk it?

Or in other words, if they want to run for charity, why don't they just start with a shorter distance and progress to a marathon, rather than walking? It's a much healthier mindset, rather than this tick the box exercise so you can say you've done it

chris_bass

ugo.santalucia wrote:

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?

that was kind of my point

tangled_metal

Pross wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

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

Cheers, it should be well within my capability (I ran 1:42 in my most recent half back in March). My head tends to go around 17-18 miles though and on my previous 2 flat marathons I've made the mistake of taking a gel from a feed station rather than using the ones I'm carrying and in both cases left me with stomach cramps. I certainly won't be able to blame the weather, the forecast is about as good as I could want for this time of year (I struggle badly when it is warm).

I don't really run but I've done enough challenge walks to know that we have our bad sections to work through. There might even be times in the event you're doubting that you'll finish. Those are just stages and you do work through them. After that you kind of find it easier.

Or that is my experience. Walking consistently at 4mph isn't running but it's not easy over long periods of time. It's 6.5 hour marathon pace but doing that for double the distance over hills and some very rough ground. It isn't completed by everyone starting it whether runner or walker.

The point of what's a challenge for you versus a challenge for others is the key point. I know a guy who from 25+ stone at 18 reached early 20s having made the decision he wanted to play football. He worked hard and got to below 18 stone. How? He walked up a hill and back down. Once a day became twice a day. Then it became 4 times in one session. Then it became more per session with two sessions per day. Then more and more. Then bike. Then football in a local league.

It's this level of effort, which is big for this guy I know, that is positive and could well be the effort one of those trying hard to get inside 7.5 hours to get a recorded time, medal and sponsorship for their charity. At least as positive or more so than the op getting his super fast time as the super fit athlete he claims.

veronese68

Bumo_b wrote:

I congratulate anyone who took part and undertook anything out of their comfort zone, whether that be those seeking a fast PB or those challenged by getting off the couch!
...
For me, it is not about being in a world where shame has been shamed, but more those who sit in judgement be shamed. I know not of the history or journey of those who were slower so don't really feel I can say whether they should have been there.
To quote “Judging a person does not define who they are. It defines who you are.”

Exactly

Matthewfalle

i work in a massively crazily competitive organisation where there are some of the fittest people you will ever meet - no matter what size you are if you are doing something and trying you will get respect and support.

the minute you're a fat waster and just sitting there shovelling chips and gravy down your throat is when you get grief.

full respect to anyone who does a marathon in my book.

cougie

Pross wrote:

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

Not quite accurate -

Charitable status was established for the event, and Brasher and Disley devised six aims for the London Marathon:

To improve the overall standard and status of British marathon running by providing a fast course and strong international competition.
To show mankind that, on occasions, they can be united.
To raise money for sporting and recreational facilities in London.
To help boost London’s tourism.
To prove that ‘Britain is best’ when it comes to organising major events.
To have fun, and provide some happiness and sense of achievement in a troubled world.

crispybug2

As someone said earlier, they may be slow but they're lapping everyone on their sofa.

On a personal level for me, I did the London marathon in 1982 or 83 when I was frankly as fit as I've ever been in my life but I was never a long distance runner, I was a county and district sprinter, and I hated doing the marathon, I completed it 4 hours and 3 seconds (and yes, those 3 seconds still annoy me!) but I would never run a marathon or half marathon again as my knees couldn't take it anymore after 30 years of rugby but I think I could walk one with a reasonable amount of training, so by the rationale of the shouting people, and to be frank some people on this forum, I shouldn't be allowed to take part in the London marathon even though I would be performing to the optimum of my physical abilities!

ugo.santalucia

crispybug2 wrote:

As someone said earlier, they may be slow but they're lapping everyone on their sofa.

On a personal level for me, I did the London marathon in 1982 or 83 when I was frankly as fit as I've ever been in my life but I was never a long distance runner, I was a county and district sprinter, and I hated doing the marathon, I completed it 4 hours and 3 seconds (and yes, those 3 seconds still annoy me!) but I would never run a marathon or half marathon again as my knees couldn't take it anymore after 30 years of rugby but I think I could walk one with a reasonable amount of training, so by the rationale of the shouting people, and to be frank some people on this forum, I shouldn't be allowed to take part in the London marathon even though I would be performing to the optimum of my physical abilities!

Equally, I can't run.. my thighs seize if I do... I can cycle 300 km, but I can't run... I wouldn't even consider entering a marathon, why would I?
There's more than London marathon to life...

surrey_commuter

Like Rick I thought I had no opinion on this. Then realised that I don’t enter the London Marathon because I could not run it. If I did enter and walked around I would think it reasonable for people to shout abuse and generally deride me.

london-red

Veronese68 wrote:

Bumo_b wrote:

I congratulate anyone who took part and undertook anything out of their comfort zone, whether that be those seeking a fast PB or those challenged by getting off the couch!
...
For me, it is not about being in a world where shame has been shamed, but more those who sit in judgement be shamed. I know not of the history or journey of those who were slower so don't really feel I can say whether they should have been there.
To quote “Judging a person does not define who they are. It defines who you are.”

Exactly

X2

Quite sad how judgemental people are on this thread. Kudos to anyone who made the effort, just plain weird why anyone would try to undermine it. Maybe someone walked a marathon because they wanted to walk a marathon. God forbid.

awavey

ugo.santalucia wrote:

There is the inevitable dilemma: should I sponsor someone who has no intention to put the necessary training to run a marathon, but just to walk it?

Or in other words, if they want to run for charity, why don't they just start with a shorter distance and progress to a marathon, rather than walking? It's a much healthier mindset, rather than this tick the box exercise so you can say you've done it

sponsorship just complicates the issue though, I declined to sponsor a work colleagues 10 mile walk because well a it was a walk, and b no it was still just a long walk, and it wasnt like some life changing affirmation to take up exercise, they were fit healthy early 20s more likely underweight, seemed a bit of a cheek to even ask for sponsorship for that IMO. but then a friend of a friend of a friend is doing London to Paris via bike, yeah I know how original, but albeit a distance I dont believe theyve ever completed before, they are building the miles up and Im convinced theyll complete it, but Ill still sponsor them for doing it.

and Ive read reports from Big Swim events where people have signed up, turned up and nearly drowned themselves in the first 500metres as they hadnt prepared for any endurance or cold water swimming and were cramping up.

whatever the reason was, the organisers for this years marathon opened it up to people who were slower than previous years, whether thats the right or wrong decision, which I think is what people who are against are debating the point on more, is arguably seperate to the point the organisers accepted those people, so it was beholden on them to deliver the experience they expected.

Ben6899

I hope the OP can get up Buttertubs in under 13mins. Otherwise I might have to suspect they're "fat and slow".

It does not matter how fast you ride or run. Or what you ride or what you run in.

Just ride. And run. And live and let live.

rick_chasey

Bizarre thread

crispybug2

Just as an aside, my wife has taken part in the Moonwalk, which is an overnight walk doing a full marathon distance, a few times. One of her friends who has run over ten marathons said she found walking the distance tougher than running it!

norvernrob

All the people doing any kind of event are ‘getting off the sofa’, and that’s to be commended. However, some of them can’t be bothered to get off the sofa and train in the many months they have available beforehand, and just turn up no fitter than when they signed up. My Mrs has done a few halves, she’s doing a 10k with a couple of friends next week but they have hardly done any training so they’ll be walking around chatting whilst my wife runs off and tries to better her previous times (which aren’t amazing, but the point is she trains and can run the whole distance whether 5k or a half).

I can’t give someone credit for ignoring an upcoming event then walking around it. I used to walk a half marathon every day carrying a heavy bag, big deal. (I was a postie for 21 years).

ugo.santalucia

NorvernRob wrote:

I can’t give someone credit for ignoring an upcoming event then walking around it. I used to walk a half marathon every day carrying a heavy bag, big deal. (I was a postie for 21 years).

Exactly...

mrfpb

cougie wrote:

Pross wrote:

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

Not quite accurate -

Charitable status was established for the event, and Brasher and Disley devised six aims for the London Marathon:

To improve the overall standard and status of British marathon running by providing a fast course and strong international competition.
To show mankind that, on occasions, they can be united.
To raise money for sporting and recreational facilities in London.
To help boost London’s tourism.
To prove that ‘Britain is best’ when it comes to organising major events.
To have fun, and provide some happiness and sense of achievement in a troubled world.

London is also the birthplace of the standard 26.2 mile marathon. There was no set distance until the IAAF decided to adopt the London 1908 Olympic distance (a routle from Windsor Castle to White City Stadium) as the standard for all future marathons.

cougie

Stupid distance. Those last 6.2 miles are so unnecessary. I'd much prefer a 20 mile Marathon.

Pross

cougie wrote:

Stupid distance. Those last 6.2 miles are so unnecessary. I'd much prefer a 20 mile Marathon.

Tell me about it, I missed that sub 4 yet again after hitting the wall hard at the 20 mile marker. Had to walk run the last 6.2 and ended up with 4.12 after being on for around 3.50. I don't get it, I used to be better at endurance events on the bike but just can't break that 18-20 mile barrier. I guess it's in keeping with my status as slightly overweight and lazy! Still a PB though so at least it's going in the right direction.

chris_bass

Pross wrote:

cougie wrote:

Stupid distance. Those last 6.2 miles are so unnecessary. I'd much prefer a 20 mile Marathon.

Tell me about it, I missed that sub 4 yet again after hitting the wall hard at the 20 mile marker. Had to walk run the last 6.2 and ended up with 4.12 after being on for around 3.50. I don't get it, I used to be better at endurance events on the bike but just can't break that 18-20 mile barrier. I guess it's in keeping with my status as slightly overweight and lazy! Still a PB though so at least it's going in the right direction.

To go off at a slight tangent, I was listening to something about the placebo effect the other day and how powerful it is in things you wouldn't expect. I wonder how much of hitting the Wall is to do with people talking about hitting the Wall and this creeping in to other people's thinking?

cougie

Most of us will only train up to 20 miles or so with running so it's always tricky racing beyond it. Plus your body has enough glycogen in it to get to 15-20 miles so that plays a part. And yes probably psychologically too.

cougie

Pross wrote:

cougie wrote:

Stupid distance. Those last 6.2 miles are so unnecessary. I'd much prefer a 20 mile Marathon.

Tell me about it, I missed that sub 4 yet again after hitting the wall hard at the 20 mile marker. Had to walk run the last 6.2 and ended up with 4.12 after being on for around 3.50. I don't get it, I used to be better at endurance events on the bike but just can't break that 18-20 mile barrier. I guess it's in keeping with my status as slightly overweight and lazy! Still a PB though so at least it's going in the right direction.

I think I've slowed on every Marathon I've done in that area. 26.2 miles is a long way to run.

john80

I had people telling me to run negative splits for the marathon and whilst this is what the pros aim to do I doubt any four hour runners manage to go faster in the latter stages as the distance alone is a big ask. I got just under four hours by bring around 12-15 minutes up at 18 miles or so and was glad I ran a bit faster in the beginning albeit the early speed was still aerobic.

kingstongraham

Pross wrote:

cougie wrote:

Stupid distance. Those last 6.2 miles are so unnecessary. I'd much prefer a 20 mile Marathon.

Tell me about it, I missed that sub 4 yet again after hitting the wall hard at the 20 mile marker. Had to walk run the last 6.2 and ended up with 4.12 after being on for around 3.50. I don't get it, I used to be better at endurance events on the bike but just can't break that 18-20 mile barrier. I guess it's in keeping with my status as slightly overweight and lazy! Still a PB though so at least it's going in the right direction.

If you were aiming for 3:59, then 3:50 pace is too quick to start with. It's really hard to not go too quick at the start, when you feel good.

Last time I ran one I knew I wasn't really up to it but decided to go out at 45 min per 10k. Ended up with 3:39. I'll never know what I could have done if I'd started at 50 min 10k pace, but almost certainly quicker.

cougie

Pacing is so tricky over the Marathon distance. Burning your matches too soon always knackers your finish time.

I remember one year I got carried away when Kelly Holmes came past me. I think I did a mile at her pace but paid for it by the end... Stupid Idea.