UKH

I ran the Dublin Marathon with my other half at the weekend and it certainly opened my eyes to the experience/plight of the slow runners. 

My other half has Fibromyalgia and so every step is painful, but she wanted to run a marathon so I ran with her to support her etc. She has previously ran a half and the full training was pretty successful so we were aiming at a 7hr, unfortunately the second half was tough and we got in at 7:55.

My heart really goes out to the slow runners, they really have a tough job and don't even get the rewards of the full marathon, the roads get re-opened so have to move to the pavement and run alongside the pedestrians,  barriers are opened and the route is not always clear, water stations get closed and even the finish line gets dismantled. But the worst thing is there are no crowds to cheer them on!!! 

They really earn their medals, probably more so than me (I do 4hrs).  

They should be allowed to start earlier (3 to 4 hrs) so everyone finishes with the crowds... Now I know this is over simplifying it but surely something can be done. 

I also know that there are marathons that have a cut off time for this very reason.

The Dublin Marathon is amazing though and so friendly.

Cheers

Euge

In reply to Euge:

If the slow runners started first then then the fast runners would have to overtake us, which for a race with large numbers would be a recipe for disaster.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Not really as they would be well spread out by that time...

In reply to Euge:

Have you seen the pace of some of the fast runners? Its bonkers fast. If they are going for a record or a place on a national team, even a few seconds to go round someone could make a difference.

If you set off early, you have the same situation. People wont come out to watch at 07:00, if the main race starts at 09:00. Even with a 2h head start, at 7h you'll still be coming in very late. There is a certain amount of dignity in slogging it out to the end, whatever the odds.

In reply to Euge:

Firstly well done to your other half. Great achievement, particularly given their condition. 

Agree re slower runners earning their medals, but letting them go first would mean they would impede progress of faster runners and end up causing unnecessary collisions / aggro between runners. 

Marathons, by their very nature, are competitive running events and should anyone want to cover the distance in that environment, they need to be accepting of that. 

Re organisers packing up, anything beyond 8hrs is pretty much walking pace, again which isn’t in the spirit of marathons. 

I’m sure there are some marathon walking / running events out there for people who want to cover the distance without the pressure; unfortunately big city marathons aren’t always convenient for that. 

Expecting lots of dislikes and all of the above is only my opinion.

In reply to Euge:

I ran a chip timed half marathon in Switzerland that started in groups, although they were still in speed order.  Perhaps it would not be a problem if you could choose your group ?

Setting start time to finish together is the format used for the handicap races at both my running clubs.  It 's not very encouraging.  The fast ones hardly catch anybody, it feels impossible, and the slow runners either see nobody, or get a demonstration of how slow they really are.  There is no proper competing.

However I was 15 minutes late for the Worksop Half some years ago, and very much enjoyed wading through the field.  One person doing it is probably not causing any problem.  If there were a lot it might be different.

In reply to Euge:

I’m a race organiser.

Time limits are for two things:

1. Road closures, there will often be time pressures on certain roads, for a race that I am involved in we have one road we are only allowed to close for 30 minutes, enough time to get everyone past that point and then reopen.

2. Marshals. Races need huge numbers of marshals, usually volunteers. Race organisers need to think about the length of time they are on the course.  

People sometimes expect a level inclusiveness in races that just isn’t practical.

In reply to The New NickB:

Too many cars. I used to run in the Windermere/Kendal 10. One of many races cancelled in the age of too much traffic. 

In reply to Euge:

It’s a race. The winner is the person who crosses the line first. Would be quite easy to say you’re a 7 hour runner, run it in 5 and come in 2 hours in front of the fastest runner. 
The first 50 places are determined by gun time, not chip time. 
 

What you’re describing is a handicap system. They’re common in racing. Each person has a delayed start depending on their handicap time which is based on previous race times. So a 4 hour runner would start 2 hours in front of a 2 hour runner. This means the 2 hour runner has to (and should be able to) catch the 4 hour runner. The objective is to have all the runners in a close sprint finish. It’s common that the 4 hour hour runners beat the 2 hour runners. 
 

However, usually this is done with club races with about 20 runners and over 5km. 
 

It just wouldn’t work with 40,000 people and a marathon. Imagine the finish line!

In reply to Euge:

Simply not true. It would be carnage. Even as a not quick runner (2:50 shape these days) a big marathon like Boston is carnage with people not aware people are behind them. It would be far far more dangerous and unpleasant for slower runners.

Drink stops would be a mess with guys running at 12-15 minute miles dipping across guys running 5:30 minute miles....

In reply to plyometrics:

..

I don't really do "dislikes", but what I would say is that there should be no dismantling of any of the course (not even minor dismantling) until the final runner has passed provided they are within any specified cut-off.  Once the cut-off has passed, the marshalls need to politely but firmly explain to anyone still on the course that their time is up and asking them to retire, and explaining that if they continue they are on their own (assuming it's in a public place).

Cut-offs need to be clearly publicised at entry as they are an important part of the choice as to whether to enter a given event or not.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Agree with all of that and in general cut off times are pretty clear. 

In reply to plyometrics:

I would agree in most races, though there was an issue with the course being dismantled on the London Marathon before runners had missed the cut-off, which to me is totally unacceptable.

Full support up to the point runners are told they have timed out, no support afterwards, is the only fair way.  If you need to start taking it down sooner, you need to shorten the published cut-off or have it staged as many ultras do.

In reply to Neil Williams:

That was an error in communication which was compounded by them trialling a new wave start which was delayed. Which meant that the crew dismantling the course were on a different schedule to the runners. 
London is a big city and they’d face fines if the road wasn’t opened to schedule. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I'm sure they would, but on such a high profile event there isn't really any excuse for that kind of schoolboy error.  TBH, the event makes so much money I'd say they should just take the fines on the chin.

In reply to Euge:

Different kind of situation, but slow runners sometimes start early in hill races. In the Maddy Moss race on the Ochils this year - a summer-evening race - three runners started something like 30 minutes ahead of the rest of the field - I was watching from a little way up the main slope and the three came through several minutes before the actual leaders. I've seen that kind of thing happen in the Maddy Moss before, and it makes sense as even though it's a July race there is potential for someone very slow (or injured) to get a bit close to nightfall on a cloudy evening - plus of course the marshals need to get off the hill and go home.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

They typically start slow runners early, but that's a very small number of runners. In a marathon thousands and thousands are slower than 4 hours.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

2:50 = not quick <shock emoji>

Methinks sir/ madam may be indulging in a spot of genital waving. 

In reply to Wee Davie:

I wasn't in the top 1000 at Boston..

even in regional races these days I won't make the top 100.

I'd say that's not quick. It may seem so for the none runner but I'm very much in the masses when doing big city races these days. Apologies for commenting..

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I think you need to recalibrate what you consider quick. The median time for a marathon is 3:58. You are an hour quicker than the average runner. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

The average UK climbing grade is HVS - that doesn't make E2 cutting-edge. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Skewed by people who “run” 7 hours +

In reply to Captain Fastrousers:

2:50 marathon pace is a bit more like E5. I don't believe Roadrunner was willy waving but to say it's not fast is a little disingenuous. 1000th place at Boston would still put you at about top 4%. 1000th place at Boston would still put you in the top 4%.

In reply to ianstevens:

From experience I'd say the claim of 3:58 being median as pretty bang on. 3 to 4hrs seems to be the sweet spot of aspiration with most getting nearer the 4hr mark.

In reply to DancingOnRock: and Wee Davie

I think Roadrunner6 is saying that 2:50 is not quick compared with what he used to run. You presumably haven't seen his past history of posts related to running. If you had, then you'd know that he used to be pretty quick, and was always happy to give out sensible running advice.

If anything (rather than willy waving) he's being a bit modest by not mentioning this.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

In which case the climbing equivalent would be someone now only climbing E5, having previously been in better form, referring to E5 as not really that hard.

Sounds about right to me. Difficulty perception is in no way absolute.

In reply to ianstevens:

Most races have cut-offs far, far tighter than that.

In reply to john arran:

I don't disagree and don't believe Ian was willy waving. 

In reply to ianstevens:

https://marastats.com/marathon/

In reply to john arran:

 

Personal perception isn’t absolute but when viewed statistically, difficulty is an absolute measure. 

In reply to Neil Williams and john arran:

I’m aware. Doesn’t mean they don’t happen and skew the data. I can think of examples of races I’ve done where median finishers are 4/5 hours... (smaller dataset of course). 7 hours is c. 6km/hr - a brisk walking pace. 

 Far from dick waving, my  mara PB is only 3:08. Not exactly quick. And I actually really like the E5 comprision, and again it’s pertinent to me - my top grade, but far from hard in the grand scheme.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Paris stop giving medal out at 6 hours. 

Comrades don’t let you cross the line after 12 hours. You run 55 miles and are physically stopped from finishing.

In reply to Wee Davie:

Iain is a former international athlete in mountain running, I’m sure he would be the first to admit he never had the pace to really compete on the road, however his views on what is quick for a marathon will be influenced by that.

I would be more than happy with a 2:50 Marathon, but on the other hand I know dozens of people who have run quicker than 2:50. These are ordinary club athletes.

The fact is in a big city marathon if you set off everyone aiming for a time slower than five hours two hours before the rest of the field, you could have 10,000 people blocking the routes of thousands of runners, some of whom are running at three times the speed.

In reply to ianstevens:

Yet there are plenty of runners who think 4 hours is decent and HVS is a target.  I'm both.

I think what that highlights is that unless you're into Guinness records or getting sponsored what your time or grade is isn't of much importance at all - both sports are much more about personal challenge than what other people can do.  And I do find that by and large that's the overriding view in both sports.  Which is a really, really good thing.  (Though I would agree that a 7 hour marathon is a walk, not a run, and isn't really in the ethos of a marathon - if you're going to do that you should probably do a shorter race and train to run it and build up that way).

FWIW, 3:08 *is* pretty quick for a "layman".  And I doubt I will ever lead E5 as I've got no interest in the "risk" side of climbing, and a safe E5 is unlikely to technically ever be in my grasp.

I don't think claiming 3:08 is slow is willy waving - it's doing yourself down massively!

In reply to ianstevens:

No it's not; they could all take an extra three hours and not affect the median time at all.

In reply to Robert Durran:

True - the advantage of using the median instead of the mean is that the extremities skew only by numbers not by values which makes the effect much smaller.

(They do affect it as they place more people on the "slow" side of the point you're looking at - but that's the only effect - if their time was 30 hours that doesn't affect anything)

In reply to Euge:

Thanks for all your comments, a lot of sense there.

I think I should have titled the topic "Hats off to slow runners", as the point I was really trying to make was how tough it is for them and they don't even get the full marathon experience. 

I'm not really talking about the people who choose to walk, more so the people who are just slow runners (if that makes sense!!!)

Thanks all

Euge

In reply to Euge:

I read the thread title as "Why don't slow runners go fast"

In reply to Robert Durran:

Skewed in the sense that people turning up to races and doing 7+ hours are simply adding points to the data, not replacing 4 hour runners with 7 hour runners (which would indeed make no difference to the data). Remove all the 7+ hour runners, and the median drops.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Which nicely highlights that difficulty is relative. What is important IMO is challenging yourself with something objectively challenging for you - so we agree very much on that point! HVS is your target, E6 is mine - neither are objectively hard when the whole scale is considered. Hard in the overall scheme these days is E8/E9 - impossible for both of us I suspect. It will be an achievement for us both when we move up our respective grades, and hard for us personally, but not in the grand scheme. That said, I've got respect for anyone who is trying hard, putting the work in and getting out of their comfort zone, irrespective of performance relative to the overall situation.

I'm male, under 30, from a relatively privileged background and have no real history of illness/injury. I've nowhere near reached my genetic potential with 3:08 - but thanks. If I'd put in the work I suspect I could get down into the 2:30s... but this is of course sure speculation (as an aside I also don't want to put in that work, and hence am aware that I'm not going to run that quick!)

In reply to ianstevens:

Fair point, but if you, say, added an extra 200  7+ hour runners, the median would simply move 100 places down the field and since there are going to be large numbers of runners with times bunched tightly around the median, this will only lower the median time by a samll amount. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yeah, you are probably right - there is a massive sub-4 spike!

In reply to ThunderCat:

Yup... My bad

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Nuts.

When I was running, it was generally accepted that any good club runner was EXPECTED to run a marathon in under 2:30. When I had my one and only attempt at the event - on a known hilly course, before I became a "good" club runner, and when I was only doing 35 miles a week in training - I ran 2:52, and that was mainly because I walked between 24 and 25 miles. I wasn't (at that point) a good club runner.

Too many people like to "big up" their abilities, rather than accept that they are really quite cr*p.

In reply to fred99:

That isn't, however, the ethos I like to see in sport, because it doesn't provide encouragement for people to take it up and improve.  Now, of course, if you set up a running club for elites that's fine - novices need not join, and as long as the club makes that clear that's just fine (just like the climbing club I'm a member of is welcoming of novices and bimblers, but the Climbing Club isn't, and both make that clear enough).  Just like some races exclude novices by setting pre-qualifications or tight cut-offs, and some welcome them - again that's just fine as long as it's made clear, you pay your money and you take your choice.

But I far, far prefer the Parkrun ethos of "better that you're out there moving than sat on the sofa", and would prefer to go with the idea that if you can run a marathon you're pretty good to start with, and that 2:30 is a *really, really good* time, and that the kind of times professionals run are *elite* times.  In the end someone who can *actually* run 26 miles (rather than walk, though it's also a long way to walk!) is pretty good to start with.

In reply to fred99:

I'm not sure that the majority of clubs, even in the heyday of club distance running, would expect a sub 2:30 marathon from their "good" runners. My own club, whilst relatively small, has had Three Peaks winners, junior national and international XC champions and plenty international vests, the club record for the marathon is 2:29.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

But at Boston I'm well back fighting crowds running at 6:30 pace or whatever it was.

Add thousands more and it becomes very unpleasant.

This year we had (I think Chinese) runners who had fabricated qualifying times and were running at 10-12 minute miles having been seeded well up ahead of me, they were getting smashed around as we were running in crowds of 100's of runners and suddenly the wave would part and you'd be running into the back of a runner going much slower.

I think Boston is 30,000 runners, maybe its more, but I qualified off a 2:56, so was seeded 3500th or so. I was wave 1 corral 4, so pretty far back in the mass start. It was what it was, but add those runners passing even more and it will be carnage.

That may seem quick but in todays new wave of stronger runners it's very much in with the club runners. I don't even count for my club, I'm not even top 5, even as a M40 from next year, I will struggle to count. I race XC here and in the open race I have to fight to not be last, nicely humbling.. I think I was 3rd from last in my last XC race. 

Re the closing the course early at London and dismantling the aid, that was bad. It should be posted. I don't mind what the times are as long as it is posted and stick to it. 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Yes, this, that way you can make an informed decision if the race is for you (and indeed if you are for the race) or not.  TBH, that applies to near enough every area of business, not just running races - don't obfuscate what you're offering (or change it later, even inadvertently) and people can make an informed choice of if they want to buy it or not.

After all, I just wouldn't enter a marathon with a 3 hour cut off, I wouldn't manage it.  But I would consider entering one with say a 4:30 cut off, but would be quite miffed if I was on course for 4:09 (my marathon PB so far - indeed not quick ) and found things being taken down from round me.

In reply to Euge:

Every time I scan past the title of this thread, I think it says "Why don't slow runners go fast?"!! lol

In reply to Neil Williams:

I suspect you mean The Climbers Club, who expect VS or better as a standard for entry.

Parkrun have nailed the concept of social running for health etc by encouraging all and sundry of whatever shape and background, they are delighted that the average 5k time is getting worse with time which shows more beginners/old folk are diluting the original running community.

For me, as I get older, the concept of "fast" becomes less important than "age-graded percentage". I was never fast, compared to runners generally and my climbing club running section in particular, my best marathon/half marathon performances equated to about 73% at that age. Currently I am struggling to get through the 70% barrier (for the nth time) at parkrun but my PB is almost 73%, and I am happy to be following the general curve into decrepitude at the expected rate.

When I was running road marathons in the Eighties, 3 hours was the target for most of my mates and sub-2:45 was the province of the real runners. I don't remember many people setting out to deliberately run with a target over 4 hours. Expectations have definitely changed, but the charities have benefited as a result and this must be a good thing.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

The London course closing times are posted. But people don’t read that.

There’s a sweeper ‘bus’ that pushes people onto the pavement. The argument was that the ‘bus’ was on a different time to the runners due to the way the phased start hadn’t gone to plan. The people being told to move onto the pavement were then arguing with the guys closing the course and the guys closing the course were just labourers doing a job, and they gave the runners a fair amount of abuse. 
 

Anyway. Boston is not a good example to determine whether you are faster than normal runners. There are no normal runners in Boston. You have to qualify. 
 

Your time of 2:50 would give you a Good For Age entry to London - so the organisers are classing you as fast even if you aren’t. 5 minutes quicker and you’d be lining up with the championship entries for anyone running sub 2:45.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

That is not true. There are still charity runners.

Just 5 minutes, that's just another 40 miles a week.. 

Dropping from 3:00 - 2:50 for me, is easy (for others much less so). Dropping to 2:45 is big, dropping to 2:35 is absolutely massive. for others 2;45 is their 'i'm not fit' baseline.

My "I'm not fit" is about 2:55-3:00 hours. When I was fit I was running 2:36 (probably quicker at my peak but being fit and getting a good marathon at that time is hard). 2:49 down to 2:36 seems not much. It's just huge. It is hours a day. Much less body fat. Much much harder training. 

Back to climbing its like saying to an E5 climber, when just go and do that E7. For the Vdiff climber that step may not seem massive but for the E5 climber it is huge.

People see a 2:35 and say 'wow almost 2:30', which is just laughable because in reality that 10-15 seconds a mile is huge. 

I don't consider myself quick and would consider it pretty arrogant to count myself as quick because I'm routinely hammered in any field. I still win the odd race but turn up to a championship race like New England 10 mile champs and I'm lucky to make the top 15%.

I work full time, 1 kid, 2 more on the way, wife works long hours, I can run 60 miles a week and be a solid club runner but even at 2:50 I'm not a counter for my club. I really don't consider my times quick. Mates like Andy Davies are quick.. 

In reply to The New NickB:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. My clubs WOMENS record is 2:33 !

On one occasion, during a long sunday run, a number of us were "discussing" the fact that a particular Birchfield Harrier who we all knew had been picked to represent England in a Marathon in Scotland. This person had run about 2:23 (once). The fact that the national event coach was also his personal coach was "noted". We added up all the people in 3 local clubs that could run as fast or faster (and most of which had done so on more than one occasion). We came to 20 - which included two Veterans (and remember this was over 40 years in those days, not 35). This did not include anyone from Tipton Harriers, Wolverhampton & Bilston, Coventry Godiva and a host of other Midland clubs.

And for your information, we faster runners ALWAYS made sure that on runs the slower runners could keep up, and even when there were "efforts" up a hill or between set points, we always either went back for the back markers, or at least waited for them - and didn't move off again until the slower runners had regained their breath. As far as I know, all the other clubs around also looked after the slower runners. We all knew that we were all slow once, and later on would return to being slow, once age took its toll, so didn't have any arrogant airs and graces.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

That’s not my point. Your time is quick. Not relative to you, relative to everyone else running. 

You can’t say E8/E9 is hard and everything else is easy. That’s not the absolute. It’s a continuum from Difficult right up to E9, each step up the ladder is an increase in difficulty. 

Kipchoge is fast, does that mean Mo Farah is slow? No. He is fast, he’s just slower than Kipchoge. 
 

In terms of the London marathon, a guy took a week to do it in a diving suit, that sounds slow to me, but I’m betting there are people who don’t even walk that far in a week in the course of their daily activities. 
 

In reply to fred99:

That’s me told. Bedford’s women’s record is 2:15, I’m not sure either fact means much in the context of the point that I raised.

Again that doesn’t prove much. I know quite a few guys who have run sub 2:30, some much faster, but they come from a small number of clubs.

You appear to be answering a question that nobody has asked. 

In reply to fred99:as a note re. the 2,23 international- they'd probably asked all the fasted runners and they all said no.  Getting a GB team for various events is surprisingly hard.  Also, pay your own way till Tromsk or Delhi or whatever, and yeah,  have a vest.  I've run a lot faster than a bunch of international road runners, but didn't do thoss races

I suspect you're slightly exaggerating though