GFA? is it possible for the average person?

1456810

Comments

  • TRTR ✭✭✭
    Is GFA possible for the average person?

    Yes, I'm a prime example of that.
  • TR - Your aren't average!

  • If average people can get GFA it needs to be renamed average for age or made harder.
  • That's very pedantic Struthie. I think the point is that an average person can do it but only if they train hard for it. The average person is not prepared to give the time and commitment needed to undertake the training therefore there is not an overwhelming number of people claiming these places. The people who do are therefore deemed as being 'good'.

    The debate about the differing standards for men and woman is interesting. In my circle of friends, it is mostly the women who run, not the men. Despite having family commitments, they do have the time to run but see running as a social thing and have no desire to run faster. Even those women who do have some competitive spirit struggle to push themselves out of their comfort zone in their running and racing. I am no more talented a runner than any of them, I just worked harder and wanted it more.

  • Maybe caterpillar. How about this analogy: Can an average person get a first at university? According to this thread yes if they work hard enough.  mmmm I am not convinced. Some things are just beyond certain people (Like getting to university in the first place or completeing a marathon in any time) Maybe this shouldnt be used as an excuse to underachieve but everyone has their limits.

  • No an average person cannot get a first at University.  However an average person can probably get 5 GCSEs these days (counts as good).  That some don't is either down to a predisposed learning problem (akin to a health problem stopping someone achieving GFA) or the fact they haven't been taught (coached) properly or done enough work (training) for it.

    No one is saying an average person can run a sub 2:20, anymore than they can get a 1st class honours.  However an average person under the age of 40 (and I fully agree with 20 mins' comments above) can get a GFA.  I'll keep saying it, show me someone who has run 80mpw for 2 years and prepared properly for the marathon who has NOT run sub 3 / sub 3.45.

  • Simple solution - use the age-adjusted gradings.

    Say for argument's sake you have to get 75% WAVA (or 70%, or whatever level will allow the organisers to get the right sort of numbers through the GFA system).

    There are simple WAVA calculators online - see Fetch site, that automatically adds WAVA to every race result you do.
    That would take away any notion of unfairness, at any age or sex!

    I do concede that it might be a little more difficult to explain to the general populus...
  • WAVA calculations are based on unfair premises - a 35 year old man is up against the times that Paul Tergat set a few years back - a full time athlete with a full time athlete's lifestyle.  A 55 year old woman (say) is up against other 55 year old women, the best of whom will be very talented amateurs with time to train, but not the funding to live like a top athlete.  Therefore it will be easier for the 55 year old woman to get nearer to the best time ever than a 35 year old man.
  • ExpS & BR
    Both good points, but something along those lines could show the way towards a solution.  The criteria used by Athletics Data Services and Power of 10 also provide a decent framework.
    Using that sort of information, or indeed their own marathon results, FLM could easily produce some time criteria for GFA by 5 (or 10) year age groups which would have more validity than what they currently have.

  • Ex pat scot - regardless of points of whether WAVA is a good measure or not - whatever you do don't use the WAVA gradings on the fetch site - they are horribly horribly inaccurate!!
  • My facts....

    Completed the FLM this year in 4h16m59s

    I am 39 years old and weigh 15st.

    I can row a sub 6m30s 2k on a Concept 2 rowing machine.

    My point....

    For all you naturally gifted runners out there, I doff my cap to you. However, to suggest that I should be able to train up to GFA standard is quite ludicrous. I wonder how many of you sub 3 marathon runners could manage the rowing time above, even with months of training? 1.8%, maybe?  Yes, if I could put the mileage in, maybe I could dip under 4 hours for a marathon one day. Maybe.

    (And yes, James Cracknell is an Olympic medal winning freak of nature, but so were Redgrave and Pinsent, and look at their marathon efforts.... nuff said.)

  • TRTR ✭✭✭
    I 100% reckon I could do sub 6m 30s (esp with a bit of training)*. Although I'm only 5ft 10 and long levers helps in rowing. Havn't sat on a rower (or been in a gym) in over 7 years though.

    *But then I'm not typical skinny rake of a runner.
  • Safety29 - I don't know how relatively good sub 6m 30 is for a rower.  I do know about running and given your level of fitness if you trained 80mpw at optimum training for your body make up for 2 years you would break 3 hours for the marathon. 

    If you don't agree with this go and prove me wrong.

    I know hundreds of examples of people who have done that and broken 3 hrs.  I know of no one who has done that and not broken 3 hours.  The evidence would suggest...

  • PadamsPadams ✭✭✭

    Safety29 - as someone who knows a bit about running and rowing, I would say sub-6:30 for a 2k is harder than a sub-3 marathon (I would say an equivalent 2k would be more like 6:45 to 7 mins). Even so, I still think with 2 years' optimal training (i.e. at least two hours a day) a reasonable proportion of men under 40 could break 6:30 - maybe 50%, but certainly a lot more than 1.8% (quite a specific estimate!).

    This is very different from running a sub-3 marathon though IMO. A marathon is (almost) pure endurance, whereas a 2k row requires a lot of strength and is at a much higher intensity (and there's a lot more technique involved), and because of this I think a much higher proportion could run a decent marathon than a 2k erg.

    I still can't see anyone disagreeing with BR on people who have run 80mpw for a long period and not got GFA...

  • http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2311034

    "I know some folks that run 80-90mpw and still can't break 4:00 for the marathon"
  • TmapTmap ✭✭✭

    I did 1800m in 6 mins; that's 10 seconds off that pace admittedly, but it's not that far off for a skinny lightweight.

    Clearly there are people whose build makes them less suitable to long distance running, but "the average person" isn't built like a 15 stone rower (at least not in the UK). I did rowing training for 4 years quite hard and I still looked like a 10k runner at the end of it (!).

  • Agreed

     Safety 20, spend a year building up to running 80 mpw, also get down to say 13 stone

    spend 2 years gradually and safely building up the pace whilst maintaining 80 mpw

    then you'll smash 3 hours

  • DanA Who's an ultra runner (winner MoB07 and Thames towpath08) took years before he got his sub 3. He regularly runs over 80mpw.

    He also chipped in a 3.22 at FLM08 this year just to show it's not as easy as some might lead you to believe.

    I would also point out that he is far from being your average runner.
  • So this guy DanA ran 80mpw and got a sub 3?

    Sounds about right!

    image

  • Not after 2 years he didn't.

    Must have had about a dozen attempts over about 4 years
  • PadamsPadams ✭✭✭

    Dull - I think with Dan it was more of a mental thing. You must agree he was in physical shape for a sub-3 much earlier e.g. he ran a 2.03 at Finchley 20M without running it flat out IIRC.

    That's the only flaw in this - I think anyone is capable of getting into shape to get GFA but might not actually pull it off on the day (for various reasons).

  • probably if he's an ultra runner he spends most of his time plodding around anyway
  • although not pulling it off on the day is probably beneficial to your race, isn't it?  i know that most boxers abstain for a few weeks before a fight.
  • so "taking Captain Pickard to warp speed" then running is a bad idea then?
  • TRTR ✭✭✭
    I think you'll find (and I'm sure that DanA will agree) that he either records a flipping fast time or blows up spectaularly and crawls home.
  • are we talking about running or pulling it off now?
  • Padams/TR

    So from a any ordinary person can do it position, are we now saying that any way above average person can do it
    given the correct pacing strategy, given sufficient time and given the best mental frame of mind.

    Interestingly Dan was the RW magazine pick to do a sub 3 in 2006. He walked off with a 3.10.
    That was something like his 10th attempt, and he was coached by the best for that one.

    Wish he could come on here and give us his view on this one. Feel like I'm talking behind his back.
  • Guys, big thanks for your confidence in my future running capabilities, but I do feel the need to make a few final points before I sign off and go back into training for the British Indoor Rowing Championships at the NEC in Birmingham....

    TR,  I admire your self belief, (nothing wrong with plenty of that in a sportsman) and yes, being 5'10'' with short levers is a disadvantage in rowing, but the mechanics of one's body are the most important factor when attempting to enter the upper echelons of any sport. (More on this later)

    Padams,  I'm not sure where to start with your comments! I guess the first thing to say would be that trying to equate a specific standard in running with a specific standard in rowing is highly subjective and down to the individual. However, to say that 50% of men under 40 (with optimal training) could row a sub 6.30 2k is just unrealistic. Take a look at the results for the 35 to 39 HW Men category at last years British Championships... A sub 6.30 would have secured you a top ten place! At the Nationals! (Also, I used the 1.8% gag, as it is my understanding that this was the percentage that break 3 hours in the marathon...hardly average, in fact quite 'elite', I think you'd agree!?)

    And finally Bansleyrunner,  I respect your knowledge and enthusiasm for this thread, but there are some basic flaws to your general assumption that an 'average' man under 40 can achieve sub 3 hours for the marathon with the optimum training. Firstly, I have no doubt that you have witnessed many cases of people 'upping' their mileage and breaking 3 hours, but fundimentally, these runners will have possessed the requisite mechanics and genetics to do so. (Matthew Pinsent was acknowledged as a better rower even than Cracknell, but he lumbered around the FLM (5H+ I think) because he does not have the natural running talent of Cracknell. He may have lungs like basketballs, but running just isn't his game!) Secondly, what you don't seem to understand (more through your annoyingly fantastic talent, as opposed to some sort of basic ignorance) is that to be able to run 80mpw, is something only the gifted runner can do! I trained hard for 8 months for this year's FLM and was phyisically incapable of running half that mileage! Forgetting, jobs, children life, etc, the mechanics of my body would not allow me to do it! Believe me, I know how to train like a beast with the best of them, but PLEASE DON''T ATTEMPT TO TELL ME WHAT MY BODY IS OR ISN'T CAPABLE OF!

    I trust that I have replied to all concerned with the decorum that befits such an informative and good natured website! I hope that the rowing comparison was seen as exactly that, and not some attempt by me to blow the old trumpet. Mind you, reading this thread, I suspect we may have a few budding 'newbies' at the NEC in October! I mean, any average bloke under 40 with some optimum training could do a sub 6.30, couldn't they?

    And yes, I am in next year's FLM ballot and hoping to break that magical 4hr barrier! Watch this space!!

  • TRTR ✭✭✭
    Still reckon i could go sub 6:30 - I've the right mix of strength and endurance. I ran a 2:52 marathon and can do over 20 pull-ups (or 10 with an extra 10kg) and can do handstand push-ups etc.

    I'm sure Padams has done it a fair few times.
  • Hey TR, There's no doubting your credentials. But I think you need to understand that you are hardly an 'average' guy, which I believe is the crux of this thread. If you are aged 35 to 39 and can get under 75kg, (hard to know from your pic) may I suggest you get to the NEC in October. Last year's Gold was won in a time of 6.26!

    I guess the whole point of my long post was that I believe (and statistics prove) only a tiny percentage of the population could run a sub 3 marathon, or row a sub 6.30 2k, irrespective of training regimes, age, weight, diet, etc. Therefore I felt the need to disagree with you guys, regarding GFA times and who could achieve them. This is, after all, a completely subjective discussion topic.

    If, TR, you have the physical capabilities to be at the higher end of the spectrum in more than one sport, then kudos to you. But then again, it just goes to show that you ain't no average Joe!

Sign In or Register to comment.