Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
IGNORANT SLOWER RUNNERS
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Rachel - I think it would be. Or it could be if the media promoted running differently. Initially when the London Marathon was shown on TV there wasn't quite the charity angle there is now. There were of course, people who dressed up for the occasion. There was a lot of media interest in Roger Bourban (SUI) who ran the London Marathon in a waiter's uniform carrying a tray with a bottle on it? Do you remember him? However, he was also a very fine runner. He did 2hrs 47mins whilst in uniform and carrying his bottle on a tray!
France's biggest race is the Marathon de Paris. When I ran it 4 years ago, 27,000-ish started. So, not that much smaller than the London Marathon. They had a 5hrs 30mins cut-off time. I saw only two costumes at the start (both British) because charity running in France does not seem to exist. There was certainly no charity stuff being promoted at the Marathon Expo a couple of days before the race. The crowds were small, but supportive. Yes, the race was covered live on TV, but the coverage finished when the top athletes had come home. Which is nornally the point when I switch off the TV coverage for the London Marathon and the Great North Run.
I really enjoyed the race. What was great about it for me is that everyone was taking it seriously - it was sport. I started from the 3hrs 45mins pen. The race started on the Avenue des Champs-Elysées, which for those of you who have been to Paris will know is a very wide street and so there were no hold ups, and the field had over a mile to sort itself out before you got into some narrower streets.
Maybe my attitude to running does not fit what the media tell you is the accepted norm in this country - i.e. if you're not elite, you shouldn't take it so seriously and be a fun/charity runner instead. Hence, I treat it as sport and hence why I had such a wonderful time in Paris. The thing is, a year later I PB'd at London, but I didn't enjoy the experience even half as much.
Bored at work!
Just to give my view on Paris Marathon - there were at least a couple of fancy dress people at my end of the field, around 5 hours. And at least one of them was French as the crowd kept yelling "Breton!" at him. He appeared to have a costume with lots of lace - bizarre! And not really fancy dress but there was the cutest couple running to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary - bless! But you're right Mr. Bump there is a much lower emphasis on charity.
It's a great race with lots of room, possibly the best start in the world and the crowd are v. enthusiastic about female runners so I highly recommend it.
Allez
Just a slight twist on not knowing your pace for the big day
I am returning to running after a long break ( I confess Father my last "Race" was LM 1990
) I generally ran for fitness and pleasure but finally got a place in the GNR09 after many years applying.
Having run in smaller races both in distance and entrant levels and never having a problem with having to mass overtake slower runners before (maybe times have changed) I am now a little concerned having read this thread.
As a surprise to me since starting training in earnest for the GNR my consistent times for 4, 8, and 10 miles would suggest I am going to be sub 2hr for 13m however I put on the entrant form a conservative (due to time away from "racing"etc) 2hr30 finish time based on my previous "pleasure jogs". Does this now mean that I will be lambasted and attacked for daring to try and pass people linking arms as they are doing it for charidee (i cannot believe people actually try and stop others passing?), or people walking, or that happen to be slightly slower than me??.
I mean what do I do overestimate my time (i have gained 2st and am in my late 30's since my last race) on the entrant form and bug faster runners or be conservative as I have done and still get it in the neck from people thinking I am being rude for trying to get through walkers. I can't change where the organisers will stick me due to my conservative guestimation but it will mean at some point that I need to pass someone because I didn't know my real potential when applying. I hope the charidee runners that I may need to pass will understand I would like to have a pleasant experience too.
IBu the main difference between Paris and London marathons (and no other race length) is why they were set up';
1896: the first Paris marathonOn Sunday the 19th of July 1896, there was a big crowd at porte Maillot for the first French marathon, which brought together 191 participants. For this first French marathon, run over the 40 km separating Paris from Conflans, the organisers, the Petit Journal, decided to award a commemorative medal to all runners who finished the race in under 4 hours. Why 40 kilometres? Simply because this was the distance separating Marathon from Athens; the current distance of the competition (42,195 km) is simply that of the London Olympic marathon (1908).
After a 2h31'30'' race, and cheered on by 2.000 spectators, the British man Len Hurst crossed the finishing line traced out on the Conflans bridge. After a brief moment in the arms of his coach Boon, he regained all his strength in order to receive the 200 francs from the Petit Journal…
Whereas London was set up to be a mass folk festival in 1981
"To believe this story you must believe that the human race be one joyous family, working together, laughing together, achieving the impossible. Last Sunday, in one of the most trouble-stricken cities in the world, 11,532 men and women from 40 countries in the world, assisted by over a million black, white and yellow people, laughed, cheered and suffered during the greatest folk festival the world has seen."
Slightly different aims -and thus a different culture- I just appreciate the fact there is room for both - and the opportunity for all to attempt.
Good post - hence why runners should do at least one foreign maarathon to see the difference to the London Marathon.
London always styles itself as being the best / biggest marathon in the world - it certainly raises the most money, but whether it is the best I suppose is subjective.
Well I've done it once - too bloody long in my book
(I did like the tapering before and the drinking after though!!)
We had a new club member running her first ever race at a local 5k on Tuesday. One of our fastest runners was surprised to see her lining up right in the middle at the front and suggested that she should move back. Unfortunately it was only a few seconds from the start, but she did at least have time to move to the side of the road. She finished in just over 27 minutes, but because it was only a small field of around 250 thankfully she didn't get trampled underfoot. When I spoke to her afterwards she simply didn't realise that she'd done something 'wrong'. Her only guide to races had been watching the London Marathon and other big televised events, and her thinking was that the further back she started then the nearer the back of the field she'd finish and hence her time would be worse, and it simply hadn't occured to her that she'd potentially be getting in the way.
On the other hand I know of experienced runners who blag their way into the front of pen 2 at the London Marathon every year, but at least they're aiming between 3:30 & 3:45 so the speed differential isn't huge.
A bit off topic, but regarding the chip timing....
At a small field half a few weeks ago (around 500 runners) I started near the back as usual. I do this for two reasons:
1) so as not to get in anyone's way, and
2) I prefer to overtake than be overtaken. This is due a certain feebleness of mind and lack of self-confidence. Plus I use the 'another one bites the dust' technique of victim'picking-off' to get me through the hard bits...
Anyway, about half way round two very nice old ladies spectating informed me that I was the fifth lady. Delighted, I set off in pursuit. But I didn't see any other ladies until km 20 and she was more than 100m in front. I headed off after her anyway and finally crossed the line 17 secs behind her.
Thing is, according to the chip timing I actually ran 5 seconds faster than her but she was still classified 4th and me 5th. Hurrumph!!!
<cries of 'shame! shame!'>
Am I right to be slightly miffed?
PS: I should add that I'm no speedy gonzalez; the standard of female running was gawd-awful.
RachelS,
One of the key reasons the London marathon was started was to raise standards in distance running. Particularly British distance running. The Golden Bond thing was (and remains) a (very effective) cash cow for the race (places cost charities something like £250 as compared to the £28 Joe Bloggs pays) but it (and raising money for charity) is not the sole purpose of the race, nor is the fun of participation. Both are positive aspects of the race, but it should be possible to have a race which:
- is able to attract the best elites
- enables ALL runners who want to to run fast times
- raises money for charity if people want to do that, but not because they have to simply in order to participate
Azacaya, firstly well done
I think places are always awarded on gun time. Otherwise runners could start behind someone and beat them even without overtaking them. It's possible that if you had caught the lady in front she might have sped up to re-overtake you to preserve her position.
Joolska - Very good post. Couldn't agree more. In 1981, there were a number of world-class British marathon runners. We had a whole host of runners who could go sub-2:20 and weren't considered to be that special. Now, as far as men's distance running is concerned, we do not have a truly world-class male marathon runner. Yes, I know Dan Robinson is our best, but is he ever going to challenge for top honours? As for the women, apart from Paula Radcliffe who is a class apart, there is Myra Yamauchi, who we should remember is Japan-based. apart from those two, who else is a world-class British marathon runner. Sadly, the aims to improve standards in British marathon running have not come to fruition. Meanwhile, mediocrity is celebrated (e.g. Katie & Peter taking over 7 hours to "run" round)..
Rachel - The Paris-Conflans race of 1896 was indeed the first marathon in France. We cannot however, compare it with today's Marathon de Paris, which was founded in 1976, just as we cannot compare the London Marathon with the 1908 Olympic Marathon.
We must remember that Paris-Conflans was a professional race for pedestrians (as professional athletes were then known). Until quite recent times, a professional athlete was ostracised by the authorities governing athletics and banned for life - this ban of course included the Olympic Games. Many great distance runners were banned for taking money, perhaps the most celebrated example being Paavo Nurmi (FIN) who won 9 Gold Medals at distances between 1500m and 10,000m at the 1920, 1924 and 1928 Olympics Games.
Professionals were banned from athletics with the forming of the Amateur Athletic Association in 1880. Accordingly, professional athletics meetings took place (especially, the celebrated Powderhall New Year's Handicap Sprint which I understand still exists today).
The London Marathon has its roots in the 1908 Olympic Games Marathon from Windsor to White City. This route was mirrored in the following years, with the Polytechnic Harriers ("Poly") Marathon, to which the trophy was awarded by Sporting Life newspaper, which today's London Marathon winner receives. The route of the Poly Marathon changed over the years, but 6 world records were set on it's course, the last one in 1965. The Poly Marathon eventually folded in 2002, it's status having been in decline since the mid-1970s.
Interestingly, after the 1908 Olympic marathon, there was a professional running boom which lasted until World War I. It featured the best marathon runners of the day, normally man-against-man (i.e. two runners only), for a purse (similar to boxing). These races were generally around a track, sometimes and indoor track, such as New York's Madison Square Garden and The Royal Albert Hall, London (520-something laps!)
So, as you can see, whilst the Marathon de Paris has it's roots in Paris-Conflans, and the London Marathon has its roots in the 1908 Olympic Marathon, they bear no resemblance to the aims and ambitions of today's events.
I wonder if the fact that athletics is now professional is why we don't have so many good runners. To be successful now you have to work at it full time but I think that only a tiny proportion would make a good living from running alone. You'd find it much easier to make a living as a footballer even if you're only an average one. Maybe all the good runners are ending up in other sports.
In the past you could be a good runner while still working part-time so may that's why there were more of them? Just a hunch, no evidence to back any of this up!
If I had started near the front I would have been in about 400 peeps way - just not any of them women.
My son did his second 5K with me at the weekend, and started quite a bit closer to the front than me and some of my club mates. I overheard a few little commments from one of them.
He also finished in front of 10 of us, in 22 minutes
in reply to little nemo
being proffesional has nothing to do with it its the mentallity of runners and attitude, i can list several athletes who have run sub 2.12 who did it on full time jobs back in the day. The big difference between today and back then is that if you were a runner you entered races to race and you could get good races against other brits as the fields were alot smaller and far less of them.
Today its a acomlimpshment to finish and not run fast. This is shown by the number of charity and mediocre races out there, alot more than 20 years ago, the top runners never race each other anymore and hide in small races were they may run 30 mins for 10k and think they are better than they actually are. The key is training and racing in groups so training becomes very competative. My training group consists of a britsh marathon runner who has run 2.11 in the last 2 years down to 10k runners who run 29 mins. The key to us all improving is training together. as when we train alone its alot harder mentally. Plus the big factor for young kids earn 100k a week(football) or lottery funding of 25k a year(running) which is more attractive
JW, wierd this, was recently reading the thread on 50m for 10 miles, chatting to one of the coaches at my club about dropping standards, my dad brought it up and now it is here. From all this it does seem to ring true about the lack of really quality training and quality feilds coming through now.
My coach was saying on how his time for the blenhiem 12k giving him 20th in the day would have won it this year (comfortably), the same thing was coming from my dad- his time for finishing 5th to 20th would now destroy a 10 mile field- the spilt at 10k would destroy a feild. What has happened? Surely with all that is being spent on running now the quality would have to be rising.
this is a very interesting subject, and there was a thread about the marathon results from 20 years ago against last years and the difference was astounding. I think that there is a draw from other sports (i know i'd rather take 100k a week for playing football if i could) but also a general apathy amongst the general population. You look at the rates of both childhood and adult obesity and the increase from 20 years ago does seem to be quite alarming. Why would people go outside and run when they have 250 channels of carp on the tv?
I really don't understand why people would be content at winning smaller races than trying to test themself against the 'big boys' as it were. I know that I want to be the best i can and you don't improve by being comlacent. that said, i doubt i'll be running a 30min 10k anytime soon.
sorry for the rant - on the plusside it has made my mind up to do intervals at lunch