Is it really possible?

2»

Comments

  • MillsyMillsy ✭✭✭
    It is a "proper race" if you want it to be. I suppose it just has a higher percentage of "just get round" fun runners than your usual event.

    The majority of the 35,000 will not be "racing" so that's where people get the idea from.
  • It is a proper race at the sharp end, but as far as I'm concerned races start when the gun goes "bang".

    If your chip time says 3:00:00 but it took 20 mins to cross the start line then no matter what you claim it's still a 3:20:00 finish time for the "race".

  • That's hardly fair - if you're stuck behind 20 minutes of people, you can't start your race, can you?

  • marshallini wrote (see)

    It is a proper race at the sharp end, but as far as I'm concerned races start when the gun goes "bang".

    If your chip time says 3:00:00 but it took 20 mins to cross the start line then no matter what you claim it's still a 3:20:00 finish time for the "race".

    if that's true, why does the main rankings site power of 10 only go off chip time?

    Going on gun time basically penalises people for doing bigger races

     

    Millsy1977 wrote (see)
    It is a "proper race" if you want it to be. I suppose it just has a higher percentage of "just get round" fun runners than your usual event.
    The majority of the 35,000 will not be "racing" so that's where people get the idea from.

    do you have any stats for that out of interest?

    I'd wager that the percentage of "get rounds" is pretty similar to your average race with 300 runners in. The only difference is the totals are higher due to being a huge mass race.

  • Agree with Marshallini.

    This has been done to death many many times but a 'race' can only be on Gun times by definition.

    Any rankings based on Chip times are simply a comparison of individual time trials, a completely different thing to racing.

  • If that means a 3.15 marathon then no, there is no way my body could handle either the training for it or the race itself now let alone in another ten years time @59y. In the SM age band I guess a higher proportion will be in some vague kind of underlying physical shape to manage it but I'm sure there are many who couldn't, either due to being an exercise 'non-responder' or other issues.

  • Well the clue is in the description. It's Good For Age, not Average For Age, or Slightly Better than Average For Age.



    It's a kind of heat to get into the final.



    Can you move from average to good? I suspect many could. The body is very adaptive. As a 40something married with kids and other interests outside running I struggle to put the hours in. I have seen very big improvements this year just by following a structured training plan. I think a lot of Average runners are unaware of how hard they can push their bodies, although the forum is littered with people 'injured' so a bit of common sense or proper coaching could be key.
  • Gun vs chip times - an interesting one. I know where you are coming from parkrunfan. When I did my first sub 3hrs I made sure that it was both on chip and gun time. London used to give both your chip and gun time. They no longer do this, the official results only show the chip time so not sure how this stacks with your "a race can only be on gun times"

    Agree with kittenkat, if you put a predicted time of 3 ish you will be on the Fast GFA by definition and it will take you less than 20 seconds to cross the line not 20 mins.

  • There would be uproar if the first person over the line was beaten by someone who finished later.



    The winners must be gun time surely.
  • PhilPubPhilPub ✭✭✭

    Elite and Championship times are published according to gun time rather than chip.  I guess the organisers are confident enough that the London Marathon winner will come from the elite starters, such that the chip times for everyone else aren't going to be an issue.  Same goes for the Championship itself; you're not eligible to run for a place unless you start from the Championship start, with its associated gun timing.

    If anyone manages to win the race starting from Zone 1 I'll buy them a Kitkat.

  • You're a tight b_gger Phil. Least you could do for someone wading past all the fun runners in their Big Ben and deep sea diver outfits, who then manage to get in front of the cream of world marathoning talent and beat them home... is to buy them a drink of Lucozade AND a Mars Bar.

    image

    Back to the OP's question. You never know how much you can improve until you try. I was a 40+ relatively inexperienced marathon runner a few years back with a PB of 3h24 and increased my training mileage by about 40% per race. I went down to 3h12 then 2h58 in just over a year. I've improved a couple of times since then with roughly the same training effort so it would suggest that unless I try something very different, the improvements will dry up. Guess it all depends on how much you want it. Not sure i want to keep getting up to run 25km before work at 05:30 on a snowy winter morning.

  • I have just checked my London time on 'RunBritain' and in fact they do have the gun times - interesting to know how they get them because as far as I know they are not published in the official results. Apparently, took me 16 secs to cross the start line which seems about right. Would have been peeved if this had cost me a position in the rankings but fortunately it hasn't (yet?)

  • Its hard to understand why people think Gun times are 'unfair'.

    In effect, this is saying that it is unfair that faster runners start higher up the field.

    By the same reckoning it must be unfair in Formula 1 that faster drivers in qualifying start higher up the grid, it must be unfair that Premiership football teams dont have to play in all the qualifying and first and second rounds of the FA Cup and it must be unfair that seeded tennis players usually get byes in the early rounds of tournaments.

    In all cases the starting positions have been earned, there is no unfairness involved.

    And it must be remembered that the vast majority of London Marathons have been run without chip times being available. There were never any claims that it was unfair that it took 20 minutes to cross the start line when chips didnt exist so how has it become unfair now?

    And in a similar vein to Tricky's example about how you may be able to improve more than you think, it is worth remembering the example of a chap (one of my early inspirations as it happens) who ran his first marathon in 3:23. His next four marathons then came in at 3:06:37, 2:59:41, 3:06:37, 3:00:05.

    From those initial five marathons how much further improvement do you reckon this chap had in him?

    Well, he went on to improve his times all the way down to 2:10 and represented GB in the Olympic Marathon.....so you never know, there may be more time gains left to be had than you initially think image

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    I have an idea who this is, would that runner by any chance have run one of those marathons the day after playing rugby? Mind you, the same runner once said that anybody could be world class. I noted the word 'anybody', it wasn't 'everybody'. 'Anybody' implies that you might be world class but, 'unless you give it a go, you'll never find out'.

  • Hi all, sorry to hijack this thread but I thought someone on here might have an idea on something thats bugging me....

    If i can do 3hr 10 in Brighton next year (gotta reasonable chance having just done a 1.27half) and hit the London GFA target what are my odds of me actually getting in. I'm guessing that they only have limited GFA places and that all those that qualify and apply don't get lucky. Any thoughts peeps?

  • MillsyMillsy ✭✭✭
    No limit on places so far. Just get the time and they will let you in.
  • I think GFA is automatic if you can provide the proper supporting evidence.
  • cheers, sounds good. All the motivation i need for the hard winter of training ahead!

  • MillsyMillsy ✭✭✭
    Good luck! I got a 3.07 from a 1.28 half so if you put the work in it should be possible.
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.