Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"?
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2013-10-28 10:07 AM |
DC | Subject: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? The prestige of a Boston qualifier is obvious. For the rest, it seems that coming in under 4 hours is a marathon "well-ran," i.e. a "good time." Is that the general sentiment? Is the 4 hour mark the overwhelming average completion time? Just noticed a comment re the 4 hour threshold on ST & it got me thinking. Just curious what your thoughts are. |
|
2013-10-28 10:10 AM in reply to: Porfirio |
489 | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? It is for me personally but it's a totally arbitrary time. I know for me that 4 hours would represent a reasonable amount of training and represent a good effort. It does seem to be about the average. But then there will always be someone that's worked twice as hard as me and 4.30 will be their 'gold standard' - perhaps they had a worse starting point, got an injury, are much older - whatever. But, in general, for the average Joe like me, I reckon that 4 hours is the time you can get without having to make too many sacrifices - getting well below that starts to take some dedication. |
2013-10-28 10:19 AM in reply to: Porfirio |
Expert 2192 Greenville, SC | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? i believe the median (not average) finishing time for 2012 was 4:17, which would put you in the top 50% if you finished under that. i would guess the average is a little slower than that. regarding what you posted... if 4 hours is the overwhelming average time for finishing, is 50th percentile considered good or a "gold standard"? i think that is for each person to decide on their own. obviously those shooting for an OA win are going to have a different standard than those who are just looking to finish the race for themselves.
|
2013-10-28 10:38 AM in reply to: Clempson |
Champion 5312 Calgary | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? I think it really depends on your goals. I had a buddy who just ran one, his goal was 3:30, he got 3:39. Far faster than my 3:59. Things went wrong, not his fault, but he was not happy with that time and I was not happy for him because we both knew what he could have done. When I was training for a marathon I picked 4:00 as my goal because my training indicated I could do it and I thought it meant I was hot stuff. Turns out, in my age group, breaking 4 hours isn't really that big of a deal. Who knew. Whenever I am talking race times with people I like to put some perspective on it, where they came from, how their training cycle went, etc. I think the gold standard has more to do with preparation then execution. |
2013-10-28 10:42 AM in reply to: Dan-L |
DC | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? Originally posted by Dan-L Yeah, that's my thought as well. It just seems that way from my personal observations. Clempson's median statistics is enlightening. And I agree that the overall average must be slower that the 4 hr mark. Heck, the races are usually open for six hours. |
2013-10-28 10:44 AM in reply to: Porfirio |
over a barrier | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? |
|
2013-10-28 10:59 AM in reply to: running2far |
Master 1927 Guilford, CT | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? Originally posted by running2far 4 hr would not be a 'gold standard' 3hrs for men, imo, at a 'young' age Agree. That has been my thinking on it. 4hrs is pretty slow for 'runner' standards in Men's open and I would not attach "gold standard" anywhere near it. LIke OP said, everyone has there own goals etc. I've always thought I'd like to BQ or go under 3 if I devoted myself to really getting lean and training for a year like a ninja to do it. I do agree that mid-3s is where Men's open gets you if you are trained up but not making any real sacrifices in lifestyle...unless you have good talent or a running background. |
2013-10-28 11:29 AM in reply to: acumenjay |
Pro 6191 | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? I think it's a significant barrier for recreational athletes. I've run one marathon. My goal was to be within an hour of my sister's first marathon time. I did it - ran a 4:22 on 10 weeks of focused training post-HIM. I'm proud. I do think that with more run focus, I could easily drop below the 4 hour barrier, which "sounds" better. |
2013-10-28 11:46 AM in reply to: ratherbeswimming |
489 | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? Yeah, 'gold standard' is not how I'd use the term. BQ et al is more worthy of that title but the other parts of the description make sense to me. I was just thinking about this during the dullest meeting ever and it tied up a few threads for me! It's the sort of time an average bloke, in his 30's, with an office job, wife, two kids, likes an occasional beer, red meat, watches football on a Monday night, who decides he's going to run a marathon in a years time and starts running four times a week and eating better - can hope to achieve without too and feel very happy with himself. Of course he can then choose to go all BT on his own backside and BQ or snuggle up under the blanket with the medal glinting on the fireplace reminding every one what the old man can do when he puts his mind to it. I very much agree with the sentiment 'it's a significant barrier for recreational athletes'. Nicely put. |
2013-10-28 11:47 AM in reply to: Porfirio |
Expert 3145 Scottsdale, AZ | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? IMO 4 hours is a good target but certainly not a gold standard. If we're just throwing out numbers then I'd put a BQ time as gold standard since that's the standard that pretty much any runner is going to measure themselves against, whether obtainable or not. Platinum would be an NYQ. |
2013-10-28 12:14 PM in reply to: ratherbeswimming |
DC | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? Originally posted by ratherbeswimming I think it's a significant barrier for recreational athletes. Yes, well-said. I reckon as you increase the time and start approaching the 6 hour mark, this athlete is no longer running it but rather walking it. |
|
2013-10-28 12:33 PM in reply to: #4886152 |
Expert 1159 Charlotte, NC | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? Agree with those who said 3 hours. To me breaking 3 hours is a real accomplishment. I think 4 can be done by a lot of people if they're serious about their training. I think 3 hrs is a combination of hard work and genetics. |
2013-10-28 12:35 PM in reply to: Porfirio |
Master 1681 Rural Ontario | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? I'd say a 4hr. Marathon, like a 6hr. HIM will simply mean you're 'better than average'* (* depending on age group / gender) I'd include a 12hr. Ironman in that category, but since I failed to break 12hrs in my only IM, I categorically reject that classification. |
2013-10-28 12:51 PM in reply to: mgalanter |
Champion 5312 Calgary | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? There was a really good thread about this a number of years ago. A lot of argument about whether anyone of a certain age could run a 3 hour marathon given enough discipline and training. Can't remember the consensus. |
2013-10-28 2:08 PM in reply to: Porfirio |
Pro 5361 | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? in my book, 4hrs or less is a marathon that you properly trained for and 'ran'. Much over that, and it's really just 26 miles that you 'finished' not 'ran'. granted, age and gender come into play here. And, everyone's goals are different. I know some people who run a lot of marathons. most of them in the 5-6hr range. Still, a good thing... just a different thing. |
2013-10-28 2:44 PM in reply to: Porfirio |
1660 | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? You'll get lots of opinions about this, as there's no 'real' standard. However, it's true that most recreational runners/marathoners have a hard time going 4, so if I see one going sub-4, I consider it a pretty darn good showing. For a competitive runner though, it's downright slow, even at age 55. |
|
2013-10-28 2:58 PM in reply to: morey000 |
Regular 311 Aalborg, Denmark | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? Originally posted by morey000 in my book, 4hrs or less is a marathon that you properly trained for and 'ran'. Â Much over that, and it's really just 26 miles that you 'finished' not 'ran'. Agreed |
2013-10-28 3:12 PM in reply to: yazmaster |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? Originally posted by yazmaster You'll get lots of opinions about this, as there's no 'real' standard. However, it's true that most recreational runners/marathoners have a hard time going 4, so if I see one going sub-4, I consider it a pretty darn good showing. For a competitive runner though, it's downright slow, even at age 55. I think that I tend to agree with this for the most part. Barring serious limiters, "most" folks could get to a 4 hour marathon with a little bit of dedication, attention to diet and rest/recovery, and time to train. I ran 2 marathons over the course of 3 years and neither were sub 4, and I would have considered myself a casual runner at the time, it wasn't until marathon 3 when set my goal to break 4 hours that I did, and that year was filled with more training, better attention to my diet, etc. |
2013-10-28 3:13 PM in reply to: Dnn |
Master 3022 | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? I would suggest that gold standard equates in my mind to 90th percentile performances or better. Call it a grade of A. For the Detroit Marathon that's right around a 3:30. That's what my gut thought as well. I would also suggest that as you get older that time changes as well. |
2013-10-28 5:11 PM in reply to: trisuppo |
928 | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? If there were a "gold standard" in marathoning it would have to be quite a bit faster than 4:00. I don't know if I'd say 3:00 across the board, but at least Boston qualifying times or faster (open male qualifying time is 3:05). 4:00 is just a little better than average, so would be more like "bronze" than gold. And even at that-- it would be a significant achievement after much hard work for many; others can hit sub-4:00 on their first marathon with just a simple beginner-level training plan. |
2013-10-29 9:30 AM in reply to: Sous |
DC | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? My experience mirrors yours. Just for fun, googled average completion time: "In the United States, the average finishing time for marathons in 2011 was 4:37 (10:34/mile pace), according to MarathonGuide.com. The average marathon finishing time for men in U.S. marathons was 4:26 (10:09/mile pace) and the average finishing time for women was 4:52 (11:08/mile pace)." |
|
2013-10-29 10:01 AM in reply to: 0 |
Master 2406 Bellevue, WA | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? As the OP said, I think coming in under 4 hours is a "well ran" marathon, a "good time", for a lot of people. Most recreational runners and beginners can beat 4 hours (3:55-3:59 say) by putting in a reasonable number of hours running and adhering to a good-for-them training plan. It may be hard to get to 4 hours for a lot of them, but it's do-able even for overweight runners, older folks, never-ran-a-mile-since-high-school people, that sort of thing. EDIT: Yeah, "bronze" is a good way of describing it. Maybe saying it's "respectable" is also good. Beating 4 hours isn't much for experienced runners, but these runners did after all at some point start out and I'd guess a lot of them targeted four hours along the way. I remember when I started my goal was to beat 4 hours. My first marathon in June 2004 was 5:08 (IT band problems, poor training execution). Then 4:17 in July 2005. After that I realized to beat 4 hours was going to take more serious commitment and smarter training. I did 4:10 in July 2006, then in Portland a few months later in October I did it and came in a 3:53. I can't tell you how thrilled I was with that time. I've ran faster than that since so my "ceiling" for open marathons is now 4 hours. You can read my 2006 Portland Marathon RR here: http://brucemorgan.blogs.com/afc/2006/10/2006_portland_m.html You can tell how happy I was with that. 4 hours is also my goal time for the IM run. In 2007 I thought I was on a 3:55 pace but screwed up and calculated my pace wrong and was horribly disappointed to come in at 4:10. Apparently I had seen the pro clock and had my starting time off by 15 minutes. Sigh. Time math is hard when you're 10 hours into an IM. :-) Edited by brucemorgan 2013-10-29 10:04 AM |
2013-10-29 2:04 PM in reply to: Porfirio |
Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? This is an interesting question. I think sub 4 can be viewed as a gold standard by the average person. For example someone who just runs <10 miles a week and just decides one day they want to do a marathon to check off the bucket list. If they train hard for 6-10 months and crack 4 hours on their first and only try, I think that's a huge accomplishment. But if you're someone who runs more regularly, participates in races here and there, and are not doing a marathon simply to check off a bucket list, then sub 4 becomes worthy of note, but certainly not the gold standard for someone that plans to run multiple marathons over the course of 5-10 years. Some people consider a baseball player that simply makes it into the big leagues for one at bat the gold standard. Others may consider the hall of fame the gold standard. I suppose it just depends on your perspective. |
2013-10-29 2:31 PM in reply to: Jason N |
Seattle | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? It's relative. I think there are far too many things to take into account to have a "Gold Standard." Even the BQ you mention is scaled by age and gender. |
2013-10-29 3:39 PM in reply to: Asalzwed |
Champion 7036 Sarasota, FL | Subject: RE: Sub-4 Hr Marathon "Gold Standard"? IMHO the "gold standard" is winning the Olympics. The rest of us are just wannabe's Not that there's anything wrong with that... Mark |
|
running a sub 1.5 hr - 13.1 Pages: 1 2 | |||
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|