Jump to content
Turtle

Marathon times

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Wronggenes said:

Without knowing the event is the course the same?

No, it was Frankston to Melbourne back then. Or at least it was a few years later and throughout the '80s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fitness Buddy said:

3 hours use to be the bench mark now doing one is.  

3 Hours is a pretty fair achievement. In your experience how difficult do you rate the breaking of 3 hours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

3 Hours is a pretty fair achievement. In your experience how difficult do you rate the breaking of 3 hours

How long is piece of string?

Well, in this case it's obviously 42195 metres, but the difficulty and time taken to unravel it will depend on your genetics, age, work ethic and persistence, injury resilience, running history, life's priorities and demands.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RunBrettRun said:

I think it's very elitist to tar everyone with the same benchmark and then judge performances based on what you think someone should achieve or is capable of achieving. 

 

We see elite athletes struggling all the time with anxiety and mental conditions and it's based on this mentality that there is a benchmark that has to be achieved.  It's bullshit and its so evident in this thread. 

 

Who cares what someone has or is capable of achieving?  Like does anyone actually care?  

Maybe benchmark isnt the correct term but the 3hr marathon was like the goal of finishing Forster in daylight, without the 'dreaded' glow stick. For us it was about having a goal / bench mark certainly not judging each other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, surfer101 said:

Maybe benchmark isnt the correct term but the 3hr marathon was like the goal of finishing Forster in daylight, without the 'dreaded' glow stick. For us it was about having a goal / bench mark certainly not judging each other

A benchmark is by definiion a comparison against others. Better or worse. Different than an individuals goal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Turts said:

A benchmark is by definiion a comparison against others. Better or worse. Different than an individuals goal

I agree but Im not sure if there's anything wrong with a group of friends having a shared or common goal or benchmark. Which is where Im coming from

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fitness Buddy said:

The stats from me were Melb Marathon 1980 compared to 2017

You can't compare the stats from one year for one race with the same race another year. All that gives you is that faster runners attended one than the other. The rest of the faster runners may well have been training / tapering for another race 2 weeks later. As previously mentioned, there are more races around to dilute the numbers. 

Paul Every's stats are more relevant - how many have gone under certain benchmarks over the whole year. That would better determine if Aussies are getting slower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fitness Buddy said:

The stats from me were Melb Marathon 1980 compared to 2017

The stats you gave really depend on the day & the field. Did you realise only 95 runners broke 3 hours the year before that in 1979?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats are bullshit. You can make them say what you want. 

Look at the strava group. 

The guy that wins most only ride. 

But sort them differently and ex is the champ. 

And  to say people are slower now due to technology is bullshit. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think FB stats are a good illustration of the fact that semi elite running  (under 3 hr) is not progressing. The number is not increasing as there is only a small number who have the talent and will do the work to achieve the under 3hr. It is the combination of talent and training that is required. 

I could show a stat that NZ elete woman's is going slower due to the amazing performance of Alison Roe and Erin Baker in the 80's and 90's. That the current elete's are not achieving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On three hours (a number I spent some time obsessing about in 2017) I think a fair summary I read was: To run a three hour marathon shows you have at least some natural talent and the discipline and commitment to develop that talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason people might have been faster 20 years ago is there was no drug testing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Fitness Buddy said:

3 hours use to be the bench mark now doing one is.  

 

16 hours ago, Fitness Buddy said:

The same can go for an Ironman too. Even possibly Strava we are telling everyone we did this trained 16 hours and in the top ten.  There is another thread based on it. And dont say it doesn't because it does.

 

Quite ironic really.  Considering posted by a bloke that refuses to benchmark himself by actually racing.  

And posts in  his sessions in great detail  on the Trannies "what training did I do today" page.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Peter said:

Another reason people might have been faster 20 years ago is there was no drug testing. 

Of course, Peter, because it's only been in recent years that the extensive drug testing of recreational marathoners has been so widespread.

It must have been rampant 35 years ago to produce the depth of performances back then. All those sub 2:40 and sub 3 marathoners. Simply appalling. 

If only today's BOP plodders invested in a some quality pharmaceuticals, no telling where the health of Australian marathoning would be!

:fish: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if diet plays a part.  Much more sugar in everyday food than years ago when Paul is talking about.  Of course sugar was around but not in the food like it is today.  The shift in easy meals and time poor people surely has an effect on the overall health and ultimately the performance out of the everyday runner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

The stats you gave really depend on the day & the field. Did you realise only 95 runners broke 3 hours the year before that in 1979?

Of course there were fewer in 1979, and no doubt fewer still in Melbourne's inaugural year of 1978.

Marathon running (and running in general) was still finding a foothold in Australia as a mass participation sport. As author Jim Fixx observed at that time, running had only recently moved from being considered an eccentricity to a sport.....and that was in the US, where the popularity of the running/jogging boom preceded the rest of the world.

The shift in running's popularity into the early '80s in Australia was an enormous social, health and sporting phenomena. Considerably more profound and widespread than triathlon's rise in popularity a decade later.

From the late '70s to early '80s, running normalised adults exercising and training in public space beyond the confines and structures of the sporting fields, courts and pools.

It changed the way Australia exercises to this day, far beyond running itself.

Though Norm is still overdue for a come back........Life. Be in it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Fitness Buddy said:

3 hours use to be the bench mark now doing one is.  

Despite this comment ruffling some feathers, it's pretty accurate.

35 years on, I still remember one of the first comments said to me after crossing the line in my first marathon. "You're going to break 3 hours for sure." It was certainly a goal and focus for many runners..........and it then became mine for another 8 marathons over the best part of three years.

There was a more widespread result focus among marathoners back then and sub 3 was a part of that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Times are only relevant if your goal is to finish at a certain time.   Its great to see people out exercising no matter what their times are ,  media can't seem to focus on the positives these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paul Every said:

Of course there were fewer in 1979, and no doubt fewer still in Melbourne's inaugural year of 1978.

Marathon running (and running in general) was still finding a foothold in Australia as a mass participation sport. As author Jim Fixx observed at that time, running had only recently moved from being considered an eccentricity to a sport.....and that was in the US, where the popularity of the running/jogging boom preceded the rest of the world.

The shift in running's popularity into the early '80s in Australia was an enormous social, health and sporting phenomena. Considerably more profound and widespread than triathlon's rise in popularity a decade later.

From the late '70s to early '80s, running normalised adults exercising and training in public space beyond the confines and structures of the sporting fields, courts and pools.

It changed the way Australia exercises to this day, far beyond running itself.

Though Norm is still overdue for a come back........Life. Be in it.

 

IMG_1179.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Peter said:

Marathons can't be that hard. The queen just won one. 

IMG_1184.PNG

*inserts sarcastic comment about YOUR queen* ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

Marathons can't be that hard. The queen just won one. 

IMG_1184.PNG

I feel she's let us down here.  She has a pair of sharp scissors in her hand is within striking distance of the Poison Krankie. :whistling:

Edited by FatPom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooooo many factors in all of this.

First off the article talks of a change between 2000 and 2016, then all of a sudden we're talking about the 80's.

Talking of the 80's what happened here?

Melbourne

1987 77 people went under 2:40

1991 24 people went under 2:40

That certainly wasn't due to garmins.........................

 

Are we slowing down?

As a country?

I think we may very well be but there are a hell of a lot more of us running, albeit slower, which is much better than participation numbers declining.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nealo said:

1987 77 people went under 2:40

1991 24 people went under 2:40

That certainly wasn't due to garmins.........................

Thankyou.  Someone with a brain.

1991 could have been windy as shit.  Or wet, or boiling hot too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×