Dublin City marathon

ezra_pound

Lex Luther wrote: »

if the goal is "just finish" then the 26.2 miles can be completed with no training at all. Seems kind of pointless though. But each to their own.

I plan on running it, not walking it. This requires lots of training and would be a major achievement for me.

Thanks for advice guys. I'm aware that I'm going from 0 very fast so if I'm under pressure I'll slow down before any injury and move goal forward.

dukeraoul

Izoard wrote: »

If the goal is to "just finish", then it is easily doable.

The average (median) finishing time in most big city marathons is ~4:35 and slowing each year, so most people are in this category.

This imo is not a good thing....

ezra_pound

Izoard wrote: »

Exactly - the stats show that the majority doing the marathon are there to "just finish".
For better or worse, it is a shrinking minority who are there to race...

And this is a bad thing because?

dwayneshintzy

And why not? Is it preferable to have fewer, more committed runners? Do you lose out on committed runners if other people take it less seriously?

Izoard

dukeraoul wrote: »

This imo is not a good thing....

For sure, but that is the reality.
Average finishing time for DCM was 3;20 or so, back in the early/mid 80's - now pushing 4:40...

ezra_pound

Well maybe DCM should re market itself as a pro only exclusive event but from what I know it's the friendly marathon and that's it's unique appeal.

It's not like I'll be pushing a buggy in wave 1 so you awesome pros won't even see me. you're

Any way if you're too good for t the friendly DCM there's always Boston etc.

dukeraoul

ezra_pound wrote: »

Well I'm on a training plan for the marathon that I was eligible to start. So far so good... Doing the half this week. I mightn't make it to the big goal on 27 October but at least I'll be up and running half marathons r rather than sitting at home not able to run mare than 2 k. But I hope I make it.

I actually think its great you're out and being active...the point I am trying to make is that many others have preceded you with this type of "couch to marathon" in a few months deal and tend to wind up either a) injured or b) having their marathon turn into their own little version of the Bataan Death March.

What then tends to happen is they don;t get to experience the joys of running and are put off it. That or they get an injury/ health issue from too much too soon that rules them out of running thus ending up back at point 0 again....

I wish people would be sensible, build up slowly and get a proper base underneath them so they can enjoy the mara instead of embarking on some Quixotic box ticking exercise because they believe hobbling around the marathon is some sort of achievement... \

But like other posters have said- to each their own its just this type of discussion comes up every single year around here and it gets pretty frustrating- people already have their minds made up before asking the question, so why bother asking it at all?

Rant over.

Izoard

ezra_pound wrote: »

And this is a bad thing because?

It is not good vs bad - just the normalization of marathon running.

Back in the 80s, it was the preserve of hairy-legged crazies, regularly banging out 3hr races - now everyone reckons they can tick the box.

I've paced the 4:20/4:30 group in Dublin the last few years and it is great to see a much broader church experiencing the marathon.

RayCun

ezra_pound wrote: »

I plan on running it, not walking it. This requires lots of training and would be a major achievement for me.

Thanks for advice guys. I'm aware that I'm going from 0 very fast so if I'm under pressure I'll slow down before any injury and move goal forward.

the Novices thread is a must-read

the marathon is longer and harder than you think it is, even after you've adjusted your expectations because of people telling you it is longer and harder than you think it is If you want to enjoy the day at all, take it slow from the start. 10 seconds/km too fast at the start will add 10 minutes to your finish time. Don't get carried away by the atmosphere and the crowds around you running off. You have to budget your energy for the race, and it is a long race.

28064212

Izoard wrote: »

For sure, but that is the reality.
Average finishing time for DCM was 3;20 or so, back in the early/mid 80's - now pushing 4:40...

What's the total figures finishing under, say, 3 hours? That tells you a lot more about the state of running than a percentage figure

dukeraoul

ezra_pound wrote: »

Well maybe DCM should re market itself as a pro only exclusive event but from what I know it's the friendly marathon and that's it's unique appeal.

It's not like I'll be pushing a buggy in wave 1 so you awesome pros won't even see me. you're

Any way if you're too good for t the friendly DCM there's always Boston etc.

No- you're missing the point. I have just as much respect for a runner show builds up properly, trains hard and runs a 4.5 hr marathon as I do for the guy who wins it in 2:15.... none of us on here are pros but many of us do have the benefit of lots of running and lots of mistakes behind us so try to offer sensible advise which people ignore, year after year...

yaboya1

I think the point the lads are making are that if you build up gradually to the marathon you'll have a much more enjoyable day and are more likely to continue running in the future. Whereas a rushed preparation just to 'tick the box' has the likely outcome of you going through hell on the day, and never, ever wanting to run again.

Lex Luther

Izoard wrote: »

Exactly - the stats show that the majority doing the marathon are there to "just finish".
For better or worse, it is a shrinking minority who are there to race...

...but I dont think its a choice between "race" and "just finish".

Iin fact most people DO have a plan, and work hard towards some personal goal, even though they are not "racing".

There are people who aim to work up from a 5k race to a marathon, or people who want to complete a pain free marathon, or people who want to enjoy running a marthon, or people who want to run a marathon and not be injured at the end, or people who want to run under 5 hours or 4 1/2 hours or 6 hours or people who want to complete a marathon without stopping or walking or whatever.

These people are not doing the marathon "just to finish"and have perfectly reasonable reasons to run a marathon and will have earned an achievements to be celebrated.


Just my opinion.:)

dwayneshintzy

Ah right, apologies! I'd actually agree with you there, dukeraoul.

Someone who puts in the training and runs a 5 hour marathon that they're happy with is obviously nothing to sniff at, thought that's what you were getting at. Even "just to finish" is OK, but would agree anyone who takes up running and tries a marathon off a 10 mile a week base (or something ridiculous) is just mad. There are quite a few elitists involved in running though, including some who post on these boards.

ecoli

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

And why not? Is it preferable to have fewer, more committed runners? Do you lose out on committed runners if other people take it less seriously?

Would you advise someone to do a 100 mile cycle 2 weeks after they first take off their training wheels?

I have to agree with dukeraoul, I would encourage people to be active and take up running for sure but whats wrong with spending 6-12 months getting the body properly prepared for a 5k or a 10k which can be as equally physically demanding yet offers less injury risk and ultimately more enjoyment of the sport itself.

Their are a huge amount of people who enjoy the result rather than the actual act of the training, would prefer to see people get 12-18 weeks of enjoyment rather than a few days after DCM while in pain as the body recovers

pconn062

Pm1e wrote: »

*Breathes a sigh of relief. For the next 6 weeks I will be covering almost 100km per week. I know myself that I am very good at getting through things no matter what but just wanted to hear it from some of the more experienced runners. Thanks for your input, how are you set for it? He btw

I'm not going to get involved in the debate of whether you should or should not do the marathon. I would just say, be very careful of ramping the volume up to 100k a week, especially since you said you were coming from a low volume background of 30k a week. This will quite probably lead to injury and you will not make the start line at all.

dukeraoul

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Ah right, apologies! I'd actually agree with you there, dukeraoul.

Someone who puts in the training and runs a 5 hour marathon that they're happy with is obviously nothing to sniff at, thought that's what you were getting at. Even "just to finish" is OK, but would agree anyone who takes up running and tries a marathon off a 10 mile a week base (or something ridiculous) is just mad. There are quite a few elitists involved in running though, including some who post on these boards.

Agreed- the good thing about running though is its easy to realise you aren't elite. In fact- the fastest poster I know of on boards is a good 15 mins behind the WR- kind of puts it in perspective///

Izoard

28064212 wrote: »

What's the total figures finishing under, say, 3 hours? That tells you a lot more about the state of running than a percentage figure

I know the figures for London 2011, which are pretty indicative on a pro-rata basis, for any city marathon.

Sub 3:
Men: 2082 out of 22443 finishers
Women: 220 out of 12262 finishers

6.6% of all finishers sub 3...

RayCun

388 finishers last year under 3 hours (out of 12k)
about 436 the year before

153 in 2000 (though this is gun time, might have been a couple more on chip time)

Pm1e

pconn062 wrote: »

I'm not going to get involved in the debate of whether you should or should not do the marathon. I would just say, be very careful of ramping the volume up to 100k a week, especially since you said you were coming from a low volume background of 30k a week. This will quite probably lead to injury and you will not make the start line at all.

Cheers Pconn

TFBubendorfer

Izoard wrote: »

I know the figures for London 2011, which are pretty indicative on a pro-rata basis, for any city marathon.

Sub 3:
Men: 2082 out of 22443 finishers
Women: 220 out of 12262 finishers

6.6% of all finishers sub 3...

Actually, I think 6.6% is higher than most marathons.
I remember running 3:05 in Dublin 2008 and being in the top 5%.

From that webpage: http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/running/Running-a-Sub-Three-Hour-Marathon.html

Only two percent of people who toe a marathon starting line will break three hours

neilc

dublin runner wrote: »

No Heartbreak Hill over the canal but a slower course in my opinion. I say that very relucantly but the first half of the course is slower in my opinion. The miles up Chesterfield Avenue and up to Castleknock should not run at marathon pace.

Yeah was thinking about that stretch too, it's gradual but nearly four miles. I suppose any time given up there though could be made back up on the three back down to Chapelizod. The other thing is under the N4 and heartbreak are a couple of miles further in, definitely a tougher course imo.

dublin runner

neilc wrote: »

Yeah was thinking about that stretch too, it's gradual but nearly four miles. I suppose any time given up there though could be made back up on the three back down to Chapelizod. The other thing is under the N4 and heartbreak are a couple of miles further in, definitely a tougher course imo.

Nice to see a comment about the actual race

True, the hill before Fosters Avenue is that bit later and harder. It won't be pretty! One for the spectators :eek:

I am never one to give out random advice but to run the few miles up to Castleknock at marathon pace will in my opinion, end most peoples race. It will take a lot of discipline to allow yourself lose some time. Some of us ran the section after Castleknock and it's super fast. You will get back the lost time without any real increase in effort.

I thought initially it might be a faster course but having run large sections I think it's certainly slower. God, it pains me to say that.....

Bahanaman

I thought initially it might be a faster course but having run large sections I think it's certainly slower. God, it pains me to say that.....

The other thing is under the N4 and heartbreak are a couple of miles further in, definitely a tougher course imo.

Say it ain't so lads, say it ain't so!:eek:

TFBubendorfer

Bahanaman wrote: »

Say it ain't so lads, say it ain't so!:eek:

It ain't so

Calm down, calm down. I don't think it will make much of a difference. 90% of the course is still the same as always and it's not as if there is a major mountain climb in the new section.

rovers_runner

Definitely looks a tougher course than last few years, but personally am glad of the change as the first few miles through the O'Connell St and NCR were not very easy on the eye, that said we do have Meath St this year :rolleyes:

The main differences are the profile of the drag from Parkgate St -> Castleknock college in comparison to the slow climb from Parnell Sq to GHQ perviously.
Most of the gain is done in a short distance so shouldn't be too bad fingers crossed.

That and each subsequent hill later on is a mile and a half further in
-Under N4 to Ballyfermot Rd ( always a sickner that nobody speaks of...)
-Milltown
-Clonskeagh -> Fosters Ave

But then again once on the UCD flyover it's a nice easy finish like Cork.

kingtut

You know I never thought of walking a marathon before but this thread is making me think otherwise.

Can anyone tell me what would be considered an average time for walking it? (By average I mean not super fit but not a couch potato either).

I walked 10k on Monday in a time of 01:22:49 (tracked using run keeper).

TFBubendorfer

kingtut wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what would be considered an average time for walking it? (By average I mean not super fit but not a couch potato either).

About 6 to 7 hours.

1:22 for 10k is pretty fast walking, so you might probably looking at the faster end of that.

Ososlo

kingtut wrote: »

You know I never thought of walking a marathon before but this thread is making me think otherwise.

Can anyone tell me what would be considered an average time for walking it? (By average I mean not super fit but not a couch potato either).

I walked 10k on Monday in a time of 01:22:49 (tracked using run keeper).

If you could keep that 10k pace up for the duration (highly unlikely if you were walking at a brisk effort) then about 6:25.
Well over 6:30 I'd say.

kingtut

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

About 6 to 7 hours.

1:22 for 10k is pretty fast walking, so you might probably looking at the faster end of that.

Ososlo wrote: »

If you could keep that 10k pace up for the duration (highly unlikely if you were walking at a brisk effort) then about 6:25.
Well over 6:30 I'd say.

Thanks for the feedback.
I doubt I could maintain that pace for the full distance but if I could do 6:30 (or sub) I think I'd be happy enough.