Beware the sweeper...

6 watchers

First
Prev
3
4
5
6

Phil70 Apr 2014 10:56am, 27 Apr 2014 459 posts	0 Phil70 Apart from one marathon major across the pond, the key is finishing irrespective of [GFA] time. No-one deserves derogatory remarks about their ability and the KRR is a classic example of how a marathon should be put on to encourage less speedy runners reach their target times.
jennywren Apr 2014 11:47am, 27 Apr 2014 10,391 posts	0 jennywren I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I can't understand why it matters to faster people that there are slower runners in the same race? What's it got to do with you? Just run it, win the prize or whatever, have a shower and go home!
JohnnyO Apr 2014 11:57am, 27 Apr 2014 17,599 posts	0 JohnnyO I don't think it does. I think that it matters to three faster runners, all of whom have been quoted in the article. There has then followed six pages of outrage that these three people, who seem to be peckers, aren't happy that there are slower runners. I don't think that anybody on here (unless I missed a post by some budding pecker) has agreed with the opinions expressed in the article.
Wirral Dave May 2014 5:45pm, 5 May 2014 167 posts	0 Wirral Dave I would love one year the London Marathon to be run on two days. The Saturday could be the Good for Age and Championship day, the Sunday the masses could take part. What you would find is the sub-3 hour brigade would see no difference in how congested the course is for them, but a huge difference in how many spectators are on the route. They would see the race as not really being the same, principally as they aren't the people who bring the crowds out. The masses on the Sunday might notice they cross the finish line slightly quickly, and those doing sub-3 would notice less congestion, but for most runners there would be no difference. The crowds, who are mostly out to see them as either family/friends or wanting a day out watching the fancy dress, would still be there in the same numbers. Most runners would say splitting it made no difference. I know Boston is slightly different, being only good for age, but that builds it's reputation on that. For London, it's the slower runners who make the event what it is. I suspect for most UK races it's the slowest runners who bring the spectators along, and out, and make the marathons what they are. In my opinion, the fastest runners need the slowest more than the slowest need the fastest. Indeed, telling people I do marathons wouldn't impress them if it was a specialist thing that only certain people do; it's the fact that some people are so inspirational and respectworthy of getting round in 6 hours that makes people give me credit.
Cyclops May 2014 5:48pm, 5 May 2014 1,373 posts	0 Cyclops Well said, WD!
Wirral Dave May 2014 5:49pm, 5 May 2014 168 posts	0 Wirral Dave On the subject of completing a marathon though, there is a difference between doing it on foot and officially cheating. I'm amazed to see this on the Liverpool Marathon website, explaining what happens if you fall behind the 7 hour cut-off. uk.competitor.com "If a participant’s pace falls below the course time limit, they have a few options: "Increase their pace to stay within the event minimum pace; "Board a “Tail Vehicle” shuttle to move forward on the course, where they may continue to participate in the event, maintaining the minimum pace required; or " Remain on the tail vehicle to the finish " If the participant cannot continue, they may board the tail vehicle until a nearby medical station. The participant will be seen by the Medical Team to be cleared for the medical shuttle to transport the participant to the finish line" So essentially if I'm behind the pace I can jump on a bus and get a lift to somewhere where I would be able to finish within 7 hours. That doesn't sound like the same achievement as completing a marathon to me.