- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 4/7/19 at 12:58 pm to Macavity92
I thought the same thing. 
Posted on 4/7/19 at 12:58 pm to Macavity92
Sure I have.
Boston has like 330 ft of elevation gain, so I’ll repeat, nobody is worried about the terrain at Boston.
Pretty sure Sabi was referencing something like Pikes Peak, which has over 7,000 ft of elevation gain
Boston has like 330 ft of elevation gain, so I’ll repeat, nobody is worried about the terrain at Boston.
Pretty sure Sabi was referencing something like Pikes Peak, which has over 7,000 ft of elevation gain
This post was edited on 4/7/19 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 4/7/19 at 12:59 pm to wazoo11
I will never run that race or even be a spectator
For the same reason I don’t fly. I don’t want to get blown up
For the same reason I don’t fly. I don’t want to get blown up
This post was edited on 4/7/19 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 4/7/19 at 1:10 pm to wazoo11
What a stupid fricking question.
Posted on 4/7/19 at 1:18 pm to Salmon
Not necessarily Pikes Peak, which is somewhat extreme. It could have been New York, which has low rolling hills until hit hit Central Park, and then a longer hill (although still not steep). Or Chicago or Rotterdam, which are flat as pancakes and good for world record attempts. People picking marathons, even regular marathons in major cities, spend a good deal of time comparing elevation maps of the courses.
Posted on 4/7/19 at 1:20 pm to Macavity92
Right.
But again, we were talking about just finishing.
If you are trying to shave off 10 minutes to get under 3 hours, sure, terrain matters a lot.
But again, we were talking about just finishing.
If you are trying to shave off 10 minutes to get under 3 hours, sure, terrain matters a lot.
Posted on 4/7/19 at 1:56 pm to wazoo11
quote:
If you were given a year to train, could you run 26.2 miles?
To answer this, yes this is possible for some folks who already are in shape. Don't have to be in tip top shape, but you must be disciplined and be able to have stamina. A lot of it.
Forget winning the Boston Marathon, let's just talk qualifying for it. To qualify, you'll need to be able to run (varies some by your age) about a 3 hour and 20 minute marathon. Most of you non runners have no idea what an incredible accomplishment it is to just to qualify for Boston.
To let you better understand, that's about a 7:40 per mile pace. 90% of you couldn't run one mile at this pace, let alone 26.2 of them... in a row.
I just finished a marathon a month ago and I can barely run one mile at this 7:40 pace.
Posted on 4/7/19 at 2:16 pm to wazoo11
Win?
Last year's winner had a mile of 5mins12secs per mile. That's over the course of 26 miles
, not many here would beat that time if they were ONLY running one mile.
Last year's winner had a mile of 5mins12secs per mile. That's over the course of 26 miles
Posted on 4/7/19 at 9:05 pm to Uncle Don
quote:
Easy there baw, you don’t know me
You said baw, proving you are not Kenyan.
Posted on 4/7/19 at 9:06 pm to wazoo11
I stopped running after I got my concealed carry
Posted on 4/7/19 at 9:47 pm to wazoo11
quote:
If you were given a year to train, could you run 26.2 miles?
At my current age, hell no. Years ago when running 10 miles 3 times a week, yeah, I could have trained up to run it, but win it, again, hell no.
No, "average" runner will ever win any marathon.
Posted on 4/7/19 at 10:41 pm to wazoo11
Hard edit on the OP...
To the original OP, absolutely fricking not. No one on this board would win Boston. I don’t care if they devoted the next decade to training.
To the new OP, sure. I would be miserable, but if you gave me a year to train, I could finish it.
To the original OP, absolutely fricking not. No one on this board would win Boston. I don’t care if they devoted the next decade to training.
To the new OP, sure. I would be miserable, but if you gave me a year to train, I could finish it.
Posted on 4/7/19 at 10:43 pm to AbitaFan08
quote:
most OT post of the day
I would win the Boston Marathon, and run a 3:50 mile pace
Posted on 4/7/19 at 10:46 pm to tween the hedges
quote:thats frickin mind blowing
The winner a couple years ago had a 4:41 pace for 26 miles.
Posted on 4/7/19 at 11:07 pm to Salmon
quote:
Boston has like 330 ft of elevation gain, so I’ll repeat, nobody is worried about the terrain at Boston.
It has rolling hills, the Newton Hills, which start at around 16 miles with the last hill, Heartbreak Hill, at 20 miles just when you are starting to bonk. It's what makes Boston such a hard course and makes Geoffrey Mutai's 2:03:02 course record so impressive.
This post was edited on 4/7/19 at 11:12 pm
Posted on 4/7/19 at 11:13 pm to tween the hedges
quote:a couple others I know here and myself could do that for sure. Give me one year of training and I’m pushing the 4 minute mile.
The winner a couple years ago had a 4:41 pace for 26 miles. I don’t think anyone here could do one mile that pace with a year of training
ETA: This is to say none of us could run one single mile under 5 minutes with a year of training.
This post was edited on 4/7/19 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 4/7/19 at 11:18 pm to wazoo11
Ain’t no plant baw winning the Boston marathon.
Posted on 4/8/19 at 12:06 am to wazoo11
2 different questions. Finishing a random marathon is worlds apart from winning Boston. Hell, you have to qualify to even run Boston.
Anyone who trains can finish one. Winning takes elite talent and years of dedicated training.
Anyone who trains can finish one. Winning takes elite talent and years of dedicated training.
Popular
Back to top


2







