Comments on: 50 Marathons in 50 Days is Not Impressive

By: James

James — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:00:05 +0000

What the extremely and transparently jealous article writer fails to grasp is that when we’re talking about accomplishments like ’50 marathons in 50 days’, slower but still running times in the 4 – 5.5 hour range are probably far more mentally and perhaps also physically challenging on the runners than if those same marathons were done in less time. While the author of this article seems to be impressed by ‘doing it well,’ by ‘it’ he means ‘running fast.’ I, on the other hand, am more impressed with the mental and physical toughness of somebody who may not be a perfect physical specimen and may have come into sport later in life but still takes on a daunting task.

By: Sheamus

Sheamus — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 07:54:25 +0000

It’s a bit of an apples and oranges argument – you can’t compare world record runs in the 5K with a pretty normal guy average 9-minute miles in his marathons.

However, as you did, I’d argue that more 100-mile ultrarunners can run a 3-hour marathon than 3-hour marathon runners can run 100 miles.

I’d also argue I’m not sure it really matters. What’s important to you is what’s important. It is very impressive to break 13 minutes over a 5K but as has been mentioned above, is it any more impressive than running a 9.69 100m? What about a 0.968 10m? 0.0967 over 1m?

I’m being a bit silly, of course, but it’s a logical progression from your argument.

I’d suggest it’s more impressive to get faster over the *longer* distance. Breaking the two-hour marathon barrier is far more of an accomplishment than going under even 12 minutes over a 5K (IMO). Being faster for longer is, I would suggest, always going to win out over being faster for a shorter period of time. Moreover, it’s a truer test of endurance, which for most people is what running is all about.

Sheamuss last blog post..Do You Listen To Music While You Run?

By: ShanMac

ShanMac — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:48:10 +0000

Sigh…..well, part of me sees the point, the other, I just don’t get it. I understand that it is important to not just do something to do it and that effort is needed, but I guess I am not really sure how a person could judge that. I myself really want to run and enter as many events as possible, my next goal was 25 before I turn 25. So I guess, by some standards, i am just running to run. But am i? Maybe that 25 is a stretch for me, maybe I am doing it because I can…..if I were in other parts of the world I may not have that opportunity, and so for me the shear fact that I am allowed to run as many as I want at any pace I want is a gift in itself that I am thankful for. No, I do not know the names of all of the fastest runners out there, but I do read about them, I have watched track meets and admired the people who can accomplish things I can’t even imagine doing. I think of running as a celebration of life. We were all given one body and one life to do what we can in that body. I think what makes running so great is that it is the freedom of the individual to set the types of goals that we want to have. Each achievement we have is worth celebrating, sometimes that is a PR, and sometimes that is 25 in 25. I am just glad and thankful for the opportunity to be able to do it all.

By: John

John — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:42:31 +0000

3100 miles, 42 days. I suppose this is missing the point of the article, but check out the name “Wolfgang Schwerk”. This guy averaged 72.8 miles a day for 42 days. If 50 marathons in 50 days isn’t impressive, maybe this is.

By: Simon

Simon — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:50:37 +0000

Thanks Adeek,
I agree with almost everything you say.
People are obsessed with marathons. Not with racing them, just with finishing. As if putting one foot in front of another for 26.2 miles is the equivalent of climbing Everest or something.

Don’t they get it? Humans are designed to cover long distances on foot. There’s nothing special about it.

Those that have done a few soon get to realise that. They’re left with two options: train properly and do a marathon in a decent time, or run longer: run 50 miles, or 100 miles instead. In the context of a world marathon record of 2:04 — that’s 13 mph for two hours — the second option is a lot easier and much more likely to get you noticed.

Dean Karnazes has got himself on Oprah following this strategy. His latest gimmick, the 50 marathons in 50 states in 50 consecutive days thing, has got him on a ton of sponsorship and full-colour 8-page (yes eight) advertising spreads in the running glossies. Amazing. The hype, not the performance. The ‘amazing feat’ has already been done or bettered (Sam Thompson, Chuck Engle). But just as you say, people are not interested in quality, just quantity.

By: Alekat

Alekat — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:30:49 +0000

“Most runners, I will generalize, are more impressed by a poorly-run marathon than a well-run mile, more in awe of a succession of so-so marathons than a single really fast marathon.”

Think in a different paradigm… Rather than just about the virtues of running, this issue seems more about personal accomplishment and growth – an individual’s journey. Sounds pretty “new age” but really, if an individual can train for and run a marathon or multiple marathons – that is growth of the individual. Many people will not be able to run those super fast miles… So when people are in awe of a slow marathon over a fast mile, it’s not the running that they are in awe of, it is the personal growth and accomplishment.

By: John

John — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:48:19 +0000

The article seems to differentiate between doing something and doing something well. Not everyone that is fast does something well and not all those that are slow do not. Is someone that is doping doing something well? Is someone that wins races but doesn’t train hard to do so doing something well? Is a 60 year old cancer survivor that finishes a 10K doing something well? I think the answers are obvious and I disagree entirely with the premise that those going the fastest are running “the best”.

In addition, I think it’s pretty clear that those that run the fastest are recognized. They win the trophies and the prize money. Their names are listed first with their times. When two runners talk and one discovers another is significantly faster the slower runner generally shows more respect and appreciation for the faster runners ability. I’m not sure what it is the author feels should be done for these people?

The metric that really matters is the one that is impossible to measure. The metric that matters is who is accomplishing something of merit. Speed is as much a function of genetics as how hard you work. As a measure of who is accomplishing something noteworthy it’s only one small part of a larger and more personal story. To most bloggers it’s an unrelatable part of the story because they are not competative at that level.

By: Yvonne

Yvonne — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:19:50 +0000

Ditto, ditto: extremely well written argument. But I too disagree with your conclusions. You and I must exist in two very different ‘running communities.’ From my perspective, in my club, among everyone I talk to who runs in any way seriously, the most awe is definitely bestowed upon the ‘fast.’ Yes, people of all speeds are encouraged and praised for their acheivements, but it is the ‘fast’ who are regarded – almost worshipped – as the true heroes, the gods of our sport.

That Dean guy just annoys me. Just because he’s good at getting himself a lot of publicity doesn’t mean any he’s worth the attention he supposedly gets.

By: chris

chris — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:43:53 +0000

ha, adeel branching out

By: Run Momma Run

Run Momma Run — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:19:39 +0000

Adeel, I wholeheartedly agree that there is a difference between just doing something to do it and doing something well. But, that is NOT how I interpreted your article and I think you could’ve made your point a little clearer and stronger.

I felt taken aback when you wrote against the “first-time marathoner who casually ran for four or five hours will be inundated with praise.” First of all, who is to say that MY efforts in completing that marathon were casual? What if that really IS the best that I can do? Shouldn’t I be praised just as heartily as the person who ran the marathon in 2:20? As long as we both ran our best raise, that is worthy of any and all praise and is indeed impressive.