Jump to content

Talk:Marathon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Nature of this article

I think we should decide what kind of article we want to write here: a) Information on Marathon (Encyclopedia article) or b) Training and Racing advice (Training handbook article)? A lot of the material here is geared towards people who are planning to run a marathon (Energy gels, when to get a massage after the race, dehydration etc). But I guess aspiring marathon runners already have read a lot of information in handbooks, running-sites, forums etc. To have a really substantial source of training advice a separate article would be useful.

I would suggest to limit or focus the current article on information you could expect from a good encyclopedia article: history, rules, athletes, major events, and perhaps an overview of physical challenges to the body during a marathon. Such article would be geared more to a general audience (without the intention to run).

If we do both at the same time (training handbook and encyclopedia) it will be a huge mess and not of much use for anybody. (remember: the article on cars is not explaining how to drive one neither). What do you think?

How can you create a list of great male marathoners without including the name of Dick Beardsley? It is accepted by most that but for a stupid mistake by a police motorcyclist, Dick would have passed Alberto Salazer to win the 1982 Boston Marathon. Please add his name.

Done, based on overall career achievement. Not every Boston winner makes the lists of great marathoners on this site. It would be good to have explicitly stated criteria for inclusion on these lists. Hertz1888 01:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

HISTORY DISPUTE

See http://www.marathonguide.com/history/olympicmarathons/prologue.cfm for an alternate history. This information cannot be posted as it is under copywrite. If anyone knows if Charlie Lovett describes the true history, the history section should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.202.8.1 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a current dispute about this. I believe that for several decades now the consensus of modern historians has been that the legend didn't occur in that way, ie the messenger running from Marathon to Athens and dropping dead. See for example Persian Fire by Tom Holland. But the true history of events over 2000 years old will always be patchy at best. The only contemporary source is Herodotus who talks about the messenger running, not a mere 25 miles, but over 100 from Athens to Sparta, then back again. There's a modern race to commemorate this, too. He also says that on the day of the battle, most of the Athenian hoplites, having already a fought a full battle in heavy armour, marched rapidly all the way back to Athens because they were afraid the Persian fleet might attack the undefended city. They arrived in the early afternoon, a stupendous feat in itself.
However, although the legend may not be true (and looks pretty weedy compared with the events in Herodotus) it is still the source of the marathon race today. I'll update the article to ensure that the legend is reported as such.Cavort (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the historical accuracy tag. Due to recent edits the alternative explanations and the existence of debate are now clearly stated in the section, and the legend is labelled as such. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Added yards

regarding the marathon, Summer_Olympic_Games says "The final yards were added on at the request of British royal family in order to improve the view of the finish from their box" while Marathon (sport) says "race organizers added 385 yards to the course in order to have the runners start in front of Windsor Castle." Which is it? Kingturtle 05:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MarathonGuide.com says it's both. [1]. The Boston Marathon site says it's the former. [2] "The distance between the castle and the Olympic Stadium in London proved to be 26 miles. Organizers added extra yards to the finish around a track, 385 to be exact, so the runners would finish in front of the king and queen's royal box." It's probably worth noting, though, that both the start and finish were at the royal family's request. KeithH 07:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I Guess the links you added are two specific. I´d put them in other page !

ever watched Qi with steven fry this article is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.59.85 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

After the marathon

Nipple chaffing/bleeding is extremely common in marathons and probably should be mentioned, as well as ways to prevent it. I'll probably add a blurb to the article when I'm n ot lazy, unless someone else beats me to it. Unfortunately, most of us first learn this from painful experience, and not Wikipedia.

Personally I recommend putting vaseline on ones nipples for any event over 13-15miles. Its also useful when running in cold weather, erect nipples seem to get destroyed quicker! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.188.192.41 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Sub two hour marathon

Any discussion of this? Used to train with a friend back in the day who planned to become the first sub 2hr runner. However out coach Lydiard didn't think that would ever be possible by any human ever! Anyway, he certainly never reached that and I expect he never will. Ah, the days of being young and crazy. Anyway, some of the science into why not and also predictions based on stats etc.. would be handy. Because a sub 2 hours marathon would be even bigger than a sub 4 minute mile. Mathmo 20:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

marathon races

Do we really need a list of every marathon on this page? I expect every major city has one but how many are notable? I would think the notable list should be restricted to those that have a course record in the top 100 for either men or women.

The hundreth best time for male athletes is 2:07:46 run at the following cities. Source of men's list of best marathon times Berlin, London, Chicago, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Paris, Fukuoka, Otsu, Beijing, Shanghai Boston, New York City, Seoul, Torino,

The hundreth best time for female athletes is 2:24:06 run at the following cities. Source of women's list of best marathon times. London, Chicago, Beijing, Berlin, Boston, Rotterdam, Osaka, Bangkok, Nagoya, Amsterdam, New York City, Paris, Sydney, Seoul, Xiamen, Wien, Saint-Denis,

It is possible that some of the above cities do not qualify as notable marathons too. For example we should consider if the result was a one off fast race or do they consistently have excellent fields? Were the fast time due to a world or olympic championship race being run in that city? These should not count towards a cities regular marathon being notable if the regular city marathon is never of such quality.

I have only suggested the top 100 as an arbitary cut off. We could always do the top 1000, if people are worried that marathons such as Los Angeles are not on the list. At present the absolute criteria is not that important, but I think we do need to come up an objective crietria before this list grows too large and is populated with minor marathons. We need to keep the noise level down. David D. 17:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I say make it a lot easier and just move the whole list out to List of marathon races, and then replace it with a discussion of the most prominent races. Only those that warrant being mentioned by being different or very important should be covered. This is a very standard way of handling this issue because it allows both keeping all the information, and having a concise and well organized main article. I've been thinking of doing that in the last few days, and just haven't gotten to it. I'll go ahead and do it unless people have any specific objections, or you can feel free to do it also. - Taxman Talk 17:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll watch and learn but will be happy to do some research if you need it. David D. 17:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I did that. And there's always a need for good research. If you can find some information on what are the largest and most competitive or important marathons worldwide that would be great. We need to cite good sources, so if you can find some numbers, comments from important people, etc, that would really help. - Taxman Talk 23:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


I disagree with only having races which have had times in the top 100, because then you are selecting only "fast courses" as opposed to "famous course" and/or "notable courses". While there is often a very large overlap, they aren't the same same thing. Because you are excluding courses which are famous/notable but are on much harsh courses/conditions.
I think there is room to disagree. Note that above I wrote "At present the absolute criteria is not that important, but I think we do need to come up an objective crietria before this list grows too large". Which courses do you have in mind that might not have winning times in the top 100? I had thought of your points when i originally thought of this idea to limit the list os notable marathons. It struck me that Boston is one with a very tough course, yet very notable. The fastest times on that course are within the top 100. It seems that if a race is notable it will have fast times, even on a tough course, because the notable races attract the top runners. Also, this may all be moot now as taxman has since created the list of marathons as a separate entity from this page. David D. (Talk) 12:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologize that I do not know the etiquette for using wikipedia, but I had some comments. Perhaps you could make several lists: One of the "fastest" courses, as given by fastest time ever run on that course, one of the most popular races (number of participants), one of races with the largest prize money, and maybe one of races that have been notable for other things, such as US Olympic Trials qualification purposes (although perhaps this is biased towards the US?).

I would enjoy seeing some discussion of the performances of all runners. For example: What is the breakdown of runners finishing in 2 hours, 2:30, 3, 3:30, 4, etc; How many people complete marathons every year, etc. Such data would combine competitive and recreational runners and recognize the popular participation in the sport (rather than focusing on olympics and record-holders).

Section 5 has the tone of the recreational running (i.e. not world-class) while the rest of the article speaks of world-class marathoning. Also relevant to popular running is the swelling of participation in recent decades. This could also be backed up with numbers and stats. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.211.28 (talk • contribs) .

Go for it. It sounds like an interesting analysis. David D. (Talk) 17:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Statistics? That's possible actually. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bonking

Is it really called bonking or is someone taking the piss?! -Liam86.41.192.194 20:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's really called "bonking"! -- MisterHand 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is called "bonking" in England, and "hitting the wall" in the United States. I don't know what it is called in other countries. 206.53.196.6 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Going to the bathroom in your pants

Why did someone delete my post about runners crapping in their pants instead of finding a toilet? People considering running a marathon should know what they are getting into.

errr... crapping is a bit much!! I'd say that would be very rare, simply pissing however is a different matter. That is why you splash all the water over you so people can not tell. ;p Mathmo 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Article naming

I think this article should be at Marathon, and the current contents of that page moved to Marathon (disambiguation). Comments? Coffee 17:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but if it comes up again: I think Marathon should be a disambig page. Njál 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Tapering"

Doesn't "tapering" refer to the practice of decreasing milage prior to a race in order to rest and repair the body so the runner can perform at her peak? Carbo loading just refers to eating a lot of pasta a day or two before the marathon to maximize energy stored. Anyone disagree? --Slowdiver 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Port-a-pottys?

Anyone else think a comment about long lines at portable toilets doesn't really contribute to a dictionary entry on marathons? Does the entry on movie theaters have anything about how there are long lines at the bathroom before and after a movie starts?--Slowdiver 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Removed it. --Auximines 11:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with removing it...but I think it actually is more significant that the movie theatre example. Lines are typically long enough that people miss the start of the races, and are continuing to peel off for miles. I'm just not sure it's encyclopedic.  :) Wikibofh(talk) 14:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You could almost argue it a is a feature of marathons as common as bonking?? Certainly for a lot of people one of the main things they may remember about their race. Mathmo 20:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Honey Nonsense

This smells like bogus "original research". Any sources for this? If honey works for you that's great, but that doesn't mean that the recommendation belongs in an encyclopedia.

Honey is definitely not a good substitute for glucose and maltodextrin-based products. It contains a lot of fructose, which can't be used by the muscles, and can upset some bowels. It also contains pollen, which some people are sensitive to.

During a race, you want pure glucose, or polysaccharides that break down into glucose. Maltodextrin, the constituent of many carbohydrate powders, power gels and bars, consists of several glucose units weakly bonded together.

Glucose can go straight to your bloodstream, and into the muscles. This is what you want during the race: the quickest, simplest possible intake system. Fructose has to go into the liver and be converted to glucose. This is why fructose is marketed as a sweetener to diabetics: it doesn't raise the blood sugar level.

Save the fructose for post-race recovery: the liver can use it to build glycogen. (But it can't be used anywhere else in the body: it won't replenish muscle glycogen. Excess fructose is converted to fat!)

By the way, you can make your own "power gel" from any commercially available maltodextrin powder, which can be purchased in bulk. A 2000 gram container of the white powder, costing as little as ten dollars, will probably mix up enough gel to fill several hundred of the little packets.


KazKylheku 19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a link from where you buy yours? Mathmo 20:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I dont know of any sources, but the use of honey is a widly spread myth among marathon runners Slimdavey 02:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dehydration vs Hyponatremia

The article currently says:

However, overconsumption of water is now believed to be a more serious risk to marathon runners than underconsumption

Do we have a source for this? It seems to me that in general dehydration is more likely than hypo, but less well publicized in mass media. I have added {{citation needed}} to the article. Wikibofh(talk) 00:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (former EMT)

  • It's been almost a month with no citation, and no discussion. I'm going to remove the statement, and it can be re-added if we have a citation. Wikibofh(talk) 03:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dos and Don'ts

First of all, this information really isn't encyclopedic in it's purist form, it belongs more on a discussion board. Second much of the information is far from accepted as truth. Many marathoners (including myself) train for MUCH less than a year before running. If no one steps forwards to defend this section's existance, I'm going to delete it. Slimdavey 02:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely in the right in removing it. It's not only unreferenced, but Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This material would be better put in a running wiki or, as you suggest, posted to a message board. -- MisterHand 00:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I will set out the Dos and Don'ts that Slimdavey has deleted, in case anyone is interested what the above discussion was about:

Some do's for beginners

  • DO seek medical advice before starting your training, as to the general state of your health and well-being and whether you should be running.

Ideally, DO get at least twelve months' good quality running behind you, and several 10ks and half-marathons completed comfortably at least, before thinking of attempting a marathon.

  • DO research properly at the outset what running a marathon entails, and the amount and types of training you ought to be doing. Then ask yourself whether you are prepared to commit yourself to that amount of effort.
  • DO join a reputable running website, and communicate with other runners in the discussion forums there (e.g. in the Runner's World discussion forums) about how to train properly for your chosen event, and other issues arising. There is plenty of free advice available out there from those who already know, and they will be happy to help.
  • DO buy proper footwear with plenty of cushioning, suitable for running.
  • DO try to train on softer ground and not on pavements, so far as you possibly can. This is kinder on your body.
  • DO train properly for your event (see 'training', below). Unless you train properly, probably you won't be able to run the marathon well but will end up disappointing yourself by walking much of the second half, or dropping out entirely. If you train properly, however, you should reap the reward by being able to run the whole way, and feel very satisfied with yourself at achieving that feat.
  • DO start your training for a particular marathon slowly, at least six months in advance, increasing mileage gradually, without trying to do too much too soon.
  • DO include several half marathons at least, during the six months before your chosen marathon event. Ideally, time your last half marathon to be about one month before the full marathon.

In addition to your daily training, DO complete one long run each week, building that long run up gradually from about eight miles (at the start of your training) to about twenty miles (near the end of your training). That weekly long run should be an 'LSD' (='long slow distance') run: taken at a slow steady pace without pressing yourself too hard, and keeping going, to get your body used to running a long way without stopping.

  • DO include at least one rest day each week in your schedule: a day on which you won't run. This gives your body a chance to relax and recover. (E.G. You might prefer to have either the day before, or the day after, your weekly long run, as your weekly rest day.)
  • DO stop your training if illness or injury suggests you ought. Your long-term health is far more important than completing a marathon.
  • On the big day, DO aim to run your marathon all the way, without any walking, if at all possible. Running a marathon is supposed to be about running it, not about walking the last eight or ten miles in order to get round the course. And remember the story about the hare and the tortoise: it is better to start off more slowly and manage to keep running all the way than to go off too fast only to peter out and end up walking much of the tail end of the event and be overtaken by the people who started slower than you and conserved their energy better.

Some don'ts for beginners

  • DON'T try to do too much training too soon. Build up slowly.
  • DON'T do too much running if you are seriously overweight. You may damage hips, knees, ankles, or suffer some other injury. Get the weight off first, by eating less and exercising more, before training for a marathon.
  • DON'T attempt a marathon if, for some reason, you haven't done enough training or you become ill or injured in some significant way, or have other serious health concerns about yourself. Drop out. Do it on some other occasion rather than now. There will always be plenty of marathons next year, or the year after, which you can do instead."


It took me about an hour to put them together. It's par for the course on Wikipedia that someone bothers to write something, then someone else comes in, thinking they know better, and just chucks the whole lot in the bin. That's one of the reasons I don't bother contributing to Wikipedia any more (too many destructive people who think they know best, destroying other people's contributions). I have better things to do with my time than draft something very carefully, just to have a blue pencil struck through the whole thing.

For the record, I get tired, year after year, of seeing about 10,000 people at the tail end of the London Marathon WALKING. They don't know how to train for a marathon, they go at it blind, they aren't fit enough, they go off too fast, so they get what they deserve - an eleven mile walk (or whatever) in the final stages, out of sight of the BBC cameras. The function of my Dos and Don'ts was to try to tell those beginners that, actually, they need to get up to about 35 miles a week in training, and take the thing seriously, or they will be among the walkers. Unfortunately my edit doesn't survive the likes of Slimdavey or Misterhand, who think they know best, so there you go. Maybe they should be asking quite what purpose anyone would be typing 'marathon' into the search engine for? Maybe to know how to run one? Surely not? But you know best, gentlemen.
An editing system which allows anyone to come along and destroy anyone else's handiwork without any proper discussion about it is a mad system. That is why I am no longer wasting time drafting stuff on Wikipedia. Wikipedia takes people's time for granted because it doesn't have to pay an hourly rate, so it has thousands of mugs typing information that goes very swiftly in the bin. -- 213.48.46.141 11:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Couple points:
    1. Wikipedia is not a search engine. It's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are not how-to manuals. You might try Wikibooks, though.
    2. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Says that right underneath the editing box on every editing page.
    3. Not everyone's trying to set a world record time when they run a marathon. People do it for reasons other than attempting to finish in less than 2 hours. -- Jonel | Speak 17:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well said, you hit some great points there. It's frustrating to have hard work removed from an article, but we all need to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. Please read WP:NOT and other guideline and policy pages for more information. -- MisterHand 19:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I have taken your second point on board Jonel already, and have no intention of contributing substantive pieces to Wikipedia any more. Not through sour grapes, but through the application of common sense. There is no drafting 'system' on Wikipedia, unfortunately. If anyone contributes anything, the next person in the door can just put their pen through it all, with no questions asked. One puts up with it once or twice. When it happens eight or nine times though, the penny drops that unfortunately Wikipedia isn't a system at all: it's just an arbitrary collection of material where there are no rules as to what remains on a page. People do a great deal of hard work if they put material on a page, but someone else comes along and does the easy job of putting it in the trash. There isn't a drafting committee here, just a random collection of people working against one another with their own separate ideas of how things should be. So the answer is, unfortunately, not to contribute at all. Then one doesn't waste one's time. Regards,
        213.48.46.141 16:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Training..

It's incorrectly stated that individuals training for a marathon run in total 40 miles per week. Even if recreational marathoners are being talked about, the training is much more than 40 miles a week and i believe that the training of elite marathoners is what should be cited, in which case its 120+ miles per week

  • This month's Running Times has an example of a sub-4:00 woman who trained 30-40 mile weeks. My biggest week was ~50 when I qualified for Boston (age 60). Granted elites do 80+, but a lot of back-of-the-packers do ~40. Probably better to describe the wide variability. Wake 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---
Is it too frivolous to mention the -athon suffix's usage for events that go on for a relatively long time? --I like pants 16:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Any description of the wide variability of approaches to marathon training should take into account that surviving a marathon and running one are two different things. 146.151.58.167 07:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do you make the cut between running and surviving? 2:30, 3:00? If you are a runner, I think you would be disappointed if the cutoff was 3:00, and you ran 3:15 at age 50, resulting in you being labeled a "jogger", or non-marathoner (Whew! Lance just made the cut at 2:59:36). I think you are talking about the current trend of marathons to be walker-friendly, making what used to be a significant test of fitness into an "everybody wins" party. However, some barely survive it and some sit home and watch the superbowl. I think it's fair to give at least a little credit to those who survive it. Wake 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Road running event?

Not all marathons are on the road. Some are on sidewalks. Some are on pathways. I changed the opening sentence as a result. Spaomark 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There are completely off-road marathons as well, a lot of the early marathons by today's standards would be regarded as off road marathons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmo (talk • contribs) 04:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

1896 Distance

In the "Distance" section, in the text it says that 1896 was 40.8 km, but the table says 40 km. The text also says there were two different times there were 40 km races. --zandperl 01:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

World records

The list is not complete. See http://www.sporting-heroes.net/athletics-heroes/stats_athletics/worldrecords/mara_w.asp for a complete list. Look for example on Elisabeth Bonner. 80.126.94.132 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable marathoners

This list of runners is far too big. For examle, why Ryan Hall? Potential, yes, currently notable, why? I think we need to cull this down to a top ten, however subjective that might be. And if that kind of list cannot be agreed upon then this list should be maintained separately similar the notable marathon list. David D. (Talk) 07:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it needs culling. Ten? That's rather severe, hard to implement, and seems unnecessary. But I wouldn't mind seeing criteria (or guidelines) for notability agreed upon and adopted. Going to a separate list would only move, not solve, the proliferation problem, and require the same amount of monitoring, possibly more. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess ten was a random low number, I could go with more, certainly some sort of guideline for notability would be useful. David D. (Talk) 16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This section seems to have grown more since this discussion. If we wrote a brief sentence for each athlete on why they are notable I thik it might be clear which ones to cut out. Some don't even have their own articles so I wonder how notable they might be? David D. (Talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should create a list article of notable marathon runners, otherwise it gets too long to include here. I'm trying to at the moment look up some info on the red linked runners, I guess they might just be able to have an article on themselves. But struggling to find sources at first glance. Anyway, the point is clear though is that they certainly do not appear to be notable to the same extent as say Clayton is. Mathmo Talk 19:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be good to develop some objective criteria. Otherwise, we will get more self-submitted autobiographies, like Dane Rauschenberg who will try to add themselves to the list. Runreston (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A notable marathon runner would seem to be readily defined as a notable individual who is known for running marathons. If they don't have an article, and an article that describes their notability as being based on marathon running they don't belong on the list. Is there any issue in this universe that does not revolve around Dane Rauschenberg? Alansohn (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

After a marathon

"...soaking the lower half of the body for 20 minutes or so in cold or ice water may force blood through the leg muscles to speed recovery."

Is that really correct? I have also read recommendations to do the opposite, that is to take a warm bath after a marathon.

Taz0k (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Icing is really considered the best way to recover, however I believe it is to reduce swelling of the muscles rather than forcing blood through the leg muscles (which warm water would do). I've been doing this for years, but read the September 2008 issue of Runner's World, where they discussed the research behind it. Should I edit it to be more in keeping with reducing swelling rather than 'forcing blood through leg muscles'?

--Sasouthcott (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Top 10

Why are both of Gebrselassie's top-two times listed and only one of Radcliffe's top-three? Didn't want to just remove it without asking Thatlot!! (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is a proposal to merger Dane Rauschenberg into the multiple marathons section. It is more appropriate to deal with all such multiple-marathon endeavors in one place. Otherwise it is misleading to the reader as to how a particular project fits into the overall progression of these achievements. Runreston (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose Notability has clearly been established for Rauschenberg. Dozens of independent sources from national media and local-area sources across the country to establish the clearest possible notability for Rauschenberg and for his 52 marathon accomplishment in 2006. I would be more than happy to assist in creation of standalone articles for all others who have accomplished similar feats that are similarly supported by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. It is unclear what is "misleading" here other than the persistent attacks from a stream of sockpuppets. That the latest incarnation, User:Runreston, has devoted nearly 90% of his edits to this one article for Dane Rauschenberg is sign of an obsession that goes well beyond any rational discussion of notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree that Rauschenberg's notability has been established. Why are you so eagar to promote Mr. Rauschenberg's self-written autobiographical article? His achieves do not come anywhere near the running achievements of the people discussed on this page. Runreston (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • You seem to have a monomaniacal obsession with Mr. Rauschenberg that blinds you from understanding consensus on Wikipedia. Please read through the comments here from the other editors who have participated in your overwhelmingly rejected merge proposal. I am far from the only one who expressly stated that Rauschenberg's notability is clearly established. No one has supported your merger proposal, and every single person who commented here believes that independent notability has been established. Why are you so eager to defame Rauschenberg? What issue do you have with an article that I have mostly re-written to address imaginary and non-existent issues raised by you and your fellow sockpuppets? If you genuinely believe that "His achieves [sic] do not come anywhere near the running achievements of the people discussed on this page" and you "disagree that Rauschenberg's notability has been established" there's a simple solution: Start a second Afd (ask your puppetmaster User:Racepacket for details on how to do this, he created the first one) and see if you can build a consensus that the article should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the person above has said: "Notability has clearly been established for Rauschenberg." I took a quick look at the article and I can immediately saw that the article shouldn't be considered for merging, I'm surprised it is even suggested. Mathmo Talk 08:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose DR clearly merits his own article. Trying to merge a biographical article with one about an athletic event is a non-starter, but that doesn't preclude his having an entry in a list of multiple marathons in this article (or as a separate list article, if the list grows too large). NSH001 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Merging would open the door to limitless growth of the article with others' stories that are best presented separately and can readily be linked to. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarification the proposal is to add one sentence to the multiple marathons section and treat Rauschenberg's accomplishments like the others. His notability can be summarized in one sentence, if that. The Wikipedia policy is that if someone does something of transitory notability, it should be covered by the substantive article rather than in a separate article about the person. "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." No running accomplishments worth talking about before 2006, and none since. Runreston (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It's abundantly clear that there is no support for your merger proposal. I must admit that I like the "No running accomplishments worth talking about before 2006, and none since", after all, he had one heck of a 2006, and dozens of sources supporting his running accomplishments in that year. I'm impressed that you're willing to summarize his entire existing article and career down to "one sentence, if that", a giant leap for you from the usual push for deletion. It only becomes harder and harder to take the monomaniacal obsession with Dane Rauschenberg seriously. Alansohn (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. in fact I'm wondering why the multiple marathon section is even there? It seems like trivia and should probably be moved to ultrarunning or an equivalent article. David D. (Talk) 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the Rauschenberg article is well-written and sourced. It's appropriate given the amount of media coverage he has received. As for multiple marathons section, it's not the same thing as an ultramarathon. It's probably best here, although I agree it needs to be cleaned up. Still it's in a lot better shape than the "how to" material in this article which needs to be purged. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 12:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Running a marathon

This section on preparing for a marathon and the cardiac section appear not to fit in this article. Should we think about splitting it into another article? Possibly a new article called Physiology of the marathon? David D. (Talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I acutally suggest removing it altogether.  Marlith (Talk)  02:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Miles and kilometres

Hello - seems to me that in the opening paragraph miles should be listed first and kilometers in parentheses as the distance of the modern marathon as it stands was arrived at in this sytem of measurement.Leau (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Leau. What you say about the historical derivation is certainly valid. However, the introduction says "official distance", and that is specified by the IAAF in their Rule 240 as a metric distance. Though I realize it is splitting hairs to distinguish one distance from the other, I believe the introduction to the article should conform to the official definition in the Rules by putting the metric specification first. I am reverting your edit on that basis. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Should we remove the term "exactly" from the imperial measure? It is exactly 42.195 km, but only approximately 26 miles, 385 yards.--WikiTraveller (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Technically, you are exactly right. Despite a fraction of an inch difference (less than one part in three million), it is an approximate figure. I can't believe many people think in terms of thirty-seconds of a mile, anyway, and would like to remove that from the lead too. It's undue weight. Edit performed. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
42,915 km is not supposed to mean 42,195000 km, only defined to the meter. And 26 mi 385 yd is 42,194988 km so it can be assumed to be the same. Furthermore it follows from the measurement rules that the length shall be between 42,195 km and 42,237 km, because it is hard to measure more accurate. --BIL (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

7 Marathons 7 Continents

"Twenty-seven people have run a marathon on each of the seven continents,[32]"

I don't think this source is correct. Ranulph Fiennes famously ran 7 marathons on 7 continents in 7 days and he is not on the list. Does anyone know what the true figure is? --John-James (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Is "[Mm]arathon" a proper noun?

Is the name of the event a proper noun? Should the first letter be upper case? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

marathon

where did the word marathon come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.186.254 (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The word came from the Battle of Marathon in Ancient Greece. This is because of the popular legend of a messanger running a long distance (historically disputed) to announce that the Greeks had won the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningguy (talk • contribs) 20:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be improved?

Just asking everyone what they think this article needs to become better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningguy (talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The real question is: What is the Scope of this Article? KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Replacing Main Photo

Anyone have an objection to changing it to this one from NYC? [4] The current one is a fine image; but the NYC one has more runners in focus, is a more scenic shot, and is of a more prestigious and well-known race too. Thanks. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. It certainly is all you say, and remarkably vivid. I think it would be an improvement. Too bad it can't be shown as large as seen here. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification - all time top ten is top ten performers - NOT top ten times

Just to clarify, in Wikipedia distance running articles, the Top-10 or Top-25 list is always listing the Top-10 (or 25) performers, NOT the Top-10 (or 25) performances/times recorded. If it were the Top-10 times listed, the men's marathon would currently include 3 entries for Haile Gebrselassie and in the women's marathon, the Top-10 would include 3 entries for Paula Radcliffe and 2 for Catherine N'dereba.

Instead, only the best performance for each athlete is listed.

Refer also:

Compare with the all-time athletics best performances:

This convention appears to be followed for non running sports too. Compare Wikipedia Shot put page with all time best performances list.

Given that the current revision of the men's Top-10 list is neither a list of Top-10 performers, nor is it the Top-10 times, I'm changing it to follow the same convention as the women's list and the other distance running pages (Top-10 performers). --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 05:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

New Infobox

I couldn't find a place to request a new infobox, but if anyone here is familiar with creating them, how about one for track and field/running events. Marathon, Half Marathon, Long Jump, etc could all benefit from one. I suppose it really wouldn't have a lot of params.. type, olympic? and if so years it's been in the Olympics, world record holder..

Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Charity?

This article is good, but it neglects to mention the overall charitable aspect of marathons (especially in the UK) which i think is controversial. For example, in the London Marathon, major charities have a set number of reserved places in the race. This means that although the entry ballots get fully booked very quickly (the 2010 is booked 10 months in advance), there are still available places for those who raise money for a member charity.

Those who choose to run a marathon for one of the selected charities (see: [5]) are usually required to pay an entry free and pledge to raise a certain amount (e.g. British Heart Foundation) or pay a set minimum (e.g. £1750 for a place with Lepra). The runner would provide free advertising through a branded vest (though this is probably not mandatory). Other races (e.g. the half-marathon Great North Run) have the same system of charity reservation (see: [6])

I think this is controversial because marathons should not give preference to charities - what an individual chooses to get out of a race should be up to them. Personally, i am not against charities trying to raise money but i do not agree with organisations buying up blocks of spaces for a public event in order to raise funds for their own objectives, not to mention the huge amount of advertising and sponsorship details. Marathons should be about running.

On the other hand, people may disagree. And either way, i'm not sure how much charity comes into play with marathons outside the UK. I think it's an interesting point to raise though.

Atom Bomb Speedster 86.16.44.171 (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that it should be placed in the article about the specific race, or the charity itself. In America the big one is Team in Training, and there's a criticism section with some good sources on the matter. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I concur that this type of information is better suited for articles about the specific event/charity that it concerns rather than being presented as a controversial aspect of marathons in general. Hammersbach (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I concur. In the United States, many marathons are conducted by non-profit groups. Those groups frequently distribute excess funds to local causes. Many people believe that maintaining a healthy body through marathon training is a sufficiently good end in itself to justify the activity. Unfortunately, the charity issue is not about people donating money to a charity -- it is about charities giving inducements to marathon runners for them to solicit their friends and business associates to donate. For example, Run 4 Free. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

List of marathon races

If anyone has some free time on their hands, I could use some help filling in the blanks with the list of marathon races. Thanks! Location (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean just to add in any marathon, regardless if there's an article on it or not? (not sure about notability guidelines here).. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I imagine what's needed is to supply content for the empty boxes in the existing table, but I'll defer to Location to answer your question with more certainty. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Initially I was asking for help to complete the information for the marathons that are already listed. Now I'm having second thoughts regarding its maintainability. With all the information on Ken Young's Association of Road Racing Statistician's website, I'm not even sure that list is needed. I'm open to reverting it back to its previous form. Location (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

Regarding: "The standard distance for the marathon race was determined by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) in 1921 (Rule 240 of their Competition Rules),[11] at a distance of 26 miles 385 yards, or 42.195 kilometres." The current citation provided refers to the IAAF 2008 rule book which does indeed define the marathon distance, but does not back up the assertion they they "determined" it in 1921. Location (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Good work! Thanks again! Location (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New top 10 times in Rotterdam

Patrick Makau (Ken) just ran 2.04.47 in Rotterdam Geoffrey Mutai (Ken) finished second in 2.04.54 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.239.142 (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Shay

At the end of the Cardiac risks section is a tiny paragraph about the death of Ryan Shay. Sad and all as it is, it seems out of place to me. Many people have died in marathons. Yes, this guy died (probably) from cardiac issues, but I'm sure many others have too. The is no reference. It is in danger of looking like US centric material, and there is no indication of just why this guy cracks a mention. I reckon it should go. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done (sad and all as it is). Hertz1888 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Being an elite athlete who died from marathoning, it is worth mentioning per notability. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone who can find a proper citation might want to restore the item, in the right context. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it needs citations or references to demonstrate that he was a notable marathoner, and that his particular death was more significant than others. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Although his death was not more significant than others, he was indeed a notable runner - a USATF champion in multiple events - and probably the most notable individual to die during a marathon. Reporting his death "in the right context" is key as Shay died while running a marathon but not actually from running a marathon. Shay had a pre-existing heart condition and had not even reached the 10K mark, so we need to be careful not to give the impression that it is the distance that puts someone at risk of death. Location (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of women

This section is a great addition to the article. I do have a concern regarding the statement: "For challenging the long held tradition of all-male marathon running in the Boston Marathon, in 1967, Kathrine Switzer is regarded as the first woman to officially run a marathon." First, the source of this statement is from Switzer. Secondly, she contradicts herself elsewhere: "My infamous run at the 1967 Boston Marathon is recorded as unofficial...". Her 1967 run is recognized as certainly recognized as a defining moment in the women's marathon, however, I've seen it written that this was simply because there happened to be a great photo that went along with the story. Anyway, there may need to be some clarification here. Location (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The story is summarized here. We could say that due to a fluke she was the first woman to run Boston as a numbered entry, but unofficially. I'll try some rewording. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How-to section

Moved this section here per WP:NOTGUIDE. This material here can be presented as "facts". However, it cannot be "instructional". That kind of material is left for folks like Hal Higdon and other runners/coaches giving such advice. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Section removed from talk page and restored to article (though parts of it are unlikely to remain there long), per discussion below. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm glad someone finally did this. Most of the above information is not particularly unique to the marathon, so it could eventually be merged with Running (sport). Location (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I object to the wholesale removal of this section and view it as an overreaction. As the tag says, the section can be improved by rewriting the how-to content—which is far from constituting the entire content. I contend that all or most of the deleted material (which doesn't belong on this talk page anyway) should be speedily restored to the article; then we can collectively engage in the relatively hard work of bringing it into compliance with WP:NOTGUIDE. Whatever is non-germane to the marathon can go elsewhere, with hatnotes or other linking directing the reader there. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • FYI: You've been involved with this article for along time, and I won't revert if you decide to replace it. Location (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I'm inclined to do that, especially if I can count on your collaboration and/or constructive criticism. I won't have major time to devote to the article immediately, but will get to it asap. To start things off, could you point to specific portions you feel clearly exceed the allowable policy limits? Would also welcome hearing from KyuuA4 and others. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
        • It's not that I think the material is violating policy, but rather that it belongs in an article about running. A good target article for that material is Running (sport), which I believed had been briefly discussed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics at one time. I'll raise the issue there again. Location (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Instead on focusing on preparation of the marathon, it's best to focus on the marathon itself. Basically, answer the question: "What happens at marathons?" For the sake of reference, it would be a good idea to look at the other sport articles. After all, running is a sport; and marathoning is a specific "event" in that sport. Of course, that is the challenge to this article. With the increase of popularity to marathoning, there's literally a ton of material out there on "how to train for a marathon". Oddly enough, there's nothing on "how to host a marathon" (not that I'm recommending to add that in) as virtually almost every city in the US has one . KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Move. Looking at suggestions of others, Running is a good place to move that material. Granted, that article itself is struggling with the "How to" issue as well under the "injury" section. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The instructional how-to advice is gone, with not a single "should" remaining. Thank you for allowing me the honor of reworking the article. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable marathoners, again

(For an earlier discussion on this same topic, see Talk:Marathon/Archive_1#Notable_marathoners)

Marathon#Other notable marathon runners currently offers no guidelines for inclusion/exclusion other than "elite athletes notable for their performance in marathoning". In the absence of any real standard, the list will continue to grow and grow as people stop by and see that so-and-so is not on the list. Is it time to split this off to List of marathoners, with inclusion defined as "elite athletes notable for their performance in marathoning". It could be set-up in a tabular format with an arbitrarily determined number of sentences (two or three?) to highlight each marathoner's major achievements in marathoning. Thoughts? Location (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You have my support. Also, I think the section in this article needs to be more than just a list of names. Each athlete needs at least one sentence on why they are notable. That requirement would go a long way to keep the list to a sensible number. Actually, that should be true even for an independent list. David D. (Talk) 06:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
If the list is to include just "elite athletes notable for their performance in marathoning", that would exclude not only Dane Rauschenberg and Rosie Ruiz but also Bobbi Gibb and Kathrine Switzer who currently appear on the list. My opinion is that "elite" should be struck so that people notable primarily for what they have done in the marathon are included. If necessary, elite marathoners could be separated from non-elite marathoners but that could be a bit subjective in some cases. For those who might be following this discussion, are there any objections to moving this to List of marathoners? Location (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
No objections, lists in articles are generally problematic, and it's clear in this case that it's bloated. Good work. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've moved Marathon#Other notable marathon runners to List of marathoners. That list is obviously incomplete in that it does not note some of the big names already listed in the main article here. Location (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

List format

If we split this off, I think the list should have some useful information in it; however, I'm not certain to how to go about doing it. Here is one idea:

Name Olympic Games
gold medalist		 World Championships
gold medalist		 World Marathon Majors
winner		 Other
Gezahegne Abera 2000 2001
Abel Antón 1997, 1999
Stefano Baldini 2004 [Bronze in 2001, 2003]
Arturo Barrios [Strike. Not known as a marathon runner.]
Dick Beardsley Duel in the Sun with Alberto Salazar.[?]

The sortable function is probably not necessary. Should we divide the "Olympic Games" and the "World Championships" columns into "Gold", "Silver", and "Bronze"? Should we divide the "World Marathon Majors" column into "1st", "2nd", or "3rd", or should we just note victories in the WMM series? How do we explain the inclusion of marathoners who have won big races, but nothing at the top levels (e.g. Elfenesh Alemu and Carla Beurskens)? Other ideas? I apologize for making this more complicated than it needs to be. Location (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I made a proposition here. The original table y'have here is cleaner. For multiple victories, medals, etc., these can be listed vertically rather than horizontally. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
And I just realized. Can't just note any marathon winner of any marathon, because of the number of marathons year-round. Each marathon has their list of winners anyways. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Economic Impact of Marathons

Here's a topic the article doesn't cover at all. Out of curiosity, I started Googling on this subject matter. Eventually, I'll be dumping a bunch of links here for reference. Other relevant information: general statistics, including number of runners per year (particularly US and world-wide). Though, I do not expect much on world wide numbers. Many of the statistics pertaining to marathons fall within the US-only. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 10:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the statistics, but if they really do have a big emphasis on US data, they would would probably be better in an article on the situation in the USA, rather than this global article. HiLo48 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Yea, very much looking to avoid that. Yet, much of that kind of data, such as participant numbers, can be delegated into the various articles on the individual marathons themselves. But, here's a world view set of numbers: http://www.aims-association.org/statistics/World's_Largest_Marathons.html KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Races seem to be closing sooner, so I am under the impression that we are in the middle of another marathon boom. Has anyone dug-up any references on this? Location (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Misc Stats

http://runningusa.org/node/57770#57771 KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 10:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Best marathon in the world

I've removed the comment regarding the Stockholm Marathon being ranked the best marathon in the world by the Ultimate Guide to International Marathons. First of all, I have another reference stating that the authors of that book have consistently voted the Big Sur Marathon as the best marathon in the world.[1] Secondly, "best" is open to interpretation and every expert will have their own opinion. Thirdly, without any explanation of why a particular race is "the best", it's information that doesn't really help the reader. Location (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Benyo, Richard; Henderson, Joe (2002). "B: BAA to Bush, George W.". Running Encyclopedia: The Ultimate Source for Today's Runner. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics. p. 34. ISBN 0736037349, 9780736037341. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |month=, |trans_chapter=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Multiple Marathons section pruning / adding section on competitive marathoners

IMO, these multiple marathon runners are little more than publicity stunts. The fact that the general public is more familiar with Dean whoever than the fact that Shalane Flanagan finishing 2nd @ NY is sad. The fact that this article has a long section on "multiple marathoners" and no prose section of famous marathoners is sad. I probably won't do more than whine, but it would be nice if a new section about notable, competitive marathoners could be added, and the multiple one trimmed. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I've heard serious marathoners say: "If you can't go fast, go long." The MM-thing is the new version: "If you can't go fast, do a lot of short ones." The notable marathoners already have articles that highlight their achievements, however, working some of them into the historical context of the event would be nice. The MM section appears to use quite a few primary sources, too. That should be rectified. Location (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple marathons

I hate to see the dumb Paquin/Cummings debate spilling over into Wikipedia, and I think mention of both should be stricken from the article since age group records (and club records at that!) are fairly insignificant. To recap for those not familiar, there are two clubs with very similar criteria:

One club requires a member to run a marathon that touches soil in DC, but this is a bone of contention for some in that the rules are different for the clubs (e.g. the first states that Marine Corp Marathon is a Virigina marathon because it starts and finishes in VA, whereas the other states it can count either way because it passes through DC). Some of the finer points: Paquin did 50 states at a slightly younger age than Cummings did her 50 states or her 50 states plus DC. Cummings apparently used the Marine Corp Marathon as her DC marathon, which would be a VA marathon by the other group's standard. Cummings also "ran" the Missoula Marathon on crutches with a broken hip - her reported time of 10 hours 39 minutes was four hours past the cutoff necessary for an official result. Sheesh! Do we really need to incorporate all of this into the article to ensure that all POVs are represented? -Location (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully, I'm oblivious to this "debate". Somehow, distinguishing between the two is moot; and a debate on the differences in "achievement" is silly. After all, neither group includes U.S. territories like Guam, for example. Just imagine a 3rd 50 states club, which does include US territories. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Marathon world record progression

For the Wikipedia regulars, this article and Marathon world record progression will need to be watched due to Mutai's mark at Boston which was set on a non-record eligible course. Location (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Louis Marks??

The article contains a picture and caption of Louis Marks. Who??!! There is no other reference to him in the article and there is nothing about him in Wikipedia as a whole. Can we take this image off as it adds little to the article as a whole. --hydeblake (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI there is a bit of information about him and the race here Chicago_Marathon#History --CutOffTies (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
And yet there's nothing about him on this page, except this one photo that says something that doesn't make sense, unless you look at an unlinked page and no page about him at all. Surely there should either be a reference to him on the page and a page about him, or a different photo! --hydeblake (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I would be OK with removing this image from the page since it appears elsewhere and there is nothing terribly remarkable about Marks to indicate that it should also be here. Location (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Haile Gebrselassie/Geoffrey Mutai

What is the deal with the comment under the Haile Gebrselassie image: Geoffrey Mutai's mark is NOT a world record as it was set on a point-to-point course with drop.? If this is true then the Mutai record should be struck. 195.241.156.43 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mutai's mark is the fastest marathon ever run, but it will not considered a "world record" by the IAAF. Today's race is a perfect example of why the IAAF rules regarding records are in place. There is huge net drop at Boston, plus the point-to-point nature of the course allows them to take advantage of the tailwind. Location (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree! I have tried to delete the entry of the Boston time on a number of times today - but someone keeps posting it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.153.228 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please make sure the information matches the references. The IAAF does include Boston marks in their top list (which is different that their world records lists), so Mutai's mark will probably be there within the next 24 to 48 hours. Location (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course the next question is if the wiki entry should be the fastest ten times or the fastest ten people. Haile Gebrselassie has the two top times as of now and one other in the top ten. So should the list be the actual ten fastest times (as per IAAF standards list)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.153.228 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The list is the fastest ten people. Given that the IAAF has already updated yesterday's results from London, they will likely update it with the Boston results in the next 24-48 hours. Location (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Then I would suggest no one edit the list until we see the listings at the IAAF site get updated. I would also suggest that something be used to indicate the current WR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.153.228 (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Good luck with those suggestions! Location (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
lol, thanks 72.161.153.228 (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Marathons...A little self serving

The Multiple Marathons section appears to be quite self-serving. How many of these "records" are notable? Additionally, there are some "claims" in there that cannot be verified. The section should be cut significatly to only those notable incidents and actually dicuss more in detail the concept of multiple marathons. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Hammersbach (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless someone really objects I am going to start weeding out some of these “multiples”. The “multiples” I am starting with are those that deal with claims of running the distance vs. actually running in sanctioned races on certified courses. I agree with Arzel that there is an issue of verifiability. Hammersbach (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Health risks

I'm interested in learning more about the health risks associated with running other than minor sprains. Does anyone know or is familiar with cancer and degenerative illness rates of runners versus non runners? Are there any diseases that runners are more suseptable to?Shimmeryshad27 (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimmeryshad27 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Mixed fields

Just read about the IAF disregarding times set in mixed fields. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/sep/20/marathon-iaaf-womens-world-records

Should we include this somewhere in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.23.85.168 (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It could be very useful. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Once the IAAF puts something in writing that we can all access, the best place would likely be Marathon world record progression#Criteria for record eligibility. Women's mixed field performances, just like performances at Boston, are still legitimate. They are just not eligible for world record consideration. Location (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Calories and kilocalories

The way in which the food industry misuses calories and kilocalories is legendary - they have used the word "calorie" when they really mean a kilocalorie (In physics and chemistry 1 calorie = the energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by 1°C). When doing calculations, it is best to ignore calories and work enmtirely with joules, then back-calculate if neccessary. I visited [ http://firstyear.chem.usyd.edu.au/calculators/food_energy.shtml this site] and worked out my daily energy requirements. The answer came out as 7678 kJ (or 7.8 MJ) which is not far off the 8 MJ mentioned in the article. Back-calculating using the factor {{{1}}}, one gets back to about 1800 kcal. For the record, EU food labeling regulations requires that one uses the physics and chemistry definition of the calories, not the food industry definition, so what the food industry used to call "a calorie" must be labelled as a "kcal".

I don't know what the US food industry uses, but the use of joules (or rather MJ in this case) is in line with WP:MOSNUM. Martinvl (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge - The Oprah line

I propose that the information at The Oprah line be merged into a section here. The bulk of the article is devoted to discussion of the increase and effect of slow marathon runners. Such an issue would be better treated (and more broadly discussed) here rather than via a relatively obscure and American-centric term. SFB 20:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Let's not sully this article by including what you refer to a "relatively obscure" term. Hammersbach (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Radcliffe and Makau pictures

Holder of the women's marathon world record, Paula Radcliffe
Patrick Makau is recognized by the International Association of Athletics Federations as the current holder of the men's world record

Temporary remove. Will return images into the article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing advice, how-to, external-website linking

I think the paragraph & external links starting with "Training programs can be found at the websites" has no place at Wikipedia. AFAIK, Wikipedia's purely of an Encyclopedic nature; not a help/advice/how-to site. At the very least, I think it should be reformatted into "Further Reading" I'm sure of this, but not so 'forward' to remove it myself. Torydude (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct, WP is not a how-to site. However, we're not giving advice, only noting that it is available, and where. What you see is the vestige of a formerly lengthy section replete with "you should do such-and-such" advice, which was edited out some time ago. As I recall, there was considerable discussion, and what remains is per editorial consensus at that time. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The aforementioned discussion is still on this talk page. I still would like to see the information moved to Running (sport) since most of it is not unique to the marathon, but I will abide by consensus. Location (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

IAAF top 10 lists

There are some issues regarding the recent additions that have been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics#Records and top ten lists. Location (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

True distance of the 1908 Marathon

Can it be claimed that the 1908 Olympic Marathon was really 42.195 km if in fact according to the book by John Bryant “The Marathon Makers,”, the course was mis-measured and the first mile when remeasured came up 159 m short? Thus the real course length was only 42.036 km and the present course length is not the same as that of the 1908 Olympic Marathon no matter how much it may be intended.

The actual course length for 1908 should be changed to reflect what it really is and not what it was intended to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.199.216 (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

John Disley makes a compelling case that this is true, however, from what I read he used maps and photographs to "remeasure" the first mile... not the entire course. I think a blurb or footnote on this is welcome, but I don't think it's enough to unequivocally state that the distance was, in fact, 42.036 km. They didn't have Jones Counters, so maybe the rest of the course was long for all we know. Location (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The actual course path is known to this day, so it would not be impossible for the entire course to be remeasured. And as possible as it might be for the course to be long to compensate for the first mile (1600 m) it is also possible it could also be short. Courses today are measured long by 1 m/km in order to compensate for the possibility of being too short, but never too long. Since this was not done in 1908, it is more likely the rest of the course is not longer, but shorter.68.105.199.216 (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, but it is not a compelling argument that "the real course length was only 42.036 km". We need to accept two premises to state unequivocally that the course is/was 42.036 km: 1) the distance from the start to Barnespool Bridge was initially measured inaccurately but has now been measured accurately AND 2) the distance from Barnespool Bridge to the finish (i.e. the "rest of the course" in the aforementioned post) was measured accurately. On one hand, you are saying: "They screwed up the first mile, but got the remaining 26 right." On the other, you are acknowledging the point I was trying to make in that the "rest of the course" could be off, too. Until there is more published about this in the future, I think the blurb you've added to the article is a fine way to draw attention to a possible discrepancy. (BTW: I'm aware of the SCPF in that I created the Wikipedia stub on it and included it in this article about two years ago.) Location (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Following on from Hertz1888's reversion of a recent inclusion in the external links because it was a blog, I reviewed all the links and found that they are mostly blogs and one a link to a private YouTube video. I am therefore removing the external links section altogether. However, if there is a good reason to include an external link, perhaps we should discuss it here first. The article is already well-referenced with authoritative sources. FunkyCanute (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the potential for spam abuse, I agree that it's probably a wise idea to discuss ELs here. I cannot see the need to post everyone's collection of race calendars here. I also wanted to point out that the link from the Association of Road Racing Statisticians - http://www.arrs.net/MaraList.htm from - is not a blog, however, I'm not sure that we need to point to a comprehensive list of marathons ever run. Location (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Top 10?

The article says " The marathons of Berlin, Boston, Chicago, London, New York City and Tokyo form the biennial World Marathon Majors series, awarding $500,000 annually to the best overall male and female performers in the series. In 2006, the editors of Runner's World selected a "World's Top 10 Marathons",[38] in which the Amsterdam, Honolulu, Paris, Rotterdam, and Stockholm marathons were featured along with the five mentioned above." However the 5 above are six and the total thus 11. Something isn't quite right. -- SGBailey (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Tokyo was recently added to the WMM series. I've reworded for clarity. SFB 17:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Image for the 1896 marathon

1896 Olympic marathon

If anyone can find a better/older source for the image on the right, it would be very helpful in identifying the runners and providing a more accurate caption. LIFE magazine calls this image "Marathon Runners in Training in 1896". "Training" is the key word. Location (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

From my own little investigations, it appears that none of the three are either Spiridon Louis, Kharilaos Vasilakosany or any of the foreign runners. Therefore, it cannot be an image from the race itself. as there was at no point three leading Greek runners, who are clearly some 15/20 seconds ahead of the pack behind. I would suggest that this entirely matches up with LIFE's caption of it being a training run. SFB 20:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI: I would need to get the translator out to figure out these captions at our counterpart Wikis: Kharilaos Vasilakos, Ioannis Lavrentis. Location (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The Danish one says: "The marathon run at the 1896 Olympic Games with Vasilakos in the centre". The German one says "The 1896 Olympic marathon (identity of the three runners is unknown)." Not a great deal of help... SFB 16:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find other images on Vasilakos to verify that assertion. Unfortunately, this image (along with what I believe to be misinformation) is being grabbed by the other Wikis, then being spread all over the place. Location (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Per the Getty Images website: "1896: Three athletes in training for the marathon at the Olympic Games in Athens" by Burton Holmes. Location (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I have updated the caption to reflect the above. We have a reliable source indicating that this is a photograph of athletes in training for the 1896 marathon, but no reliable sources stating that it is from the 1896 marathon itself. Location (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Location: I am looking into the image and also Charilaos Vasilakos. The link you give above for LIFE magazine is no longer good. If the page has moved, I cannot find it. Do you have a working link for that? Thanks. Bammesk (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bammesk: I'm sorry, but I have no idea of where LIFE may have moved the photo or whether it is accessible online. I believe the Getty Images link, which notes the photograph's "author", is the most authoritative description that I found. Because of that, I do not think the current caption in Charilaos Vasilakos accurate. Cheers! - Location (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Location: I understand and didn't / don't mean to question your action. It is best to be cautious and remove false info from wikipedia. Looking into it I found that Vasilakos has an exhibit at this museum: [7] and looking at the slide show at the bottom of the page, one of the images on the wall positively identifies him as the middle runner in our image. I don't have all the answers. I am looking into it and I am trying to be cautious too. Bammesk (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
About Getty image description, they are an authority on images, but they are not much of an authority on the subject of history or sports as an stand alone subject. When it comes to novice translations or automated/google translations, words like "training", "qualifying", "preliminary" are sometimes used interchangeably by mistake. I am not saying Getty information is wrong, but it is not a lot. Bammesk (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bammesk: Good find with the museum exhibit. I imagine that it is likely an authoritative source for identifying the middle runner as Vasilakos. My own opinion is that whatever description Burton Holmes gave to the photograph has accompanied it to whoever is now the rightful owner of the photo. - Location (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Olympic marathon and closing ceremony

"Since the modern games were founded, it has become a tradition for the men's Olympic marathon to be the last event of the athletics calendar, with a finish inside the Olympic stadium, often within hours of, or even incorporated into, the closing ceremonies." We really should have an example of this incorporation. I don't recall that happening (usually the marathon is in the morning and the closing ceremony in the evening). 85.226.204.113 (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I have tagged the sentence with {{citation needed}}. - Location (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple "marathons"

An IP editor has restored a portion of the "Multiple marathons" section with the comment that The original reason for the removal was "Impresssive but not really what this article/section is about." After re-reading the article/section, it seems to be very much about it, so reinstating. I am unable to find the original insertion or its removal. The portion pertains to a pair of runners who, it says, "completed a full marathon of 26.2 miles every day for 32 consecutive days" in Ireland. No claim is made in the sources that these were certified, competitive races, and it is extremely dubious such would be available within any one country on 32 consecutive days. Likely, then, they ran (not raced) the marathon distance. It is not a record-breaking instance of multiple marathon-distance running; we have better examples of that. Moreover, the sources cited are non-reliable: two are book promotions (one a self-promotion) and the third is a blog. I have removed the portion. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the removal. I'm both the original writer of the entry you mention and the editor who reinstated it. Nowhere in this section I see a reference to certified and competitive races. Quite the contrary, besides other entries stating a very high number of consecutive races that I hardly can imagine were certified and competitive events, I also see running the distance for charity in several of the entries, some entries mentioning the use of hand bikes instead of running the distance (which I can only imagine wouldn't be a certified race, either) and I see entries where you can pretty clearly see it was a special organized event and not a certified race from the presented references themselves (e.g., current ref. 92, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/alberta-man-55-runs-250-marathons-for-charity/article1854307/.) If the issue are the references presented, I'm pretty sure others can be selected form a simple Google search, e.g., http://www.autismireland.ie/news-events/399/458/. That's why I said the entry seemed adequate for the section (that, or other entries should be cleaned up and the terms clarified, IMHO.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.22.144.127 (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
For me, the most important point in Hertz1888's explanation is that running 26.2 miles every day for 32 consecutive days (i.e. your proposed addition of information) pales in comparison to 26.2 miles every day for 365 consecutive days (i.e. the article's current information). Both are amazing feats, but only one is really worthy of inclusion in the article. Location (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The article currently cites a BBC article stating that Amy Hughes' 53 consecutive marathons bested the men's and women's records for consecutive marathons.[8] Good for her, but the BBC apparently didn't read their own report that Stefaan Engels ran 365 consecutive marathons[9] or the claim that Ricardo Abad had 607 straight. Do we strike the claim of a reliable source as it conflicts with other reliable sources? - Location (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC in Talk:Amy Hughes#RfC: Record for multiple marathons. - Location (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Record for multiple marathons

Amy Hughes was recently created, and Marathon#Multiple marathons was recently updated, to reflect reports that Amy Hughes set a "world record" for most marathons run on consecutive days (53). I believe that this feat received so much coverage because Guinness World Records notes the record to be 52 for men and 17 for women. As I mentioned above, this is problematic in that reliable sources reported in 2011 that Stefaan Engels ran 365 consecutive marathons in 2011 (e.g. ESPN, CNN, NPR); other non-English sources have reported that Richard Bottram ran 365 back in 2006-2007 and Ricardo Abad as running 150 consecutive in 2009 and 500 consecutive in from 2010 to 2012. And some sources even have reports that contradict their earlier reports (e.g. see BBC report on Hughes vs. BBC report on Engels; see Independent report on Hughes vs. Independent report on Engels). Given the contradiction in reliable sources, I am wondering how this should be handled in Amy Hughes and elsewhere. - Location (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC) edited 05:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the RfC should be at Talk:Marathon not here, as that page has more views, and has the main issue. I believe that she shouldn't be credited as world-record holder, as no reliable sources say she is- the Guinness Record is 52 and 17, but no source says Guinness ratified this attempt. I didn't intend to write that they were the record holder for this very reason, and have therefore removed it- IMO, it shouldn't be readded. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Location: Moved to here per Joseph's request to centralise. I think a reasonable way around this would be to directly quote Guinness to say what they have as the world record and follow that with (our best interpretations of) statements of more numerous achievements, saying who the source is. Where sources are messy, it's best to out them as the source of confusion and allow the reader to compare and contrast within that context. SFB 00:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sillyfolkboy: We can do this here, but I believe the better place is at Amy Hughes in that her notability is dependent on the claim reiterated in reliable sources that she set a Guinness World Record. If we do as Joseph2302 states and ignore that claim, then there is no reason to have her mentioned in this article at all. I am a bit uncomfortable inserting: "Despite the report of Hughes' streak, Stefaan Engels was recognized for running 365 consecutive marathons in 2011." It sounds a bit like OR. - Location (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Location: If your concern extends into notability of Amy Hughes, then it would probably be better to arrange that discussion at "Articles for Deletion" instead. I moved the conversation on grounds that the question relates to coverage in this article, but I'm not opposed to a move back if you feel this is not an appropriate venue. SFB 14:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no doubt that that the article on Amy Hughes would survive an Afd. - Location (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - can you please state the RfC in a more straightforward way, showing what information should be included/should not be included? Unfamiliar editors like myself who respond to RfCs may be confused as to what exactly you are asking. We should be able to respond with a simple yes/no, not ponder "how this should be handled here and elsewhere." Thanks. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: If I were able to structure this as an !vote I would. Perhaps there is some confusion because the Rfc was moved from the article on which it was originally placed (i.e. Amy Hughes). I have updated the Rfc on this page to make this clearer. As I attempted to point out above, Ricardo Abad, Richard Bottram, Stefaan Engels, and Amy Hughes all have reliable sources that back-up the respective claims that each has run the most consecutive marathons or have broken the record of Akinori Kusuda's Guinness World Record. I am looking for ideas on how to address reliable sources that contradict other reliable sources without resorting to original research. - Location (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, now it makes more sense. Thanks for tweaking the intro. So basically reliable sources are offering conflicting info? Unfortunately some RS can be wrong, so in some cases you may need to do your own fact checking. I don't think that's OR. Or you could always just say, "some sources say X, other sources say Y" and leave it at that. This is a common situation in historical articles (eg "Some sources say the Prince was born in late 1644, others say early 1645" etc). —МандичкаYO 😜 05:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to a report in the London Evening Standard one month later, [Rob Young] was up to 183 consecutive at the "marathon distance" and was "well ahead of schedule to break the unofficial record of 366 consecutive marathons in 365 days." "Guinness has refused to sanction Mr Young’s attempt as official, even though he is accompanied by at least two other runners on every marathon to validate the distance."[10] This brings up a few additional issues. Was Hughes running marathons (i.e. organized races) or was she running the marathon distance with a chosen group of others? I suspect the later. The lede of Marathon may need to be updated to indicate that many people refer to the distance, not necessarily the race, as a marathon. Also, what is "official" depends on the context. Those of us familiar with "the sport of athletics" understand that official world records in the sport are ratified by the IAAF, and "consecutive marathons" is not a record they recognize. Other people tend to be much more familiar with pop culture's Guinness World Records and call them "official". It makes sense to me that claims to world records should be clear as to whether a record is official or unofficial and who is stating that the record is official or unofficial. Given all the claims and reporting on those claims, I am starting to wondering if there is enough material to create World record for most consecutive marathons similar to Marathon world record progression and related articles. - Location (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Following on from previous discussion on this same topic

At no point does Amy Hughes record stand as her page recently states / Marathon#Multiple marathons was recently updated, to reflect reports that Amy Hughes set a "world record" for most marathons run on consecutive days (53). In the last 5 years 6 people including Stefaan Engels plus a husband and wife have also ran 365 consecutive marathons as well. To appoint this as such they have to all be counted as Official marathons in official races and doing them on your own does not count. [Rob Young - marathon man uk] did end up doing 239 marathons in a row before injury but states 'that these are mixed between official and unofficial marathons', however from January to June 2015 [Rob Young - marathon man uk] did win a 117 back to back Official Marathon race series across USA (Trans-Con) and was "well ahead of schedule to break the unofficial record of 366 consecutive marathons in 365 days". To that the final total that Mr Young did do was 370 Marathons in 365 days with over 240 of those being official.

Amy Hughes was running marathons and did complete 53 in 53 days however all of them classify as unofficial marathons (i.e. not organized races)

To classify what is "official" depends on the context, however it should state in accordance to the 100 marathon club rules that an Official marathon should have at least 25 finishes and be certified as an Official marathon race. As for one of the previous comments there is enough material to create World record for most consecutive marathons and that of Mr Young's 117 back to back official marathons would be in my opinion the holder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.221.59 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Very confused, so a reliable source can be a newspaper writing a fluff piece, without any actual evidence, just incredulously reporting whatever someone says. Well that completely undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. Amy Hughes has consistently blocked anyone from social media who asked for evidence, she has not presented any credible evidence she ran 53 marathons in 53 days, hence no Guinness record, but as long as some lazy reporter can regurgitate her press release it counts as being third party corroboration.

History of women's long-distance running

I suggest that User:Walkjogrun/History of Women Running be merged (carefully, with work) into Marathon#Inclusion_of_women. I see no better place to add coverage of women long-distance running. The coverage of the subtopic appears dominated by marathon running. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I think anything related to the marathon is already in the article. - Location (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

timing of runners

How are marathon runners timed since they can't all cross the start line at once? Is the first one over the finish line always the fastest time / winner? I read that the Olympics use RFID tags. Is that common?Robinrobin (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

RFID tag timing, popularly known as "chip timing" is very common in running races, at various distances, even 5K races. Finish times are generally recorded from chip timing. However, awards are usually given according to order of crossing the finish line, or "gun time." SlowJog (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Marathon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Marathon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marathon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Origin

I added to the Origin of the Marathon using an article and linked it also to a wiki page based on the Battle of Marathon. Bvjones1 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)bvjones1[1]

References

  1. ^ Creasy. (1848). Battle of marathon. Bentley's Miscellany, 23, 54. Retrieved from http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/1310853606?accountid=4485

Quote

There's a quote from Emil Zátopek that I think would suit this article quite nicely:

If you want to win something, run the 100 meters. If you want to experience something, run the marathon.

— Emil Zátopek[1]

I'll leave it to regular editors to decide if and/or where it's appropriate. Nzd (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wallechinsky, David; Loucky, Jaime. The Complete Book of the Olympics 2012 Edition. Aurum. p. 138.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marathon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

US participation numbers

Year Estimated U.S. Marathon

Finisher Total

1976 25,000
1980 143,000
1990 224,000
1995 293,000
2000 353,000
2004 386,000
2005 395,000
2006 410,000
2007 412,000
2008 425,000
2009 467,000
2010 507,000
2011 518,000
2012 487,000
2013 541,000
2014 550,600 (Record High)
2015 509,000
2016 507,600

Removal

I had to remove this because it was US centric. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Wheelchair marathon

Everything here is about running - from the lede, the world records, even the disambiguation page has no obvious link. There is one section under ‘Races’ which implies the wheelchair race is subordinate to the foot race. I suggest a rewrite from the top to include wheelchair races with the same prominence. Anybody disagree? Btljs (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. We should cover the subject as it is covered in Reliable Sources, and if more coverage is devoted to running than wheelchairing, our article should reflect that. The ratio of running participants to wheelchair participants is likely greater than 100:1, so it would not be surprising if news coverage follows that.---Avatar317(talk) 22:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marathon/Archive_1&oldid=1248649697"