I don't know much about Marathon's so before I speak let me do some
research. I went to Wikipedia and found an article on both the London
Marathon and Marathons in general.
I'm basing most of my info on my missus who is very involved with marathons.
And she has no interest whatsoever in the measurement debate.
Yet the London Olympic Marathon was run in 1908 and according other posters
here and Wikipedia was set at 42.195 km. No mention of 26 miles (41.843
km) is made as the intended original distance before it was lengthened to
pass the Queen's box. So we can't assume 26 miles was the originally
intended distance.
Considering how 'unmetric' the UK is in 2005 exactly how metric do you think
the UK was in 1908?
The idea that in Victorian Britain, at the height of the British Empire, the
UK was more more metric than it is today in respect of marathons (and in
fact that the UK was metric at all) is - to be honest - laughable. I don't
mean that offensively, but think about it for a moment.
I'm sure the biggest problems of the runners are dehydration, sore body
parts from the intense pounding on the pavement and jabs from runners
closeby pushing their way past.
Actually it has something to do with the digestive system shutting down and
why its best to be running in front of someone rather than behind them.
Hopefully you can fraw from that what I am talking about.
It ain't pretty!
I wonder how many litres (kilograms) of water one loses during a race.
Does anyone know?
Personally I don't - but I know that my wife is trying to get to 9 stone
before her next marathon.
- [USMA:33189] RE: Bright secrets Stephen Humphreys
-
