More Challenging: Winning this years WSOP M.E. or the Boston Marathon

[Bigdaddydvo]

I ran six Bostons from '96 to '02 with a personal best of 2:55 in 2000. I'll be playing in my first WSOP Main event this year. I think winning the World Series would be much easier than winning Boston, and it's not close. I'll let others explain.

[clutch]

I don't think an explanation is necessary. It's pretty obvious that a physical deficit cannot be overcome by luck in a marathon.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty obvious that a physical deficit cannot be overcome by luck in a marathon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but you don't have to worry about a guy getting past security against great odds and breaking your legs in the final mile either.

[Rosie5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty obvious that a physical deficit cannot be overcome by luck in a marathon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but you don't have to worry about a guy getting past security against great odds and breaking your legs in the final mile either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or crapping your pants in the final stretch of the WSOP

(Although Harrington...)

[grass]

white people should forget about winning marathons and stick to basketball like steve nash.

[OilMan]

The Boston Marathon is rigged.

[DarthIgnurnt]

http://www.geocities.com/chucknorris47/marathon.jpg

What a silly silly question you ask, but let's test it with an equally silly example.

One year of training with the world's top poker pro for the guy on the left. One year of training with the best long distance running trainer for Raymer.

Odds that the marathoner wins WSOP 2006 = 6,000:1 or better (or roughly the odds that Raymer makes it out of Framingham with both lungs)

Odds that Raymer wins the 2006 Boston Marathon = 0

[billyb]

that was great.

raymer might not make it out of hopkington.

peace
billyb in woosta.
3 more days till vegas baby

[Bigdaddydvo]

Awesome reply. Here's my take on the two:

Winning a WSOP Seat: worth $10K, up to possibly millions of $$$, fame, and worldwide recognition.

Running through Wellesley College at Mile 13 of Boston the Marathon, with a half mile stretch of girls 10 deep screaming their lungs out for you: Priceless.

The free beer that the awesome fans from B.C. hand out around Mile 21 puts Boston over the top IMO.

[NYCNative]

[ QUOTE ]
The free beer that the awesome fans from B.C. hand out around Mile 21 puts Boston over the top IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]Just a hunch, but the fact that free beer is a motivating force tells me that you are better suited for poker than marathons. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The free beer that the awesome fans from B.C. hand out around Mile 21 puts Boston over the top IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]Just a hunch, but the fact that free beer is a motivating force tells me that you are better suited for poker than marathons. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that his personal best 2:55 suggests you are wrong. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that his personal best 2:55 suggests you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

My best all time was 2:48:56 at the '98 NYC Marathon. That averages 6:26/mile over 26.2 miles. The sad thing is that I can't run 2 miles at that pace now. Must be too much poker. Anywho, to get my time down like that, it required 60-70 mile training weeks, a lot of speed work, and some good prep races. I don't remember how I mustered the focus to do it at the time. I haven't run one now since '02, but a buddy of mine wants me to train to run the fall Louisville Marathon. If I get back to work at it really hard, I'd love to see a 3:10 qualifying time for Boston.

We'd always run the Army Ten Miler in D.C. as the prime tuneup for our fall marathon...I ran below 60 minutes one time there and ran a 60:10 one year when it was pretty windy.

About the beer...I only partook when I ran Boston for fun and not time in '01 and '02 when I couldn't get a decent trainup going. I ran a pair of 3:45's those years.

[Komodo]

Well done, running fellow. 2:55 is a decent time

[vulturesrow]

Hey my hat is off to anyone that even enters a marathon and finishes it. My budddies tried to get me to run the Marine Corps Marathon in D.C. my senior year and I said no. They tried hard to convince me but I just have 0 interest in running that long. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Pete H]

[ QUOTE ]
Well done, running fellow. 2:55 is amazing time

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[XChamp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well done, running fellow. 2:55 is amazing time

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not amazing, it's just good or decent. The human body is capable of incredible feats of running endurance that rivals basically all land mammals except a few canines and and a few ungulates.

There are many high school boys who could break 3 hours in a marathon without much effort. Heck when I was 16 I could run 13 miles in training at about 6:20/mile and not be too tired at the end and I was not national class by any means for my age group. I wasn't even close to the fastest kid in my high school (2 were much better than me, one being a year younger).

The reason why the time seems amazing to most people is the amount of hard work, dedication, and pain that goes into training for and completing a marathon in under 3 hours. Running 70 miles a week takes a great deal of time and effort and it is something that most people cannot do psychologically. The average human man (in the US at least) is not psychologically capable of it although if he put his mind to it he would discover that his body is capable of surprising things. The OP's time is merely decent physically (especially in light of his training), but it tells of mental attributes that are far above average compared to his peers, and for that he should be commended.

[XChamp]

Oh, and BTW, winning the Boston Marathon is much more difficult than winning the ME in the WSOP. I'm glad everyone is in agreement here.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and BTW, winning the Boston Marathon is much more difficult than winning the ME in the WSOP. I'm glad everyone is in agreement here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I agree with that.... Bill Rodgers won four Boston Marathons, including three in a row. I doubt you will ever see anyone win three WSOP MEs ever again, let alone consecutively (and if one brings up the argument that this was back in the '70s, Cosmas N'Deti won three in a row in 93-95).

*edit: and if you include women (which I don't see why not), Catharine Ndereba has won four in the past six years, Fatuma Roba three in a row, Uta Pippig three in a row - these stats are simply not going to happen in the WSOP ME.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and BTW, winning the Boston Marathon is much more difficult than winning the ME in the WSOP. I'm glad everyone is in agreement here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I agree with that.... Bill Rodgers won four Boston Marathons, including three in a row. I doubt you will ever see anyone win three WSOP MEs ever again, let alone consecutively (and if one brings up the argument that this was back in the '70s, Cosmas N'Deti won three in a row in 93-95).

*edit: and if you include women (which I don't see why not), Catharine Ndereba has won four in the past six years, Fatuma Roba three in a row, Uta Pippig three in a row - these stats are simply not going to happen in the WSOP ME.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've put together a pretty solid argument why winning the Boston Marathon is harder, not easier, than the marathon.

[Matt R.]

I think the simple answer is that it's easier to win the Boston Marathon if you are the best runner in the field, as compared with winning the WSOP ME if you are the best player in the field. Your physical ability trumps any size field in the marathon, so the best runner will likely win -- definitely much less true in a poker tournament of several thousand. If you're only a mediocre runner, it's much harder to win the Boston Marathon than it is for a mediocre poker player to win the ME (basically because it's impossible for a mediocre runner to win).

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I ran six Bostons from '96 to '02 with a personal best of 2:55 in 2000. I'll be playing in my first WSOP Main event this year. I think winning the World Series would be much easier than winning Boston, and it's not close. I'll let others explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

For you, yes.

Unless you were born in Kenya and have just been slacking.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

You've put together a pretty solid argument why winning the Boston Marathon is harder, not easier, than the marathon.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got me there - I guess I just never noticed all those repeat winners of incredibly odds-against propositions like the lottery before.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
I ran six Bostons from '96 to '02 with a personal best of 2:55 in 2000. I'll be playing in my first WSOP Main event this year. I think winning the World Series would be much easier than winning Boston, and it's not close. I'll let others explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely, running a marathon is something that only a select few can do. playing poker (even playing well enough to win a tournament) is something that many people can do.

[Pete H]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well done, running fellow. 2:55 is amazing time

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not amazing, it's just good or decent. The human body is capable of incredible feats of running endurance that rivals basically all land mammals except a few canines and and a few ungulates.


[/ QUOTE ]

Running marathon under 3 hours takes a little bit more than endurance. It's the speed that kills and most people won't be able to run fast enough for 2 kilometers. And it's 40 km left after the first two.

[ QUOTE ]

There are many high school boys who could break 3 hours in a marathon without much effort.


[/ QUOTE ]

There might be some, but only those who have several years of long distance running under their belt.

[ QUOTE ]

Heck when I was 16 I could run 13 miles in training at about 6:20/mile and not be too tired at the end and I was not national class by any means for my age group. I wasn't even close to the fastest kid in my high school (2 were much better than me, one being a year younger).

[/ QUOTE ]

Now remember how much you trained to be able to do that.

[ QUOTE ]

The reason why the time seems amazing to most people is the amount of hard work, dedication, and pain that goes into training for and completing a marathon in under 3 hours. Running 70 miles a week takes a great deal of time and effort and it is something that most people cannot do psychologically. The average human man (in the US at least) is not psychologically capable of it although if he put his mind to it he would discover that his body is capable of surprising things. The OP's time is merely decent physically (especially in light of his training), but it tells of mental attributes that are far above average compared to his peers, and for that he should be commended.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's IMO a pretty good reason to call it amazing.

Most people could train themselves to run marathon under 4 hours in about six months, but making it under 3 hours will take several years (for most of us).
And the closer you get the 2 hour mark, the harder it will be to cut 5 minutes from your time.