17 replies to this topic

[wyly]

wowzer ...100 years old and finishes the marathon!!!! it took him 8hrs but ***king hell I wouldn't be able to walk it with my buggered knee ...

[msj]

wowzer ...100 years old and finishes the marathon!!!! it took him 8hrs but ***king hell I wouldn't be able to walk it with my buggered knee ...

Well, last week a woman waddled the Chicago marathon at 39 weeks pregnant and then delivered her baby a few hours later.

Also, a 27 year old died while running the Toronto marathon. He was about 300 meters short of the finish line.

[wyly]

Well, last week a woman waddled the Chicago marathon at 39 weeks pregnant and then delivered her baby a few hours later.

Also, a 27 year old died while running the Toronto marathon. He was about 300 meters short of the finish line.

the death of the 27 yr old was unfortunate you don't expect anyone so young and fit dying, I'm sure everyone feared for the 100yr old at the beginning of the race...

[msj]

the death of the 27 yr old was unfortunate you don't expect anyone so young and fit dying, I'm sure everyone feared for the 100yr old at the beginning of the race...

Well, every year there is at least one story of someone who appears fit and is young(ish) who ends up dying.

As for the 100 year old - I didn't fear for him at all.

Given that he's made it to 100 and that he had been training for the race there isn't anything to fear.

[msj]

More interestingly, or, apparently not given the lack of media coverage, Canada's own Ed Whitlock, 80 years old, ran the Toronto marathon and did it in 3:15:54.

A new world record!

And he's Canadian.

He was 296/4,000 runners.

Not only did he beat everyone in his age group but everyone within 20 years of his age (he beat everyone from age 60 and up).

I guess not as exciting as a 100 year old "running" a marathon.

[wyly]

More interestingly, or, apparently not given the lack of media coverage, Canada's own Ed Whitlock, 80 years old, ran the Toronto marathon and did it in 3:15:54.

A new world record!

And he's Canadian.

He was 296/4,000 runners.

Not only did he beat everyone in his age group but everyone within 20 years of his age (he beat everyone from age 60 and up).

I guess not as exciting as a 100 year old "running" a marathon.

damn impressive for an 80 year old...still a 100 year old running a marathon has to rank IMO among the top human physical accomplishments of all time, I've never met someone that age who could even walk around the block...in fact I've never even met one who wasn't in a care home rolling around in a wheelchair...

[Wilber]

An 8 hr marathon is 3.25 MPH. A quick time military marching pace is 3.4 mph. The 80 year old was cranking off 8 minute miles. Two amazing human beings

[msj]

An 8 hr marathon is 3.25 MPH. A quick time military marching pace is 3.4 mph. The 80 year old was cranking off 8 minute miles. Two amazing human beings

The 100 year old was doing 18 minute miles while the pregnant woman in Chicago did 14 minute miles and then went to the hospital to give birth to a 7 pound baby.

So three amazing people.

[fellowtraveller]

Oh-oh, turns out that Guiness has declined to certify the accomplishment of the 100 year old marathoner because he cannot prove his age. His passport states that he was born in 1911, but apparently he has no birth record in India.
WQithout one. no official acknowledgement.......

[guyser]

Oh-oh, turns out that Guiness has declined to certify ..., but apparently he has no birth record in India.
WQithout one. no official acknowledgement.......

India didnt keep any birth records back then

[fellowtraveller]

India didnt keep any birth records back then

Perhaps, perhaps not. Ever been to India?
There is no other place on earth with a greater love for paper of all sorts, official records and record keeping. It is a nation of bureaucrats, they love it there. There are forms for everything imaginable and entire buildings full of them and their keepers.
So I do not concur automatically that there are no birth records, I think it highly probable there is a record, perhaps in many copies. It is also possible that it cannot be found.

[msj]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Ever been to India?
There is no other place on earth with a greater love for paper of all sorts, official records and record keeping. It is a nation of bureaucrats, they love it there. There are forms for everything imaginable and entire buildings full of them and their keepers.
So I do not concur automatically that there are no birth records, I think it highly probable there is a record, perhaps in many copies. It is also possible that it cannot be found.

Or, as gusyer repeated from an article on this matter - India didn't keep birth records in 1911.

In fact, even after the Registration of Births and Death Act in 1969 the registration of births is still inconsistent and unsatisfactory [PDF].

[fellowtraveller]

India didn't keep birth records in 1911.

It would be very surprising if India kept them, since the country did not exist as a nation until 1947. Who knows what they did in Punjab, one of the wealthiest areas of the country before and after the nation was established.
Lineage is important to Sikhs.

[msj]

It would be very surprising if India kept them, since the country did not exist as a nation until 1947. Who knows what they did in Punjab, one of the wealthiest areas of the country before and after the nation was established.
Lineage is important to Sikhs.

Well, I'm going to go with what was presented in the news rather than the opinion of some anonymous poster.

[fellowtraveller]

Well, I'm going to go with what was presented in the news rather than the opinion of some anonymous poster.

The date of creation of India as a nation is not an opinion.
Neither is the relative wealth of Punjab, or the fetish for records. The level of bureaucracy in India is staggering for a Westerner.
You are welcome to believe otherwise.
Your faith in what you see on the Internet or on CBC is heartwarming.