Can anyone explain why 2:45 takes 27th place at INC NY Marathon?

It's the chicks. Dudes are 2:34-ish at 100th.

no misprint. The erosion of the middle class continues. The top 1% has taken all the fast times and left only dregs for lower class runners. There is no one left motivated to run 2:20.

27 1892 Giorgio Calcaterra 02:27:19 Italy ITA

i don't know what you were looking at but 27th was 2:27.

Were you looking at the "elite" list?

To answers the OP's original question, I would reply that 26 people ran faster than 2:45. That would explain why 2:45 finishes 27th. Apparently though, you looked at the results incorrectly.

The 100th male finisher was 2:37.

Place, bib, name, finish time

95 846 Philip Shea Jr 02:36:45 NY United States USA

96 1205 Craig Mcmillan 02:36:56 Canada GBR

97 1034 Mark Jenkin 02:36:57 Great Britain GBR

98 1168 Frank Christensen 02:37:02 Denmark DEN

99 1946 Mark Rochon 02:37:07 PA United States USA

100 1311 Knox Robinson 02:37:12 NY United States USA

asdfasdfa wrote:

no misprint. The erosion of the middle class continues. The top 1% has taken all the fast times and left only dregs for lower class runners. There is no one left motivated to run 2:20.

We should force the elite to give their shoes to the middle class.

and training adaptations

I hear lots of people claim great marathon times from the 70s and early 80s and their other PRs just don't match up. Point being, I think many of those times were run on short courses. Even NYC 1981 was found to be short.

OlderBetter wrote:

I hear lots of people claim great marathon times from the 70s and early 80s and their other PRs just don't match up. Point being, I think many of those times were run on short courses. Even NYC 1981 was found to be short.

All the courses that I ran in the 1970's and 80's were accurate. I measured quite a few of them myself, though that was on the west coast.

My understanding about NY is that they have always had problems with measurement and other things due to their management.

You're not looking at the overall results file. Here it is:

http://www.ingnycmarathon.org/Results.htm

Still not that deep, so you have a point.

michael t. smith wrote:

Disappearance of the middle class in running, as elsewhere-In 1979 and 1980, 2:46 and 2:47 wre good for 36th place finishes in PORTLAND. Probably wouldn't get ypou in the top thousand at Boston. Or was this just a misprint in the results?

There's probably 20 times as many marathons today as there were in the 1970s and 80s so the faster runners are more spread out. And many of those who could be faster marathoners opt for other sports now like triathlons, or online poker.

I don't think it's such a bad thing that people aren't all that interested in running 120mpw without getting paid for it anymore. I have run 2:30 off of 100mpw while working 50-60hpw and married but no kids yet. So personally I like it, but don't blame people for thinking it's kind of stupid.

BTW, anyone complaining about the state of marathoning in the US had better be running sub-2:30s themselves.

michael t. smith wrote:

Disappearance of the middle class in running, as elsewhere-In 1979 and 1980, 2:46 and 2:47 wre good for 36th place finishes in PORTLAND. Probably wouldn't get you in the top thousand at Boston. Or was this just a misprint in the results?

I have no clue what the course is like in Portland, but seriously? You are trying to compare times with a course not well known versus a world wide know course that is DIFFICULT?

I respect the major marathons.

I clicked on the tab on LetsRun ING NYC coverage that said "mens' results." That was the source of the error, it seems. 100th place was 2:37, still not fabulous, but more like it. Running Times had a page last spring that showed Lance Armstrong's 2:50 at Boston in 2006 taking something like 478th place, and the identical time about 30 years previous taking something over 1500th. In fact, the last three times I qualified,'80, '81, and'83, Boston QUALIFIER was sub-2:50.

Not trying to be dumb wrote:

michael t. smith wrote:

Disappearance of the middle class in running, as elsewhere-In 1979 and 1980, 2:46 and 2:47 wre good for 36th place finishes in PORTLAND. Probably wouldn't get you in the top thousand at Boston. Or was this just a misprint in the results?

I have no clue what the course is like in Portland, but seriously? You are trying to compare times with a course not well known versus a world wide know course that is DIFFICULT?

I respect the major marathons.

I understand that NY is a difficult course, and Portland in those days, not so much; could be windy, but no hills. My point is not to disrespect the major marathon;but to say that one would expect a much deeper FIELD in NYC than in a relatively obscure regional race with a field of 800 or so thirty-some years ago. Not criticising the 2:45 guys out there. I was trying my damnedest to run 2:44 or 2:45, and would have been happy to finish as high up as I could have. Fill in the rest of my old geezer rant, if you like. I need a nap.

When was the INC NY marathon? It seems slower than the ING NY marathon!

What 2:20-2:30 marathoner wants to pay $200 plus expensive lodging in New York City to wake up at 4am and spend 4 hours on buses and ferries before standing on a cold bridge for an hour before a race that he has spent months training for?

Especially when he could pay less than $100 to run a flat course in his own state. New York is just an expensive place to run slow for a sub-elite.

2:37 for 100th place... and with the Oly Trials only a couple of months away, your wanna-be sub 2:20 guys were not running ING NYC.

Don't forget that the US Olympic Trials are in 10 weeks. Not many Americans would risk doing something like this that would cause an injury, so close to the Trials.

Just a FYI. I totally agree that the fields are lacking, but this could be a good reason.