Sub Elites getting slower

No one now or EVER considers 2:38 to be sub-elite, unless you are a woman.

not a chance wrote:

No one now or EVER considers 2:38 to be sub-elite, unless you are a woman.

Truly dependent on your location and the race. Many smaller races have a cut-off for "elites" being 2:35-2:40. Also, even in major cities, you can usually find a team with some level of sponsorship (shoes, warm ups, etc) with those times.

2:35 and under is sub-elite for men for the NYC marathon, but to the OP's point, quality depth fell markedly in the mid to late 1980s and has continued to fall. There were something like 630 sub 2:46 in 1983 at New York.

I was a 33 min 10K runner and 1:15 HM'er in the mid 90's and those times were ok for a local racer in his 30's, but would fare much better today at most local and regional races.

club runner wrote:

“My 2:38 has become a lot faster over the years,” George Hirsch, chairman of the board of the New York Road Runners, told the Times, referring to the PR he set at the 1979 Boston Marathon. Back in the day, Hirsch said, his time was respectable but nothing special. Plenty of people ran a sub-2:40 marathon. That no longer appears to be the case.

Good read -

http://www.outsideonline.com/2127116/great-slowing-american-runner?utm_content=buffer8c4ac&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=facebookpost

So what's new?

It's true on every level. Look at local running. I remember in the 80's and 90's running 15:40's in my 30's and not getting any age group award in local road races in my state here in the northeast. Now? Run a 17:30, and you win the whole enchilada ! Look at local high school xc teams. Did you ever see so many slow runners? Sure there are 4 or 5 in every conference running ok times, but man, most of them are really slow. Back to the sub-elites; Many females that run under 3 hours are told they could be sponsored. the same goes for a male who breaks 1:10 in the half. People tell them they are great and they believe it. It will continue to get slower and slower. The upside is, there is a gradual growth in running in the U.S.

Illinoisphotographer wrote:

not a chance wrote:

No one now or EVER considers 2:38 to be sub-elite, unless you are a woman.

Truly dependent on your location and the race. Many smaller races have a cut-off for "elites" being 2:35-2:40. Also, even in major cities, you can usually find a team with some level of sponsorship (shoes, warm ups, etc) with those times.

Regardless of what a race says, or whether there is a team out there that will give you free shoes, those times are not considered "sub-elite" by the most important body who decides those things: people.

Hirsch is right though, 2:38 is now perceived as much better than it was in the '70s or '80s. And this is because of people like you, espousing this nonsense.

There are also about 2000x the number of races that there were in the 70s and 80s.

I think every major race out there has a slightly watered down field now after the paid appearances, because there are more options for athletes to run.

A sub-elite entry at NYC, Boston, Chicago, is nice. Free entry, sometimes. Nice tent pre/post race. But that's all you get. Airfare and hotel (if necessary), meals - that is no longer a cheap consideration. It requires a lot of money. NYC alone will run you well over $1000 if you have to travel and stay in a hotel.

So, yes, a 2:38 in NY, Boston, Chicago will give you a higher place than it would have 30 years ago, but that does not mean that sub-elites in the US are slowing down.

well ... compared to what wrote:

There are also about 2000x the number of races that there were in the 70s and 80s.

I think every major race out there has a slightly watered down field now after the paid appearances, because there are more options for athletes to run.

A sub-elite entry at NYC, Boston, Chicago, is nice. Free entry, sometimes. Nice tent pre/post race. But that's all you get. Airfare and hotel (if necessary), meals - that is no longer a cheap consideration. It requires a lot of money. NYC alone will run you well over $1000 if you have to travel and stay in a hotel.

So, yes, a 2:38 in NY, Boston, Chicago will give you a higher place than it would have 30 years ago, but that does not mean that sub-elites in the US are slowing down.

100th place at Boston, New York or Chicago or any marathon is slower now, and you are right that (in itself) does not mean that the depth of marathoners below the elite ranks have thinned, but they HAVE THINNED.

Check the top 100, top 200, top 300, top 400 times on annual marathon lists and compare them to 1975-1980 and 1980-85, they are significantly weaker. I have no vested interest in this fact, but it is still a fact.

The graphic in the article just shows the 100th place time at two marathons, which (you are right) does not (by itself) tell you much besides the 100th place time at those races for 40 years.

In the zenith year, 1983, at Boston '83, my friend Mark ran 2:15, he placed about 33rd.

Sub-elites aren't getting slower. I wouldn't call a marathoner sub-elite unless they were an OT qualifier and the standard for that has been right around 2:20 for a long time. There are few of them and they are spread thinner across many races.

I am more curious what marathonguide.com would have for that statistic. What is the 100, 250, 500th fastest marathoner's time in the US over the last 30 years. That would probably tell you a little more than Boston and New York. And Chicago for that matter.

I have run all three. They're INCREDIBLE races - but unless you either live in one of those areas, or are willing to spend some big bucks, there are significantly cheaper options and it's not like you get any "super" benefit to being sub-elite in any three of those races (beyond maybe a special tent and gear check....)

The sub-elite thing definitely does not confer huge benefits, but the benefits are kind of nice. New York is actually probably a bigger deal than Chicago because you get special bus transport over at an earlier time that allows you to avoid the masses. In each case, the access to bathrooms is better, the access to the starting line is better (in that you don't have to fight the masses and you are placed closer to the front), and you are given a warm place to wait for the race as well as access to some food and beverage.

Nice benefits, but you are right that there are no financial perks at all unless you are an invited elite athlete.

I'd be interested to know from some of the older guys what they see as the difference between the 80's and now. At least finishers wise, there's more people participating than ever. For whatever the reason, there's so few 2:30's guys around. Even in the last 5 years it's seemed to have dropped off significantly.

I am not quite old enough to opine based on experience, but this is my take based on anecdotal evidence.

While the numbers participating in races has increased, I would say that the number of people who truly compete has not really grown. And, more importantly, I think that during the running boom, folks were all running crazy mileage. I think while that resulted in a lot of damage to a lot of people's bodies over the long term, I think it also produced the cream that rose to the top. You no longer have amateur level runners logging 100+ mile weeks on a regular basis. So while some of us do and approach the 2:30, that is the exception now rather than the rule.

In short, more participation, but not many of those involved in the influx are participating at a high level.

minong wrote:

I'd be interested to know from some of the older guys what they see as the difference between the 80's and now. At least finishers wise, there's more people participating than ever. For whatever the reason, there's so few 2:30's guys around. Even in the last 5 years it's seemed to have dropped off significantly.

The reason is that it ISN'T COOL FOR MEN SLOWER THAN ~2:30 FOR MARATHON TO RUN seriously ANYMORE. You stand a better chance at social success as a man if you run RECREATIONALLY AS CROSSFIT 30MIN 5K, or better yet gain some upper body mass and compete in ToughMudder competitions.

[bGenerally in the USA the approach is to screw training seriously after you're done with college unless you have a good shot at an OT qualifier

Completely different mindset and demographics were different. At the faster end you had hundreds, if not thousands trying approach OT qualifying times. It was a pretty big deal, and there were no shorter distance qualifiers unless maybe you were true elite, like sub 28 10K. The earlier boom was younger and more male.

A BQ was pretty big then, but maybe not as big as today because fewer people could get it. You needed 2:50 to get in (3:10 or so for women), and the age group/age grading was not really there like it is today. Some pretty decent runners either didn't get in with a sub 2:50 or got in and trashed their body getting there.

In the 1970s and 80s a plus 3 hr marathon time was considered pretty average, whether it was or not. Now a 3:30s is considered wow by most, and your average 4 to 5 hour marathoner can't or won't even conceptualize a 2:30 or faster.

The Overexplainer wrote:

Illinoisphotographer wrote:

Truly dependent on your location and the race. Many smaller races have a cut-off for "elites" being 2:35-2:40. Also, even in major cities, you can usually find a team with some level of sponsorship (shoes, warm ups, etc) with those times.

Regardless of what a race says, or whether there is a team out there that will give you free shoes, those times are not considered "sub-elite" by the most important body who decides those things: people.

Hirsch is right though, 2:38 is now perceived as much better than it was in the '70s or '80s. And this is because of people like you, espousing this nonsense.

People have decided that 2:35-2:40 is "sub-elite". Based on the "people", those times will get you elite entry to many smaller marathons and gain basic sponsorship.

You really need to look at the difference between an "elite" a "sub-elite" and a "normal" runner.

An elite generally is fully sponsored and gets all the training, coaching, travel, hotel, etc they need. Most have some type of monetary compensation included as well (could be salary, salary+bonus, time bonuses etc). Think Brooks Beasts, NoP, Hansons etc.

Sub-elites often get some type of special treatment at larger races, free entry to smaller races and may have small sponsorships -- some shoes, uniform, warm-ups etc. Think of your Fleet Feet elite teams, Boulder Running Company, BAA, etc. Except in large races, most of your sub-elites will be in the top 2-3 of most medium / local races (losing to other sub-elites).

Your "normal" runners can range from your hobby joggers to age groupers. They may win a race here or there, but generally only small no-name races.

Trying to figure out why this Great Slowing has taken place is tricky. The elites, obviously, are quite a bit more competitive now than they were 10-15 years ago.

I can't offer an answer, but I can gesture at an answer--or, to put it another way, I can suggest some clues.

Vine is one. Six second videos! That's insane. But creative people make livings creating and uploading such things. Attention spans have shortened.

I don't think as many people want to log the truly long miles it takes to be a good sub-elite marathoner. I think the speed of our culture has incentivized quicker payoffs.

Second clue: the externalizing and commodifying of satisfaction through the instrument of social media. Intrinsic rewards--the sort provided by training for and excelling at a marathon--are so.....unspectacular! It's much more fun to brag about workouts on Facebook and flash your participant's medal in a selfie. And easier.

The culture, including distance running culture, has shifted from an idea of excelling to an idea of "just doing it" to, now, an idea of humble-bragging about it on social media. #ifinishedtherace

Guy Debord spoke in SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE about the way in which our culture was headed downhill: a "declension from being to having to appearing."

Only a few of us seem to care about intrinsic rewards: truly satisfying achievements NOT bragged about on social media. It's easier to upload grinning group selfies from the running club's latest track workout than to shut up and run the workout.

Good post,sums it up

I think it's true for women too, although it may be partly a matter of "where" and not just "when". In the early 90s I could run in the 37's for 10K and that was competitive in local road races but often not good enough to win. 25 years later, living in a different part of the country, 37-38 minutes will absolutely destroy the open women's field at almost any local race; often the winner is well over 40 minutes.

I agree with other posts. There are far more slow runners than there used to be, and the (perhaps fairly constant) number of reasonably fast people are spread over a lot more races.