The 1970s called and they want their times back

So, so true. Those $300 shoes have made all the difference.

The 70s-80s didn't have hyper fast races like London, Paris, Berlin, Frankfort, Amsterdam etc avaliable to them. Chicago was 2nd tier.

So if Americans wanted to run fast they had few opportunites.

In a time with hundreds of 2:06 marathoners, they only run as well as Americans did at Boston and NYC back in the day.

That 70's guy wrote:

The 70s-80s didn't have hyper fast races like London, Paris, Berlin, Frankfort, Amsterdam etc avaliable to them. Chicago was 2nd tier.

Chicago was second to none in '84, '85 and '86.

No, you didn't call anything. There's nothing new under the sun.

René Magritte wrote:

Slow races in NY, Chicago and Boston. What's going on? White folks can win races again yet they too are slower than 1970s & 1980s marathoners.

All 3 had less than ideal weather.

0/10

Lack of pacers and bad weather conditions as well as a large saturation of good runners (tactical racing) easily explains the slower times.

Glorfindel wrote:

0/10

Lack of pacers and bad weather conditions as well as a large saturation of good runners (tactical racing) easily explains the slower times.

Yes, they're racing again- I like to watch a race not a time trial.

More races- back in the day "everybody" ran Boston, NY, Chicago, then Rotterdam came on the scene in 83(?) with the big match race- DeCAstella, Lopes, Salazar ...

Now- a city can generate major revenue with a big city marathon- they're springing up every where with big money- spreads the talent.

And- yes- the Kenyans are being careful.

The time Bill Rodgers ran in 76 is even more impressive when you consider the hairpin turns and stairs and the fact he hardly knew where he was supposed to go near the end.

People whine about the use of drugs, doping, and 'grey area' technology, then bitch and moan when times don't get faster. Yawn.

themanontherun wrote:

People whine about the use of drugs, doping, and 'grey area' technology, then bitch and moan when times don't get faster. Yawn.

The times weren't slower because they were run clean.

Star wrote:

The times weren't slower because they were run clean.

Things that have changed since the 70s, and were present in the late aughts to early teens:

1 - Different training/nutrition/technology

2- More prize money

3 - More Africans

4 - Faster courses

5 - Drugs/doping/grey area

1 through 4 are still all on the scene. 5 is not, or is at least less so now; suddenly, times are slower. What other conclusion would you draw, or what other explanation would you offer? If you have five or six variables, and only change one of them, and the result changes drastically, to what would you attribute that change in result?

65-80 degrees is the new fall normal for the US; that is not much hotter than it use to be and I don't think it is a valid excuse for times. There have always been hot race days.

In truth I think competition and tactical racing has been emphasized this year. Fast times are elusive, and hinge on a lot of factors. Athletes are competing and not time trialing.

Probably something to the drug argument as well...but I don't think East Africans as a whole are any more dirty than any other group.

How can you list all of those variables and forget one of the biggest variables of all - the rabbit.

If they don't follow someone to an early fast pace, they will not run a fast finishing time.

Star wrote:

How can you list all of those variables and forget one of the biggest variables of all - the rabbit.

If they don't follow someone to an early fast pace, they will not run a fast finishing time.

I've run NYC twice. There were no rabbits in either race, because none were needed. My HM splits were 1:04:56 (into a strong headwind) and 1:03:56 (on a warm day). A rabbit isn't going to help much on a course like NYC because all of the racing takes place over the final 10 miles.

Everybody looks way more healthier now

malmo wrote:

Star wrote:

How can you list all of those variables and forget one of the biggest variables of all - the rabbit.

If they don't follow someone to an early fast pace, they will not run a fast finishing time.

I've run NYC twice. There were no rabbits in either race, because none were needed. My HM splits were 1:04:56 (into a strong headwind) and 1:03:56 (on a warm day). A rabbit isn't going to help much on a course like NYC because all of the racing takes place over the final 10 miles.

And they went out in 1:06:09.

Rabbit or no rabbit they chose not to go out as fast and that affected the final time more than anything.

It certainly didn't have anything to do with lack of drugs causing a slower time.

But when you have no rabbit, you have no idea how the pace will go out.

That is not a criticism, that is just a fact when it comes to analyzing the winning time.

Star wrote:

But when you have no rabbit, you have no idea how the pace will go out.

That is not a criticism, that is just a fact when it comes to analyzing the winning time.

I have no idea what you're trying to say? I can recall Ritz's first NYC marathon, they had assigned rabbits, yet the entire field ignored them and hit the HM 1:05:40 on a perfect day weatherwise.

malmo wrote:

Star wrote:

But when you have no rabbit, you have no idea how the pace will go out.

That is not a criticism, that is just a fact when it comes to analyzing the winning time.

I have no idea what you're trying to say? I can recall Ritz's first NYC marathon, they had assigned rabbits, yet the entire field ignored them and hit the HM 1:05:40 on a perfect day weatherwise.

Rabbit or no rabbit they chose not to go out as fast

Is it that hard?

Your fitness and ability (drugs or not) are not the only factors that determine how fast you will run.

I was responding to the poster that inferred that lack of drugs may be a reason for a slow time.

And I am saying that going out at a slow pace regardless of fitness leads to a slow time.

You do realize that courses are further today than they were?

Boston for example has the same starting line and in the 80's finished before the Prudential Center nearly 300 meter up from where it finishes today.