Performance improvement, like some types of evolution, is not slow and steady but a punctuated equilibrium, with progress happening in periodic fits and spurts. The 20 year look-back is arbitrary; no reason to expect improvement at a predictable rate for that time period...
Well, the NYC Marathon CR, set last year, is 2:19:51. Boston's CR was 2:19:59, until Lokedi's 2:17 last year. Even in the super shoe era, sub-2:20s on those courses are infrequent -- not just for Americans, but for all runners. This is the same, dragged out, conversation we have about American men. American women generally don't make 2x fast marathon attempts each year at places like Berlin/Amsterdam/Valencia/Rotterdam/London/etc. Our Olympic Trials is generally placed somewhere warm, which maybe helps prep the team for Olympic conditions, but doesn't result in the fastest times when our best are ready to run fast on the same day. Sisson was in shape, went to Chicago with an AR goal, & got it on a good weather day. That just doesn't happen regularly. Even when runners go to Chicago to run fast, weather does not always cooperate. Plausible she had that run in her prior to that & after that (2:22 Trials + 2:25 NYC probably pretty close tbh, at least 2:20ish potential on those days). Feel like it's disingenuous to cite sub-2:20s at fast marathons with maybe less strict drug testing & ignore international runners struggling to hit that time in NYC/Boston.
Well, the NYC Marathon CR, set last year, is 2:19:51. Boston's CR was 2:19:59, until Lokedi's 2:17 last year. Even in the super shoe era, sub-2:20s on those courses are infrequent -- not just for Americans, but for all runners. This is the same, dragged out, conversation we have about American men. American women generally don't make 2x fast marathon attempts each year at places like Berlin/Amsterdam/Valencia/Rotterdam/London/etc. Our Olympic Trials is generally placed somewhere warm, which maybe helps prep the team for Olympic conditions, but doesn't result in the fastest times when our best are ready to run fast on the same day. Sisson was in shape, went to Chicago with an AR goal, & got it on a good weather day. That just doesn't happen regularly. Even when runners go to Chicago to run fast, weather does not always cooperate. Plausible she had that run in her prior to that & after that (2:22 Trials + 2:25 NYC probably pretty close tbh, at least 2:20ish potential on those days). Feel like it's disingenuous to cite sub-2:20s at fast marathons with maybe less strict drug testing & ignore international runners struggling to hit that time in NYC/Boston.
A bit rich to imply, with no evidence, that "less strict drug testing" at Berlin/Amsterdam/Valencia/Rotterdam/London contributes significantly more than fewer hills and generally favorable weather to times routinely faster than at NYC/Boston. However, your point that "American women generally don't make 2x fast marathon attempts each year..." highlights a partial but notable contribution to why the AR hasn't yet dropped below 2:18.
Because American girls aren't cheating! I'd love to see American girls run marathoner faster than Frank Shorter and Bill Rogers at there best. Hell if they did that they would be in the top 5 of all the best male American Marathoners.
Top 2025 American Marathon Performances (Men) 2:04:43 - Conner Mantz (Chicago Marathon, Oct 12) 2:07:04 - Clayton Young (Boston Marathon, Apr 21) 2:08:00 - Ryan Ford (Boston Marathon, Apr 21) 2:07:56 - Leonard Korir (PR, noted in 2025 listings) 2:10:45 - Nathan Martin (PR, noted in 2025 listings) 2:11:40 - Jacob Thomson (PR, noted in 2025 listings) 2:11:40 - Nelson Oyugi (PR, noted in 2025 listings)
I don't even watch the women's marathon anymore it's all a sh*tshow. It's like the history of the Tour De France, when it was said that everybody was doing it and if you don't do it you can't compete!
Because the clean world record is probably more around 2:14 than 2:10, and the 2:14 is the highest levels of freakish talent, getting within 5 minutes of that is pretty good.
Naoko Takahashi ran 2:19:46 at 2001 Berlin Marathon. It's 2026 and no US woman has run under 2:18. Explain the lag.
Now look at the men. In the 1960's, only a tiny number of guys ran marathon seriously, and there were only a tiny number of marathons, yet 2:09's and (maybe) 2:08's were ran! Adjusting for various technologies (legal and otherwise) you could argue that billions of $ spent on research sports medicine and the exponential growth of number people trying over the last 55 years has produced an overall improvement of pretty much ZERO.
Who cares?? The real winners of the running boom are not elites (except a handful of Africans) but the millions of hobby-joggers that discovered the joys and benefits of running (to the chagrin of 'real runners').
Naoko Takahashi ran 2:19:46 at 2001 Berlin Marathon. It's 2026 and no US woman has run under 2:18. Explain the lag.
I was wondering the same thing in this era of supershoes.
I recently wrote in another thread: "Since Paula Radcliffe ran a couple 2:17:xx's, then a 2:15:25 with 2 male pacemakers so long ago, and now with the benefit of supershoes, I've long thought women would eventually be running several minutes faster.
I think it is a problem of lack of critical mass and a lack of will to be aggressive from the gun. They should be able to at least replicate Paula's 2:17s, but generally they don't need to run faster than 2:18 because no one they are competing against is.
Paula ran her 2:15:25 because there were 2:16 (male) pacemakers, and Paula decided to go with them from the gun.
Two problems with that: a - running Paula's times is a lot harder when one has to stay within the ABP thresholds. Paula's HCT and simultaneous RCT jumps would get quickly banned these days.
b - "no one they are competing against is"? It's not like the American marathoners are consistently winning their races. If they'd run faster (if they could!), they would compete at the top. E.g. when Emily S ran her AR, she was 4 minutes behind the winner.
As for the American marathons being too slow: that is only partly true. Chicago - while indeed sometimes too hot - has seen quite a few world records, and of course some Americans did try for a fast time in Europe (e.g., Shalane), and all of them could if they wanted to.
Last, I am surprised no one has mentioned (also doped) Liliya yet who ran 2:18 in Chicago 2011, at the time 2nd fastest ever after Paula.
Paula and Liliya clearly demonstrated that white women can keep up with the Africans. Clean or not, there is no reason that the current white women run over 8 minutes slower than the WR, unless someone wants to claim that doping provides such a huge boost.
Naoko Takahashi ran 2:19:46 at 2001 Berlin Marathon. It's 2026 and no US woman has run under 2:18. Explain the lag.
I was wondering the same thing in this era of supershoes.
I recently wrote in another thread: "Since Paula Radcliffe ran a couple 2:17:xx's, then a 2:15:25 with 2 male pacemakers so long ago, and now with the benefit of supershoes, I've long thought women would eventually be running several minutes faster.
I think it is a problem of lack of critical mass and a lack of will to be aggressive from the gun. They should be able to at least replicate Paula's 2:17s, but generally they don't need to run faster than 2:18 because no one they are competing against is.
Paula ran her 2:15:25 because there were 2:16 (male) pacemakers, and Paula decided to go with them from the gun.
In any distance race, running aggressively from the gun will result in a big positive split. If an American female runner has 2:20 fitness, that’s the pace she should shoot for.
I the Radcliffe paragraph, I assume “they” is referring to U.S. female marathoners. According to the WA points tables, 2:17 is equivalent to about 30:00, and no current American female marathoner is anywhere close to that time. Monson has run that fast, but after the knee injury it’s seems unlikely she’ll regain top form. Cranny and Schweizer are fairly close, but will not be leaving the track anytime soon.
Two problems with that: a - running Paula's times is a lot harder when one has to stay within the ABP thresholds. Paula's HCT and simultaneous RCT jumps would get quickly banned these days.
b - "no one they are competing against is"? It's not like the American marathoners are consistently winning their races. If they'd run faster (if they could!), they would compete at the top. E.g. when Emily S ran her AR, she was 4 minutes behind the winner.
As for the American marathons being too slow: that is only partly true. Chicago - while indeed sometimes too hot - has seen quite a few world records, and of course some Americans did try for a fast time in Europe (e.g., Shalane), and all of them could if they wanted to.
Last, I am surprised no one has mentioned (also doped) Liliya yet who ran 2:18 in Chicago 2011, at the time 2nd fastest ever after Paula.
Paula and Liliya clearly demonstrated that white women can keep up with the Africans. Clean or not, there is no reason that the current white women run over 8 minutes slower than the WR, unless someone wants to claim that doping provides such a huge boost.
a) Too many unproven assumptions.
b) Before London 2017, no one else was running sub-2:18, so no one had to. American women weren't really competing with the winners if they were 4 minutes behind. They were running their own races.
Now look at the men. In the 1960's, only a tiny number of guys ran marathon seriously, and there were only a tiny number of marathons, yet 2:09's and (maybe) 2:08's were ran! Adjusting for various technologies (legal and otherwise) you could argue that billions of $ spent on research sports medicine and the exponential growth of number people trying over the last 55 years has produced an overall improvement of pretty much ZERO.
Who cares?? The real winners of the running boom are not elites (except a handful of Africans) but the millions of hobby-joggers that discovered the joys and benefits of running (to the chagrin of 'real runners').