Why 1983 boston marathon was so fast???

brazilian elite wrote:

2. Overall, 84 runners broke 2:20. That still stands as a record for a single marathon.

Is that right? My fading memory thought those deep London races about '83-86 had more sub 2:20. Cannot find the results from those races. Anyone?

First big running boom. People didn't run so that we were "all winners". Runners wanted to find out their potential.

It was a different time.

The time I ran in Bay to Breakers in 1981 barely put me in the top 90 runners that year. Now I would be in the top 30-40.

The race also served as the U.S. trials for the very first T&F World Championships in Helsinki later that year. Considering the fact that we had boycotted Moscow in 1980, Helsinki would be the first major championship marathon that American athletes had run in seven years. That definitely contributed towards a large turnout of the top U.S. runners.

Lindgren Runner wrote:

Back then obesity was not a problem.

Ridiculous point.

Whether 20% or 80% of Americans are obese, the pool who are going to potentially run a 2:20 marathon is not different.

There are more runners now than then.

But they aren't working as hard. This includes letsrunners, yes.

battle wrote:

Joe, what were your performances on the roads (or track) leading up to your NYC sub-2:30 performance? Thanks for posting.

It's a bit hazy from those days, but I'd say 25:30 5, 31:00 6, 52:30 10, 1:10 HM.

One guy touched on it, the rest of you are not getting it.

There were many great marathons back then. NYC was a big deal, Fukuoka was a big deal (and very elite), London was a big deal, Grandma's and Stockholm and Tokyo were a big deal. Chicago and Columbus were just emerging.

The points made about population, good conditions, fast field are all true ... but they would have been true of many marathons at the time, both in America and out.

I had two friends who are about 10 yrs older than me in that race and they both qualified for the OT in the 5k, 10k and marathon. They ran 2:15 and 2:18 in Boston and ~13:44 and ~28:40. Mark Mesler and Jed Hopfensberger.

They, like most of the other 76 Americans that broke 2:20, wanted to get in a spring marathon (as there are few fast marathons in May-June-July-Aug-Sept besides Grandma's) because of the heat. They wanted (as someone else said) to get an OT qualifier in 13 months or so before the Trials. That, and everyone wanted to run Boston at the time. Bill Rodgers had run 2:09 or 2:10 just about EVERY year from 1975 to 1980 and then '81 had the great race between Seko/Virgin/Rodgers with them going 2:09-2:10 and then '82 had The Duel in the Sun with Salazar and Beardsley.

1983 was the culmination of 10-11 years of the best years of the Running Boom in America. From about 1978 to 1983 America had far more 2:12-2:16 type runners than they ever did before or since.

But anyway, that particular day in Boston in 1983 would have had the same amount and quality of runners, and America would have had the same amount of obese people (or lack of them) if it had been hot, humid and the wind had been more of a sidewind ... but the times would have been much slower, had that been the case.

That race was fast because there were 100-110 capable of breaking 2:20 and weather cooperated and they had a nice following wind.

'83 Boston was also the Trials for the first World Championships in T&F in Helsinki that summer, hence the heavy American presence that year.

Been said, about 10 times. Please read first.

Dorando wrote:

brazilian elite wrote:

2. Overall, 84 runners broke 2:20. That still stands as a record for a single marathon.

Is that right? My fading memory thought those deep London races about '83-86 had more sub 2:20. Cannot find the results from those races. Anyone?

Correctamundo.

London '91 had 105 men run sub-2:20.

Bummer to run 2:19 and not even crack the top 100.

6 guys ran sub 4:10 for 1600 meters at the Washington State meet that year. Even little marathons had fast winning times.

It was a different era, a lot more serious runners and less hobby joggers.

I ran in that race, and I remember the circumstances well. Some of what has been said in this thread is correct, and some is totally wrong. Here are a few thoughts:

1. Contrary to what is often said on this site, the Boston marathon course is not slow compared with most record-quality courses, and when the temperatures are cool and there's a tailwind, the times at Boston can be very fast. On that particular day, the temperatures were good, and the winds were generally favorable. Those factors, however, don't come close to explaining why so many more Americans back then were running sub-2:20, or sub-2:25, or sub-2:30. The weather and tailwinds at Boston in years like 1975, 1994, and 2010 were easily as favorable as they were in 1983, but far fewer Americans ran fast times in those years. Also, even if one assumes that the net elevation drop and favorable winds accounted for as much as a 90-second advantage over a record-quality course (which is, in my view, not an unreasonable estimate), that doesn't come close to accounting for the large number of relatively fast American times on that day when compared with times on record-quality courses in more recent years. (The suggestion that Joanie ran an absurdly fast first mile because of the wind is incorrect; she ran an absurdly fast first mile because the first mile at Boston is dramatically downhill and Joanie was a very aggressive frontrunner who was in great shape at the time and who had no intention of letting Allison Roe hang with her.) Finally, the suggestion that it was a short course is silly. The finish line for the course was changed in 1986 not because the course was discovered to be short, but rather because John Hancock, the new sponsor for the race, understandably preferred to have the race finish in front of own building instead of the headquarters of one of its competitors.

2. As others have mentioned, it was the first opportunity to qualify for the 1984 U.S. Olympic trials. As I recall, it was also the trials for the 1983 World Championships and, I believe, the 1983 Pan-Am Championships (which were still a pretty big deal back then).

3. The 1983 BAA marathon was one of the last big marathons of the "shamateurism" era, before open prize money began to play a significant role in where reasonably competitive runners chose to run. After 1983, Boston was unable to attract strong fields without prize money and appearance fees (which were finally introduced at Boston in 1986). And when prize money and other financial incentives were introduced, better runners from other countries stepped in.

4. In 1983, lots of good but not international-caliber marathoners in the U.S. had corporate sponsors. Particularly after the 1984 Olympic trials, many of those runners were dropped by their sponsors. Shoe companies moved toward a sponsorship model that focused on paying more money to a few stars, instead of small amounts to more regional-level athletes and clubs.

5. (The Big Reason) We were better runners than almost all of the Americans today. We ran more, we ran harder, we didn't have GPS units and heart-rate monitors to tell us how hard and how far to run, we didn't hang out on message boards, and there were lots of us. Marathons were competitive races instead of mass-participation fundraising events. The BAA marathon, in particular, was a destination race for serious runners; the open men's qualifying time in 1983 was 2:50.

Avocados Number wrote:

5. (The Big Reason) We were better runners than almost all of the Americans today. We ran more, we ran harder, we didn't have GPS units and heart-rate monitors to tell us how hard and how far to run, we didn't hang out on message boards, and there were lots of us. Marathons were competitive races instead of mass-participation fundraising events. The BAA marathon, in particular, was a destination race for serious runners; the open men's qualifying time in 1983 was 2:50.

Good post.

Fwiw, at the 1984 US Olympic marathon trials for *women*, an unprecedented (and never surpassed since) 109 women ran sub-2:50 and 164 ran sub-3:00.

I was in the 1983 Boston Marathon and was one of those who did not break 2:30. I ran 2:30:47 to finish in 326th place. I believe that race had the most sub-2:30 runners ever. It was, as others have said, the culmination of ten years of growth in American distance running. I remember at the Gasparilla 15k that year running 47:25 for 81st place and I was 49th in the 25-29 age group! At the Dec, 1982 Rocket City Marathon I ran 2:23:51 and was 18th - almost all, if not all, Americans ahead of me. That's how it was - lots of regional class runners were still going pretty strong even though we were working at full-time jobs after college.

In 1978, 3,872 runners (mostly men at that time) were recognized in the published results for finishing the Boston Marathon (which in 1978 meant finishing within four hours). Of those finishers, 2,047 broke three hours. In 2002, only 1,024 men broke 3:00 hours. (Of course this was in a significantly larger field. There were 9,234 recognized male finishers, 6,672 of them in under four hours.)

Americans for the year

1977 -- 1 under 2:13, 3 under 2:14, 7 under 2:15, 29 under 2:20

1978 -- 4 under 2:13, 5 under 2:14, 11 under 2:15, 2:18:08 (50)

1979 -- 8 under 2:13, 11 under 2:14, 22 under 2:15. 2:17:03(47)

1980 -- 13 under 2:13, 20 under 2:14, 27 under 2:15, 2:15:55 (34)

1981 -- 14 under 2:13, 26 under 2:14, 38 under 2:15, 143 under 2:20

1982 -- 11 under 2:13, 21 under 2:14 29 under 2:15,

1983 -- 23 under 2:13, 32 under 2:14, 44 under 2:15, 193 under 2:20

1984 -- 11 under 2:13, 15 under 2:14, 25 under 2:15, 123 under 2:20

1985 -- 11 under 2:13, 13 under 2:14, 26 under 2:15, 70 under 2:20

1986 -- 7 under 2:13, 16 under 2:14, 21 under 2:15, 79 under 2:20

1987 -- 6 under 2:13, 9 under 2:14, 75 under 2:20

1988 -- 3 under 2:13, 8 under 2:14, 54 under 2:20

1989 -- 5 under 2:13, 6 under 2:14, 44 under 2:20

1990 -- 6 under 2:13, 8 under 2:14, 11 under 2:15, 53 under 2:20

1991 -- 4 under 2:13, 4 under 2:14, 74 under 2:20

1992 -- 3 under 2:13, 6 under 2:14

1993 -- 4 under 2:13, 6 under 2:14, 45 under 2:20

1994 -- 4 under 2:13, 5 under 2:14, 45 under 2:20

1995 -- 1 under 2:13, 1 under 2:14, 56 under 2:20

1996 -- 2 under 2:13 5 under 2:14, 35 under 2:20

1997 -- 2 under 2:13, 5 under 2:14

1998 -- 1 under 2:13, 2 under 2:14

1999 -- 1 under 2:13, 2 under 2:14

2000 -- 3 under 2:13

2001 -- 1 under 2:13. 19 under 2:20

2002 -- 3 under 2:13

2003 -- 1 under 2:13, 1 under 2:14, 2 under 2:15, 16 under 2:20

2004 -- 6 under 2:13, 7 under 2:14, 10 under 2:15, 33 under 2:20

2005 -- 2 under 2:13, 5 under 2:14, 6 under 2:15, 17 under 2:20

2006 -- 8 under 2:13, 8 under 2:14, 13 under 2:15:00, 49 under 2:20

2007 -- 5 under 2:13, 6 under 2:14, 7 under 2:15

2008 -- 3 under 2:13, 4 under 2:14, 7 under 2:15

2009 -- 4 under 2:13, 7 under 2:14, 9 under 2:15

My college coach was a 2:13 - 2:15 marathoner and 2 time OT Marathon Qualifier - from that era. Likely, none of you have ever heard of him. There were so many guys running 2:teens that it wasn't a big deal. Coach got some shoes, uniform, air fare on occasion, picked up a few dollars here and there but otherwise lived in obscurity.

So there are people today who would be capable of sub-2:30 yet wound up obese, instead?

Lindgren Runner wrote:

Back then obesity was not a problem. Today its a major issue with most Americans and most of them would rather finish a marathon then run it fast.

o.O wrote:

brazilian elite wrote:

1. Americans grabbed 22 of the top 23 finishes, with Dean Matthews finishing 23rd in 2:14:46.

2. Overall, 84 runners broke 2:20. That still stands as a record for a single marathon. Seventy-six of the 84 were Americans. Africans: 0. Last year, by comparison, six Americans broke 2:20.

3. A total of 313 finishers broke 2:30.

It would still be that fast if you just made every marathon harder to qualify for the actual race.

You should have to start an entire hour behind the real marathon runners if you can't break 2:40. It would be called the "I'm just trying to finish Coral"

Pink or white coral?

Runningart2004 wrote:

Fewer kids running these days.

XC and track are more popular than ever.

more people peak age

baby boomers were 23-42