The Current State of U.S. Marathoning:

Sub elites are going to go to the smaller races where they can pick up the prize money easier than the big races.

In the boston marathon--usually a few top guys (USA) near the leaders then there's a big gap--due to the b and c level runners opting to go elsewhere for prize money.

All you IDIOTS are completely wrong.

Here is the real reason we aren't any good at marathoning.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x5Vrlvj-6gU/TF8QwuKcIOI/AAAAAAAAAT4/5alq_w7wfYw/s1600/slow_children_sign.jpg

Funny! Now, what do we do about it?

LikeBekeleButSlow wrote:

Ok, guys, let's be honest: it would have taken a 2:05-2:07 marathoner in Berlinesque conditions to run 2:10 today in NYC. So looking at this way, there were no American guys who could do it in the 70s. Today, Hall and Ritz are borderline capable. By the same token, Ryan Vail's 2:13 today is really a 2:10 if not a 2:09 in Berlin (or another fast course with no headwind), so on the elite level, it's incremental progress from decade to decade if anything. As to sub-elite, there are a lot more marathons now, so that might explain why 2:15+ guys are more spread out (nationally and internationally), and so wherever one runs with such a time they are more likely to place relatively well. Am I off-base?

Stop trying to bring reason into the convo! Things were wayy better back in the old days before Obama. Entitlement generation can't run for sh!t!!!!1

Natural selection.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z244/Truetin/Motivational/fast-children-slow-children-sign-po.jpg

Yeah, you guys did stink it up today. Here are the top Canadian results from our biggest marathon a few weeks ago. It's a faster course, but still. You'd think a country TEN TIMES AS LARGE would put up better results in the NEW YORK CITY MARATHON.

I feel your pain. Sorry that Hall and Ritz have been so useless this year.

Scotiabank Toronto Waterfront Marathon- Full Marathon Awards - Canadians Female

Place Time Bib # Name Sex Age City

===== ========= ====== ============================= === === =========================

1 2:27:59.6 F11 Marchant, Lanni F 29

2 2:28:31.5 F12 Duchene, Krista F 36

3 2:34:57.6 F14 Kortchaguina, Lioudmila F 40

4 2:35:15.2 F15 Wodak, Natasha F 31

5 2:40:19.7 F17 Arsenault, Marilyn F 45

Scotiabank Toronto Waterfront Marathon- Full Marathon Awards - Canadians Male

Place Time Bib # Name Sex Age City

===== ========= ====== ============================= === === =========================

1 2:11:49.0 10 Gillis, Eric M 33

2 2:13:28.4 11 Watson, Rob M 30

NotAustin18 wrote:

The main reason is that society has evolved. In the 70s you could live pretty cheaply, so you didn't have to commit too fully to a job. Now, you work after college. Also, now that running is a professional sport, those of us who aren't good enough to get a sponsor are discouraged from training hard after college as "Wasting our lives" running since it isn't an actual job.

What a load of crap. People worked longer and harder 40 years ago. Young runners today spend more time surfing the 'net than they spend training.

From malmo posted today...

Maybe people have better things to do with their time. Seriously, why would someone who won't ever sniff 2:05 (and therefore will never be a contender for a significant medal on the international scene) dedicate 10 years of their life after college in the hopes that they may one day hit 2:10?

Believe it or not running is not the be-all-and-end-all in life.

some depressing statistics:

1982 NYC Marathon: 100th place = 2:25:45, 70 of top 100 American

1992 NYC Marathon: 100th place = 2:32:48, 13 of top 100 American

2002 NYC Marathon: 100th place = 2:39:42, 23 of top 100 American

2013 NYC Marathon: 100th male = 2:42:05, 54 of top 100 men American

Just kind of grim however you slice it.

Shorter, Rodgers, Salazar, etc.. ran multiple marathons per year, in addition other races on the track and roads. If they'd spent 3-4 months strictly training who knows what times that could have

dkny64 wrote:

some depressing statistics:

1982 NYC Marathon: 100th place = 2:25:45, 70 of top 100 American

1992 NYC Marathon: 100th place = 2:32:48, 13 of top 100 American

2002 NYC Marathon: 100th place = 2:39:42, 23 of top 100 American

2013 NYC Marathon: 100th male = 2:42:05, 54 of top 100 men American

Just kind of grim however you slice it.

Sweet Jesus.

sp2 wrote:

--a sport WE freaking INVENTED, forty years ago-- ... and the BEST WE can do is 2:13, and 2:35??

Who is “we”? Only Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scotch-Irish immigrants from 100 years ago? I believe a Bronx native who trains every day on the streets of NY took second. Isn’t she “we” too? In a short while those of east African descent will become “we”. Or will you accept that? Can you or would you still differentiate them as separate? Aren’t they “we” already? Can you embrace the excellence of what they achieve without categorizing them as alien?

Back in the 70s and 80s there were a lot of us working class runners who loved to train and see how fast we could run. As a result there were alot of guys who could run in the 2:20s. That is no longer the case, becasue people are not willing to do the work required to run those times. We also did it for FUN, there were no monetary rewards. Just t-shirts, trophies, and sometimes a gift certificate.

LikeBekeleButSlow wrote:

it would have taken a 2:05-2:07 marathoner in Berlinesque conditions to run 2:10 today in NYC.

...

Ryan Vail's 2:13 today is really a 2:10 if not a 2:09 in Berlin

Where are you pulling this crap from?

Mutai's course record is 2:05:06. This came the same year as his 2:03:02 so I think we can accept that he was about as good as he ever has been at that point. He says he was nearly that fit this time out, but what else is he going to say.

To weigh this argument IN YOUR FAVOR, let's say Mutai was in 2:05:00 shape today (on this course). I'd say he was in slower shape but I'll give your argument the benefit.

He ran a 2:08:24 today, splitting 1:05:06 / 1:03:18. Obviously he had more in the tank.

Again, to weight the argument IN YOUR FAVOR, let's say that Mutai could have run 2:08:00 with a less lackadaisical first half. I'd say he could have run faster, but I'll give your argument the benefit.

That leaves only a THREE MINUTE difference between Mutai's peak shape and his performance today. Probably SMALLER, if he is at anything less than his 2011 form and if he could have gone faster than 2:08 today, which I think is obvious.

Spot the elite times three minutes AT THE ABSOLUTE MOST for conditions today. I'd say more like 2:00 given how easy Mutai had this one in hand. Even in the (somewhat) windy conditions he was easily good for 2:06:xx out there today if he was at all pushed.

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

Spot the elite times three minutes AT THE ABSOLUTE MOST for conditions today. I'd say more like 2:00 given how easy Mutai had this one in hand. Even in the (somewhat) windy conditions he was easily good for 2:06:xx out there today if he was at all pushed.

I don't get you're math. You say spot the elites 2-3 minutes for the conditions today (giving Vail a 2:10-11 at NYC), but you're unwilling to accept that he could have run a 2:10-09 in Berlin?

your*

someone had to do it wrote:

From malmo posted today...

[quote]malmo wrote:

This is the empirical evidence you were looking for. How would Alberto Salazar would have fared against today’s 2:04-05-06 runners. Alberto takes 3rd on the raw numbers, most likely takes 2nd in a real race.

Same course, same weather conditions.

1982 No 2:04 marathoners in the field. No 2:05s. No 2:06s. Not even a 2:07 or a 2:08

What a joke.

Malmo is glorifying Alberto's era.

There is an obvious difference here...

Back in 1984 those guys were actually racing their hardest for those 2:09s. Opening in a 1:05 was near PR pace or faster for Alberto and certainly everyone behind him.

A 1:05 half is a joke to Mutai and Kebede.

2:09 was all Alberto had that day in 1984. Mutai could have phoned Eldoret mid-race to check the price of cattle and still done 2:08 today.

Daily double wrote:

Sub elites are going to go to the smaller races where they can pick up the prize money easier than the big races.

In the boston marathon--usually a few top guys (USA) near the leaders then there's a big gap--due to the b and c level runners opting to go elsewhere for prize money.

This. How many marathons were there back in 1981? I'd venture to say there's a lot more now. There's certainly a lot of marathons offering a little bit of prize money. Why would you run a 2:25 to come in 100th in New York if you could run a 2:25 to win and pick up $1000 at your local marathon?

The guys I know who ran in college made their 2:20s marathon debut in places like Carlsbad, Orange County, and Long Beach. Not Boston, New York, or even Los Angeles.