Why was NYC men's marathon 2015 so much slower than 1982?

Fentrekker wrote:

Only 1981? I have a NYCRR publication from 1988 celebrating Steve Jones victory on a "newly measured course". I am willing to be corrected, but I was going by what I considered to be a pretty reliable source.

That alludes to new measurement protocol developed by AIMS (Association of International Marathons and Distance Races) and adopted by IAAF in 1988.

swifter wrote:

47 guys under 2:20 in 1982. Only 13 guys under 2:20 in 2015.

93 guys under 2:25 in 1982. Only 19 guys under 2:25 in 2015.

Those are crazy differences. Almost another species.

Sure are.

Regarding fewer marathons back then, I was a bit surprised to read that. I started following running in the very late 70s, and it sure seemed like there were a lot of small marathons (and won in fast times, by today's US sub-elite standards).

But even if there are more today, pretty darn sure it's not enough to (come close to) accounting for the numbers above.

Actually it was new standards agreed to by Ted Corbitt and Ken Young during the early 80's.

The wording of measurement guide lines changed over the years. The runners--- probable path--prudent path- shortest possible path were some I seem to remember plus the short course protection factor (or perceived accuracy test) changed. At one point (I'm thinking early 60s) the plus/minus might have been as much as 200 yards at marathon. I also (50s perhaps) remember some thing like distance equal to X seconds(5,10,20,30) of running time at Y per minute pace (WR pace?) as a guideline for road races with X&Y varying by race distance.

Little things like a storm/sewer grate on a pivotal corner some would say you measure from where the runner would actually run others saying even though a runner would not step on those wide spaced drain bars you still should measure from the curb and roadway boundary. Figuring out the best path when there are a number of consecutive turns ,some not being visible when the runner starts the series of turns. Couple feet here, couple meters there and you build up an impactful distance.

Poster David Katz is the current and long serving IAAF Technical Committee Rep from the USA and he started doing this stuff in the 1970s working with Ted C and others. He might be able to trace the history of the measuring philosophies and rules historically for us.

I have lived in NYC since 1976 and been part of the "running community" here since around 1980.

There were far more sub-elite runners trying to be as good as their B+ talents could make them back in the '80s than there are now. There are effectively none now.

There were bunches of running club guys doing marathons in the 2:23 to 2:26 range. Now there are virtually none. It's just not a big part of the "running culture" anymore. Something just under 2:40 would be considered awesome, a 2:55 would be considered kind of awesome.

Ashlagi wrote:

This in an Israeli website (shvoong.co.il):

Top 100 men in NYC marathon 2015, so much slower than to 100 men in 1982.

Why?

http://cdn.shvoong.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A7-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%92%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-2015-%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%AA-19822.pdf

Btw, the 1972 U.S. Olympics 5000 is the second fastest on record. Any race that does not have pacers will have different times. The athletes focused on winning NYCM want to win and are not focused on time.

Fentrekker wrote:

Only 1981? I have a NYCRR publication from 1988 celebrating Steve Jones victory on a "newly measured course". I am willing to be corrected, but I was going by what I considered to be a pretty reliable source.

How did you come to the conclusion that a "newly remeasured course" is the equivalent of "short"?

There are less sub elite guys because the entry cost is like $255! What guy that lives paycheck to paycheck and trains to win wants to blow half of his racing budget on a race that he has no chance of winning?

swifter wrote:

47 guys under 2:20 in 1982. Only 13 guys under 2:20 in 2015.

93 guys under 2:25 in 1982. Only 19 guys under 2:25 in 2015.

Those are crazy differences. Almost another species.

I really think that the average 2:20 marathoner would prefer to go somewhere else to try and run a fast time these days.

How many under 2:20 and 2:25 at Chicago this year?

Back in the 70s to 80s, the big debate was whether marathoners could train full time or had to work a day job. These were also the days of the AAU and no pros in the Olympics. It was generally the feeling that anyone could work hard and become an elite runner without having a sponsor or elite training group. People just went out and trained hard and raced hard.

Now, everyone thinks that you have to have a sponsor and be in an elite training group at altitude or else you are wasting your time. Most guys who do not get any attention from sponsors or training groups after college will just move on. If they do keep running, it will just be for fun. So, the post-collegiate talent pool has shrunk since the running boom days of the 80s.

As for comparing the top NY times, that is like comparing pictures of a losing boxer. One guy may look like he got beaten badly, but really fought hard for 12 rounds and another guy who has few marks got KOed early in a complete mismatch. In some of the "slow" years, there were brutal accelerations on 1st Ave and a torrid pace through central park. In some of the "fast" years, runners pushed the pace early on the easy parts of the course and the surges were very gradual over the latter parts of the race.

Echidna wrote:

I have lived in NYC since 1976 and been part of the "running community" here since around 1980.

There were far more sub-elite runners trying to be as good as their B+ talents could make them back in the '80s than there are now. There are effectively none now.

There were bunches of running club guys doing marathons in the 2:23 to 2:26 range. Now there are virtually none. It's just not a big part of the "running culture" anymore. Something just under 2:40 would be considered awesome, a 2:55 would be considered kind of awesome.

I think the previous poster was correct.

There may be the same total number of sub-2:20 runners.

BUT...

Fewer sub-2:20 runner would run NY.

They would rather run somewhere else.

Ashlagi wrote:

This in an Israeli website (shvoong.co.il):

Top 100 men in NYC marathon 2015, so much slower than to 100 men in 1982.

Why?

http://cdn.shvoong.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A7-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%92%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-2015-%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%AA-19822.pdf

Because, according to rojo, runners barely knew how to train back then. Today's training methods are much more advanced, and everyone can learn them from letsrun.

Its just NY. If you look at Houston and CIM, times in 82/83 are comparable to what people are running in those races today.

Why has NY gotten slower? Because the price to run the bloody thing has gotten astronomical. To run NYC, you're looking at a minimum $500 weekend. Most fast marathoners are young guys in their 20s who would rather not pay that kind of money or can't afford to. Remember just to run its $255 and that doesn't include the cost of a hotel or travelling to nyc.

Teach, if you can run NY for less than a grand, I'd like to know how. For the average person living and working outside the New York area, running the race would cost ten percent of one year's take home pay.

Edward Teach wrote:

Its just NY. If you look at Houston and CIM, times in 82/83 are comparable to what people are running in those races today.

Why has NY gotten slower? Because the price to run the bloody thing has gotten astronomical. To run NYC, you're looking at a minimum $500 weekend. Most fast marathoners are young guys in their 20s who would rather not pay that kind of money or can't afford to. Remember just to run its $255 and that doesn't include the cost of a hotel or travelling to nyc.

I would say NY cost me about 2500 this year. That was using frequent flyer miles (from colorado) and not buying any clothing or marathon related stuff.

This is an interesting subject. Is it just the top New York Marathon times that are slower or marathons in general, since the early '80's? It would seem a question that could be accurately, but perhaps not easily, answered by reviewing results of all marathons in 1981 and 1982 (hard to find?) with those of 2014 and 2015. How do the top 1000 or 2000 times of all marathons run in 1981 and 1982 compare with the top 1000 or 2000 times run in 2014 and 2015?

My perception is that there are many more marathons nowadays than in early '80's. Also, that there are many more total marathon runners nowadays with a correspondingly smaller proportion of sub elites, but not necessarily a smaller absolute number of them.

Also, could certain cities that perhaps acted as "meccas" for sub elites back in the '80's (New York?) have yielded to other cities? Could there be a less concentrated diffusion of marathon talent throughout the whole country?

How has the "culture" of running changed over the past 30 -40 years? What effect has professionalization had? What effect has participation in track meets in Europe/the Diamond League had on marathon times, if any?

As others have suggested, the reason is simply the money! For a 2:20s guy (or even a 2:30s guy like me) to go run a "slow" course and yet have to pay upwards of two grand to do so, is a tad ridiculous. Especially when faster and far less expensive options exist. NYC may have become the greatest human parade ever, but it's not much of a race any more. I'll happily take my training and my limited income and go elsewhere thanks. PS I flew to NYC in 2012 to run. 24 hours and $1500 later, I was back home, bitter as hell but ran a nice PB on a local course instead.

Interestingzz wrote:...This is an interesting subject. Is it just the top New York Marathon times that are slower or marathons in general, since the early '80's? It would seem a question that could be accurately, but perhaps not easily, answered by reviewing results of all marathons in 1981 and 1982 (hard to find?) with those of 2014 and 2015. How do the top 1000 or 2000 times of all marathons run in 1981 and 1982 compare with the top 1000 or 2000 times run in 2014 and 2015?...

Click on (almost) any year to get a list of the top 200 marathon performances of that year. That is more of the pointy end of the list than you're asking for, but perhaps you can draw some conclusions that would hold true for the top 1000-2000 times for a given year.

2013-2015 data is not yet posted

2012, 200th fastest time = 2:09:40

2002 = 2:12:19

1992 = 2:14:22

1982 = 2:15:29

1981 = 2:15:44

1972 = 2:21:08

At the top end of the sport, clearly there is a lot more depth than 30-40 years ago. I suspect worldwide, that would hold true for the 1000th fastest marathon of the year or the 2000th. For US runners, I suspect the opposite is true - that the say 200th fastest US marathoner 30 years ago was faster than the 200th fastest today. I would base that assertion on the times US runners used to post at NYC and Boston.

One other thing I've studied is winning times at US marathons as well as how many runners break 2:20, 2:30; 2:45, 3:00. I only track about the largest 40 US marathons, plus a few others who have fast winning times. I have data for 2010 and 2013...

--2013: 11 US marathons won in 2:15:00 or faster, 182 sub 2:20 performances, 519 sub 2:30 performances, 1983 sub 2:45, 7425 sub 3:00.

--2010: 9 US marathons won in 2:15:00 or faster, 163 sub 2:20 performances, 519 sub 2:30 performances, 1811 sub 2:45, 6197 sub 3:00.

My "sub x:xx" stats are understated because I don't track ALL US marathons, but the study is the same for both years. And one other thing, my x:xx numbers include non-US runners at US races.

Citizen Runner wrote:

Just a guess, but if a runner is not in contention for the win or a high placing, then that runner is chasing a time and there are better places to do so than at NY. You could test this by looking at the history of the top times for all races to some depth.

Another possible factor is that, with the recent popularity of the marathon, the talent is more diluted between the major events. Moreover, there are non-major marathons that a 2:25 guy could reasonably hope to win and pick up a few bucks.

We would have to take a look at the top 200 US Matrathoners today versus 1982. But:

I still think more folks are taking the "Competitor Group" route and running just to have fun, finish-- and paying over $150.00 to be a part of a finisher's celebration rather then racing and training hard to run your best/fastest. It only takes a small shift to notice it and I think the shift has established itself well.

I also think more of us older folks had more time in the 70's and '80's to run the required 100+ MPW, doubles, speed work, and those non forgiving progressive runs---closing in sub-10:00 for 2Miles for example. Also, we saw Salazar on the front page of the New York Papers and on covers of national magazines and big world coverage of the larger running events both on the roads and on the track.

When Rupp broke the AR in the 10K (26:44) I could not find even a one line mention in my major newspaper the next day while.

Less people care today and I think that has something to do with it.

As a top 75 guy in New York in 1982, I have been watching closely over the years as top 75 in '82 gets you top 20 in 2015. I would have LOVED to say I was a top 20 guy in NY :)