The Current State of U.S. Marathoning:

I think we agree then, between 4-5 minutes total going from NYC specifically today and Berlin on a "good" day.

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

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.

Malmo's half-marathon PR in 1982 was 61:43, so I'm guessing that he was not exactly in extremis at 13 in NYC.

While the overall results for Americans were poor, I'm not as disappointed in Ryan Vail's performance as most people. This is only his third marathon and I think if he comes back to NY next year he will be around that 2:10 barrier. He's still learning the event. Everyone talks about Rodgers but he had several bad races before he figured it out. It takes time to be able to compete on the world stage, no matter what the geniuses on here say.

I agree though about the depth, it is quite poor. Even though a 2:30 marathon won't put someone on the world stage. It would be nice if the US could put around a 100 runners under that mark at the major marathons. It still wouldn't solve the top-level depth, but it would be an overall improvement.

Andrew Cramer wrote:

I agree though about the depth, it is quite poor. Even though a 2:30 marathon won't put someone on the world stage. It would be nice if the US could put around a 100 runners under that mark at the major marathons. It still wouldn't solve the top-level depth, but it would be an overall improvement.

One reason why the depth sucks is that it's a huge hassle to get into the NYC marathon as a sub-elite runner, and they're making it more difficult every year. Note the time qualification standards for the 2014 race:

"All runners who qualify in an NYRR race (2013 Manhattan Half-Marathon, NYC Half 2013, 2013 More Magazine/Fitness Magazine Women's Half Marathon, 2013 Brooklyn Half-Marathon, 2013 Grete's Great Gallop, 2013 Staten Island Half-Marathon) will be eligible for guaranteed entry. The remaining time-qualifier spots will be filled by a special drawing."

So say you ran 2:35 at Chicago this year, and you'd like to plan to run NYC next fall. Instead of knowing now that you're qualified (which you should be, as you would have been top 25 or 30 Americans this year), you get to hurry up and wait for this "special drawing," whenever that takes place. Your 2:35 is somehow worth less because you didn't run it in an NYRR race.

It's even tougher for next tier down. I was in the top 250 finishers at NYC this year, but did not break 2:45, which is their time standard. I now have no way to get guaranteed entry for next year-- it's the regular drawing for me. I believe those results won't be ready until late May, at which point a ton of the good fall marathons will already be full.

It's pretty simple-- when you gear your marathon toward meeting the needs of 4:00 runners, you aren't going to have much depth at the top end. Even if the general state of marathoning in the US were awesome, the NYC marathon's policies pretty much guarantee that the sub-elite depth will always be weak.

Why does a 2:35 guy deserve preferential treatment? He has nothing to do with the lack of depth 15 or more minutes faster.

If your reasoning is "the wider the pyramid," etc., then you should also give preferential treatment to 2:45 guys, and 2:55 guys, and so on, because by your logic that'll lead to more 2:35 guys and therefore eventually more guys in the top ten at NYC.

smd wrote:

Why does a 2:35 guy deserve preferential treatment? He has nothing to do with the lack of depth 15 or more minutes faster.

If your reasoning is "the wider the pyramid," etc., then you should also give preferential treatment to 2:45 guys, and 2:55 guys, and so on, because by your logic that'll lead to more 2:35 guys and therefore eventually more guys in the top ten at NYC.

The quote I was responding to was about the depth of the marathon and putting around 100 guys at 2:30 or under (as opposed to the 33 men who broke 2:30 this year, most of whom were not American). Think about that-- 33 men under 2:30 for a "world marathon major," and only 83 men under 2:40. (There were 250+ under 2:40 at Boston this year). That is pathetic. Getting more American men in the top 10 is a separate issue.

And yes, I would love it if faster runners got preferential treatment at every level, not just at the top end. It would send the message that the marathon is a race, not an event. I realize that running 2:45 isn't some great feat of human endurance, but at least it's racing. Does the NYC marathon need to keep cutting down on time qualifiers so they have more room for 5:30 marathoners? What is the point of that? They always say it's about raising money for charity, but a lot of the charity spots went unfilled this year. That bubble hasn't exactly burst, but it's slowly leaking...

I would have no problem with preferential treatment to sub 3 hour runners. What did they do to deserve it? How about ran three hours faster than a 6 hour person. It's great that they have their own goal and are trying to accomplish it, but one of America's biggest races should also be the most competitive. NYRR would easily be able to cater to sub 3 runners and still have plenty of room to allow slower runners in. There was around 50,000 people yesterday so theirs no reason 1,000 of those spots couldn't be reserved for the 3 hour mark. That's only 2% of the field.

It sounds like your definition of who deserves preferential treatment because they're racing is "me and anyone faster than me."

smd wrote:

It sounds like your definition of who deserves preferential treatment because they're racing is "me and anyone faster than me."

I think that I would refine that a bit. I'd say that those who deserve preferential treatment include me and anyone who is not too much faster than me. We really shouldn't be rewarding cheaters.

Texansvcolts wrote:

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

That is the current training mindset today, and honestly, it does not seem to work that well in consistently producing consistent US marathoners. All training and no racing makes Jack a dull boy.

I'm no insider at the NYRR, but I have heard enough stories around NYC running that I believe any 2:30 US male marathoner would be given a number, no problems.

Or at least sold a number at the regular price.

Almost all of the talent in the US is focused on the track. It is not until athletes age that they are moving up. This is the way that it used to be in East Africa until a few years ago when many athletes realized that all of the money is to be made on the roads. There is nothing wrong with athletes focusing on the track instead of the marathon and right now it seams like the smart move for American athletes. If you were in Rupp's shoes would you really want to take the risk of moving up and hoping you can compete with 2:03 guys?

It terms of what the American athletes who currently are running the marathon are doing wrong that is a little more complicated. I think some of it has to do with not doing enough marathon specific work. It seems like a lot of guys train hard but never really do many workouts that simulate the level of effort that it takes to run a marathon. This leaves them on race day hoping that they can put the pieces together to hold onto goal pace instead of knowing from their training that they can run what they plan to. Someone like Kipsang crushed 40k workouts at near marathon effort and he did not hope but knew he could run a 2:03.

I also see the weight of some American athletes as an inhibiting factor. If you look at someone like Vail and someone like Mutai it is pretty easy to tell which one has the build better suited to the marathon. To compete with the top guys you simply cannot have a single extra pound of unnecessary weight. It is no coincidence that the fastest guys are also the thinnest.

It isn't. I've run 2:38; I don't see why NYC couldn't adopt something close to the Boston marathon's qualifying cutoff for men (3:05). A 3:05 was good for 1,089th place this year. They couldn't let in 1,000 men and 1,000 women based on time (with some age adjustments for master's runners)?

And by the way, your definition of "preferential treatment" is pretty loose. I am just talking about the opportunity to run. I paid $255 to run in the race yesterday. I am a member of New York Road Runners. I finished in the top 250. I would love to be able to pay $255 to run it again next year, but I am not going to wait until May to see if I got in and thereby miss out on opportunities to run other races.

agip, I've heard this too. But I wonder why NYRR chooses not to advertise this fact on their website-- to provide simple and clear advice on how to get in? Everything currently posted about time qualifying on their website right now suggests that if you didn't run your qualifier at a NYRR race you should probably make other plans.

You need a 75k job just to be able to AFFORD races like the NY marathon anymore. The DIY foundation of running has been raped from us and sold back to us at price only the rich can afford. Mary Wittenberg should be imprisoned.

Agree also. They will put 'verifiable' non-NYRR qualifiers in a separate lottery. But I think all 2:35 do make it in.I was at the finish line yesterday, and all that massive infrastructure goes to waste for the first 3 hours (if not more). The NYCM is such a great event, with usually large crowds, the sub-elites should really experience it. Maybe you won't feel like a king (or queen) but certainly a price or a viscount.For women, the sub-elite status should be 3 hours and under.

What is it? wrote:

Question is - why are more runners stopping comp running after College? It seems in the 70s/80s there were a lot more who did the full time job + running thing. Is it that there are more activities (like crossfit and mudruns) that diluting the pool of future marathoners?

A general softness in society, plus Xbox, Internet, cable TV, a society that appreciates being BUFF, or RIPPED, or SHREDDED more than being an endurance athlete, and cycling and triathlon competing more for edurance athletes.

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

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.

Okay, so you're saying that the 2:08-09 marathoners of yesteryear like Salazar, Meyer, Beardsley et al. would actually 2:11 marathoners today on the same courses that they ran 30 years ago.

Okay, interesting insight.

The US is becoming stronger and stronger every year in TRACK AND FIELD. Collegiates see the marathon as a potential dead end that could take years to be successful in.

On the professional level there is much more support for an entry level pro in track. An entry level athlete who can get a livable track contract needs to only be able to slip into diamond league meets. Most quality seniors in college are right there so they transition immediately into professional track. Marathoners don't make a good living until they can place high up in races not just get into races.

Also an entry level track athlete can race say 15 times through the indoor and outdoor season. That's about 12 times more chances to make money than a pro marathoner could in a marathon season.

Here's my opinion as a sub elite - I am never going to run a race like New York in my prime. As a 2:22 guy I get nothing from going to one of the super huge races - except an empty wallet. Its going to be $250 to enter plus an additional $300 or more to stay in a hotel before the race plus another $200 spent on food and gas getting there. It would probably push almost a grand to run a Boston or NY for me since I have no one living in those areas to stay with. Contrast that with a smaller race like Vermont City which I ran this year, entry was free, lodging was free, I was taken care of with personal bottles on the course, and I came away with a nice chunk of change post race.

You're never going to see 50 or 60 2:20 guys show up to NYC to run because most anyone who is a 2:20-2:25 guy is young, fresh out of college and can't afford the rediculous amount of money it would cost to run these big races - but plenty of 45 year old hobby joggers can. It really is a shame, because the sub elite crowd - guys on the verge of running OT qualifiers - could really benefit from getting in a huge pack at NYC or Chicago rather than racing against 2 or 3 guys at mid level marathons.