The Current State of U.S. Marathoning:

sp2 wrote:

... and the BEST we can do is 2:13, and 2:35??

When you say "we" it includes you.

But I don't think you were one of the we that ran 2:13 or 2:35.

This Old Man wrote:

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....

Yes, what they'll end up with is big hole between 2:50 and 2:15.

lightstays wrote:

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.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

RedShirt wrote:

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.

I agree with this. I think the reason we have such poor showings in the marathon is not a lack of talent, but a lack of interest and accessibility. I'm sure this has been talked about in other threads a bit but I'd like to say it again. Many of the country's fastest high school and college kids don't want to run the marathon because they think track is more prestigious/better/more fun or simply aren't allowed to run it because their coaches won't let them.

I will try to avoid speaking for everyone in HS and college as I am just one high schooler, but I know that my coach would never let me run a marathon if I asked him -- He hesitates to let me even run a ten-miler. I have pretty modest XC and track times (16:20 5K, 4:32 1600), but me and my friend with similar PR's have run 57:30 for 10 miles. I figure this translates to around 2:55 for a marathon. If you got kids who were actually good at running to give the marathon a go, who knows what they could run? You cant expect a high schooler to be at an elite level, but I figure that the best XC guys in the country ought to be able to run 2:40 (conservative estimate) for a marathon in their current shape. Now, this isn't even close to elite and I know that a marathon is a lot longer than a ten-miler or a 5K, but its interesting to think about.

Again, I can't speak for everybody, but I know that at my school, we run about 40-45 miles per week during xc season, less now that we're peaking, but that isn't very much when you look at what a real marathon training plan consists of. Obviously guys in college, and probably the top HS runners, run much more than 45 mpw, but I think that if we actually trained for a marathon, we could be pretty legit.

because college kids are graduating into crushing debt.

i got out of school, and worked through graduate school paying for it as a dishwasher and at a running store while qualifying for oly trials...

can't happen today

my kids are coming out of school with enormous debt, even though they had athletic/academic scholarships.

other than the super elite, we will never see depth in marathon in the US again.

you forgot to mention Meb, probably because you a freaking moron

A lot of us did 100+ mile weeks in HS during the 70's and we kept at it in college. That is why the depth of times circa 1982 was so tremendous. It was a brotherhood we were part of and where we came from. We trained hard and raced often. There were guys like Ron Tabb running 2:09s and he didn't scare anyone. Clancy Devery and Mitch Kingery ran 2:23 in high school. If it were the early 80's now, guys like Bumbalough would be doing marathons. We don't have high school or college kids any more saying, "I'm good at track and cross-country but I really love the roads."

dchi wrote:

There is absolutely no depth. I ran 2:25 in New York in 1981 and it was good for 106th place. That would be 21st place this year. There were tons of U.S. runners in the late 70's and early 80's that continued running after college, most with full time jobs. It seems like now there is a sliver of top runners and then a huge drop off.

I always wondered this, and think it comes down to there being a different demand and struggle on kids these days when exiting college. Any job today continually expects more from you with the same amount of pay. Finding a job today is much more difficult. The world level playing field is now diluted with international competition, even at the local level. There's also more social, lifestyle, and media distractions today.

I think all of these things play huge factors in to why the elite/sub-elite field is suffering.

I've heard plenty of stories from runners in the 70's about running 100+ mpw just because there was nothing else to do, so they would grab a few friends and go out for a run. Then they would be bored later in the day and do it again.

I would love to run 100+ mpw while I'm in training form but I could never prioritize my time to balance it without cutting other social ties to do it. Working full time is no longer a 40 hour work week. Finding another runner who actually has an interest in doing some of these runs with you is difficult, depending on where you live. Social cues, places to run, external stresses all make this difficult.

The 70's and 80's are a different time than today. I don't think it has anything to do with it being a lazier generation. But when you look at the time commitments and possible net outcome of those goals, it doesn't have the same benefit (monetarily or in a social hierarchy) as it once did.

Back when a 2:08 or 2:09 marathon was world class, we had American-born guys who could run that (Rodgers, Salazar, Beardsley, Durden, Tabb, Martin, etc.). The WR has come down 4 or 5 minutes since then (carrying LOTS of people with it), and our best runners still run 2:08 or 2:09 – and even those are VERY rare. What makes it even stranger is that in the last 5 or 10 years we’ve had quite a few guys run right in the vicinity or 13-flat and low-27 (and even a few subs of each) – significantly faster than Salazar and Rodgers and Shorter and the rest. But still, next-to-nothing in the marathon.

Off the top of my head, I can think of exactly TWO American born men whom you could consider upper-level world class in the marathon since Salazar retired – Ryan Hall and maybe Bob Kempainen (sp?). And OK, maybe I'm blanking on 1, or a few, others. But out of 300 million in 30 years ??