Where did the American Sub 2:30 Marathoners Go?

Perhaps its just timing of it being the fall before the window opens in Jan. for a qualifier. What race booklet did you get?

I was discussing this with someone a few months back and one part of the problems is that a lot of races will only let you in the elite field if you have run a sub 2:30. The guy I was talking with was making the point that the over the past 20 years he has seen a decrease in races that were willing to waive even the entry fee for the guys that were in the 2:30-2:35 range. They would be the one's who would improve to a sub 2:30. It is a frustrating to be running in the 2:30 - 2:35 range today since if you do toe the line chances are your going to be running in no man's land unless your in a major marathon.

Fuzzy wrote:

the one's who would

"ones"

your in a major marathon.

"you're"

Noted

i think your question provides the answer...

it used to be, "How come there aren't as many sub 2:20 marathoners anymore"

2:30 is the new 2:20...

No. Cycling, Triathlon/duathlon are the new 2:20.

2:30 is the new 2:20...[/quote]

Training mileage is way down. Lots of those 2:30 guys did 100 mile weeks pretty regularly. Drop that mileage to 40-60, which seems to be what a lot of "sub-elites" do now and you aren't going to get a lot of sub 2:30s.

timing?? wrote:

Perhaps its just timing of it being the fall before the window opens in Jan. for a qualifier. What race booklet did you get?

i re-read my post. it was a little confusing on this. i ran the lakefront marathon in milwaukee last month and just received the booklet they send out with all the results in it. the booklet also had a list of the 100 best times ever at the race. of those 100 times, the vast majority seemed to be from the mid 80s. (the race is 25 years old).

putting aside the "big" marathons, a 2:30 would win a large number of marathons in this country.

we have 10s of 1000s of new marathoners, but they all came in on the bottom half of the bell curve - shifting it over.

i just do not understand what changed.

It went from sporting event to charity event.

And for most of the newbies it is about crossing the line not pushing one's limits to see just how fast you can get to the line.

Also I would suspect that there are a lot more marathons out there now than compared to the 80s.

Fuzzy wrote:

It went from sporting event to charity event.

And for most of the newbies it is about crossing the line not pushing one's limits to see just how fast you can get to the line.

Also I would suspect that there are a lot more marathons out there now than compared to the 80s.

i agree that happened. but that just should have slowed the AVERAGE time. it does not explain where the fast runners went.

at the same time the 2:30 marathoners went away as well.

did the influx of new marathoners somehow change the event in such a way that many of the better runners simply decided to do something else?

when the kenyans started running the marathon in large numbers, a lot of the american runners were psyched out and quit. also at one time everyone from the half mile to the mile to the steeplers and 5 and 10k runners and cross country specialist's used to run a marathon as part of the base, example snell ran a marathon 6 weeks before his 144.3 half mile record, mary decker ran a marathon at age 12, nowadays a lot of american runners dont run a marathon until they have gone years without running personal best for their specialty, meaning they are trying their first marathon when they are washed up as a runner.

Well I think for a lot of the guys it comes down to money.

Over the years the cost to run has gone up (Shoes, entry fees, etc.) and with the time it takes to train to run a sub 2:30 you eventually end up asking the question "Is it worth it?" Somehow you have to find time to train and work to support your running because no one is going to give runners in that range any breaks anymore. So these guys either have to just stop racing or train less. Because of the world we live in most of these guys just give in and give up on running fast since at most you get bragging rights. So I guess I'm saying that some of the guys able to run sub 2:30 are out there running slower since they aren't putting in the proper training.

I'm sure I'm going to get some responses saying that these guys should do like WEJO and put life on hold and train, but the fact is not everyone can afford to do that. And we as American's are soft and are unwilling to live hand to mouth just to run fast.

On a side note my college coach in the mid 90s use to blame it on the rise of soccer in this country. He would claim that the good runners were now playing soccer instead of running.

Fuzzy wrote:

Well I think for a lot of the guys it comes down to money.

That's certainly a factor when you consider that average wages/salaries in terms of real dollars (adjusted for inflation) are lower than they were during the Nixon administration. On top of that longer work weeks (50+ hours) are more the norm then in order to earn what it takes to live in a decent, non-slum area and have health care, a good, dependable car, and the rest that leaves very little free time to distribute between friends, significant others, family, entertainment (tv, video games) and the rest. To pull off that type of training without any sponsorship help, unless your parents or trust fund is sponsoring you, requires a lot of dedication and sacrifice, a relatively spartan existence, and it's understandably unattractive when you didn't grow up accustomed to such a life at all and basically everyone around you isn't doing it and has little interest in it, modern USA is not what you'd call a supportive environment at all. Not only can not everyone afford to do that, few actually WANT to do it.

I think a lot of people have said it fairly well, I will just add my personal experience side of it.

With the transition to having a job and a different set of responsibilities, the days of being able to run 80-100 miles regularly in a buildup are long gone. Now I am happy when I hit 60-70. Not that I'm bitching, you make the choices you do, but that (and age) is why I'm now a 2:30+ marathoner where before I was going for the mid 2:20's. Oh well, was fun while it lasted...

interesting thoughts from everyone. i just get the feeling we are missing something. most all of the causes mentioned should have been in existence in 1984.

i just dont quite accept we have the answer. i think it is more complicated than this.

i do admit, i do not know the answer, but, if i was asked, would give most of the proposed answers you all have given.

where have all the flowers gone ?

Donovan wrote:

where have all the flowers gone ?

Long time passing my folkie friend.

(I had been waiting for that post)

And good luck finding a 30k or 20 mile race to get some training in.

Anyone have a list of all such races in the U.S.? Bet it is pretty damn thin nowadays.

Off the top of my head --

NYRR has a 30k in the pre-ING NYCM Buildup, late Sept/Early Oct.

In the spring, there's a 20-miler or so in NH that times well for the BAA Boston marathon.

There's also a 30k in CT, in the Boston build-up phase.

In the fall, Minneapolis has a 25k.

There's the Fifth Third Riverbank Run 25k in Michigan

And one of my favorite races on Earth is the Long Beach Island Commemorative 18 Mile Run, in October in NJ.