Where did the American Sub 2:30 Marathoners Go?

I can't help but take offense to what you are saying. Number one I am helping plan the St Jude Memphis Marathon for this weekend and planning on running it. Hopefully running just under 2:30. I spent time sending emails out and posting on here trying to get people interested in coming to run it while at the same time training for myself as well. My wife has spent countless hours getting hotels for athletes, working to make sure they have what they need, and trying to train for future races.You are on here telling people that it requires work when you don't even know who you are talking to. I think you are just trying to relive your glory days.

HRE wrote:

My suggestion actually would produce a tangible result. We'd be one runenr closer to whatever critical mass we need to attain in order to get back to where we have hundreds of sub 2:30s and dozens of sub 2:20s.

But, it actually would require you to do something. And you don't want that. You want to sit comfortably at your keyboard moaning about the current state of affairs and designing wonderfully effective hypothetical programs which someone else is supposed to implement. When no one does, you can go on complaining that no one really understands how incredibly difficult it is for a current runner to get those required miles in. Youi want others to do the real work.

Of course you don't need suggestions from me. They'd all involve having you do something other than whining.

Why is this so hard? You want more 2:30 marathoners and faster, then put up a reward: Will pay $10,000 for a US sub 2:30 performance; $100,000 for each US sub 2:20 performance; $1,000,000 for each US sub 2:10 performance and $5,000,000 for a USer running a world record.

You'd have tons of winners.

But no one will put up the money, because 1) running isn't a spectator sport and doesn't attract the advertising dollar; 2) the government isn't going to do it because it's pretty damn impossible to spend tax dollars on such a low priority interest. 3) I'm not going to do it because I don't have that kind of money and if I did I sure wouldn't spend it on some guy so he can 'be the best he can be.'

There have been plenty of replies to this thread with excellent observations about why the anomaly occurred in the 70s and 80s.

But, can anyone make it happen again? I can't see it.

Actually, it's you who don't know who I'm talking to. That reply was to Outliner.

I agree with that completely. I've thought that a big fianacial payoff for decent times would have all sorts of people training like crazy. But I know that's not going to happen. My point has been that interests and priorities have changed in a way that reduces the numbers of fast and semi-fast marathon runners in the US.

There are many people who've tried to reverse that, Hansons being the most obvious example I can think of. But the numbers of 100ish mile a week runners you'd need to have in the US to get back to having hundreds of sub 2:30s and faster each year is so large that a few dozen supported runners here and there is not going to get it all done, though it's likely a great help to those few dozen and it is something. If we had a system like the Japanese do, where corporations sponsor racing teams and hire runners for part time work at full time salaries, we'd get much faster overall. But that's not happening either. Not here.

So it comes back to guys deciding whether it's something they want to do or not. There will always be a few who do, but in all likelihood, they'll be a decided minority among the running population unless something changes attitudinally.

The one change I would make, structurally, that very few people seem to like, (I've seen it proposed before,) is to raise the qualifying standard for the Olympic Trials Marathon to 2:25, 2:27, even to 2:30. I think that would stimulate a lot of 2:40-2:50 types who are semi-serious about the marathon to get really serious. A handful of those folks would surprise themselves and pop a sub 2:20 or even, rarely, a sub 2:15.

When logic fails, lie wrote:

Great, so the two most vocal naysayers (or shout-downers) are you, someone who has essentially zero insight into how competitive road running compares to collegiate running (post collegiate competitive swimming is nothing like either), and HRE, who gives every appearance of being woefully out-of-touch. There must be some secret bias fueling your negativity, as you clearly don't have the benefit of being informed.

Gee, look who's panties are in a bunch. I don't see how the fact that I personally haven't run a 2:30 marathon means I have zero insight. Being involved in running clubs, assisting coaches, organizing and competing in races for 15+ years is not zero insight by any stretch, nor does it leave me woefully out of touch.

I asked a college and former high school coach, just last night what he thought of the idea that gimpy ex couch potatoes and middle aged bridge clubs were scaring high schoolers away from running. That flocks of penguins in pink hats would send competitive college runners fleeing running like they had a bad case of the squirts. That the existence of costume contests with prizes caused people to hang up their spikes and bag their heads in shame. That a secret cabal of magazine writers were traveling the nation in a VW microbus painted with a "Speed Kills" logo scaring small children away from tracks and tripping athletes with their pacing signs. That race directors nationwide were making winners wear funny hats with fake noses at the awards ceremonies to mock and defame them. That purging the sport of these scorges and heaping the robes of kings, wealth, and adulation on competitors was necessary to rescue the sport from obscurity.

He thought the same thing I think. That's BULLS**T.

"The one change I would make, structurally, that very few people seem to like, (I've seen it proposed before,) is to raise the qualifying standard for the Olympic Trials Marathon to 2:25, 2:27, even to 2:30. I think that would stimulate a lot of 2:40-2:50 types who are semi-serious about the marathon to get really serious. A handful of those folks would surprise themselves and pop a sub 2:20 or even, rarely, a sub 2:15."

Finally you put out an idea rather than just shooting them down. Was that so hard?

Seems you finally understand the point of this thread. We all know that to have a lot of sub 2:30 marathoners you need a lot of 20 and 30 somethings running 100-140 mpw. The question is: How do we get lots of 20 and 30 somethings running those miles again? Thank you for making a contribution. Frankly, I agree with your reasoning for raising the trials standard.

Try asking someone under 30 next time. You might gain a better insight into the mind of teenagers and 20 somethings.

It has nothing to do with scaring people out of the sport, if your in the sport already and enjoy it the penguins won't effect you. If has to do with getting young people to start the sport in the first place.

If you want to talk to a former, but recent, highschool coach (well volunteer assistant coach), and a recent D1 college graduate with sub 2:30 ability about how the atmosphere in the road racing community has effected the perception and motivation of teenagers and 20 somethings - well I've already told said how I feel. Right from the horses mouth buddy - the atmosphere in the road racing community today is as much a turn off to my desire to log triple digit weeks (and the desires of many of my former teamates and proteges) as a week straight of 30 degree rainy days. Alot of us still do get out the door, but a bunch more would if things were a little different (that is if the racing meant something and wasn't the sideshow to all the other crap).

Build an escalator to the top of Mt. Everest and you'll have fewer skilled mountaineers making the climb.

Similarly, the distinction of running a 2:30 marathoner, when it's as esteemed (to the broad population) as running a 4:00 marathon results in fewer skilled marathoner making the effort.

"yeah, I summited Mt. Everest"

"yeah, I ran a marathon."

I'll jump in here and ask the following: Why does it even matter? There are going to be a very small number of truly elite athletes who can make a living off the sport and masses of folks who just do this for fun and personal satisfaction. Really, what does a cabal of 2:30 types do for the sport? I don't think it will make us more popular, garner more media attention or improve our international fortunes one iota.

If you are in between elite and Penguin, you do this because you want to. It is a personal challenge with no meaning related to God, country, or societal good. Nothing more.

A cabal of 2:30 marathoners does nothing for the sport at an international level. However creating the conditions which would produce a cabal of 2:30 marathoners (that is the conditions that would get large numbers of 20 somethings to take up serious training) would also create a smaller cabal of 2:10 marathoners. A rising tide floats all boats.

I am cgaites on this. I was a 2:24 guy in my youth and now that I am 40, I have no desire to get back in the game as a masters athlete.

I grew weary of the sideshow, the crowds, the exorbitant entry fees, the emphasis on marketing the "event" rather than the sport, and the general Wal-Mart consumer product feel that running now oozes. Once professional directors took over the bulk of road races and a started catering to the masses the fire went out for me. These days you see 3,000 runner events that don't even have a certified course. Some marketing geek drives the route in his new Jetta and calls it "close enough" to 10K and gets his permits from the city.

Real runners lost control of this sport years ago and I can completely understand why young guys with talent don't keep going. Running isn't real or authentic any longer.

I will, I'll be with two under 30 high school coaches Saturday.

So you're telling me that you, and many in your age group, are frail ego'd narcissists that can't be in a sport just to train and be a better runner? The attentiion must be focused on you and only you with no distractions from people you consider to be inferior? Is that correct? The nation has really sunk that low?

If we've indeed sunk that deep in a pool in self-gratification I don't see how "going back to the 70's and 80's" is going to fix anything. You're basically telling me there is no solution, young people won't run unless we give them something that's impossible to produce.

Running was NEVER the sport of kings. The loneliness of the long distance runner wasn't something someone thought was cute, it was a fact. The two mile was something your coach stuck you in when you were bad. A marathon was anything not run on a track. Distance running wasn't "cool". If you wanted to be cool you were a sprinter or maybe a miler. You did cross country if you were too wimpy to play football. Since there wasn't soccer, lacross, or x-games your only choice was chess club.

Races were done with popcycle sticks on routes that were rarely accurately measured (people forget consistent course measurement didn't come in until the mid-late 80's). People stood around after races and drank beer, getting their time from a check mark on a clip board. Road racing has ALWAYS been for the masses.

We can't go back because cities won't close off streets without permits, insurance, police, etc, anymore. Getting more people isn't an effort to drive costs up, but to keep them down and make the event possible in the first place. If we have to get rid of the soccer moms and aging gimps we eliminate the financial support, and the race itself.

Now maybe it is the need for self-promoting gratification that keeps more "low-key" events from happening. I don't see runners lining up to organize them. From a personal standpoint I confess that with the amount of work that goes into doing a race the way I think it should be done, I'd rather have 1000 people there than 100. I'd also end up having to charge about $50 a person instead of $15 to cover costs. Not exactly condusive to "back to the 80's" style races. I will admit that the guy that thinks the sport was ruined by "rich" race directors is likely the most out of touch individual here. Rich race directors are like Loch Ness monsters, there's lots of talk but no one has produced any evidence they really exist.

Maybe a need to take up a sport like golf that's not populated with so many limp-wristed whiners. A sport where people will spend hours at a driving range even though some duffer two cubes down gets to play the same course they do, maybe even in the same foursome. A sport where real men ply the links unafraid of being seen on the same course with the chain smoking office secretary. A sport where people still give a s**t even through there's a handicapping system hat gives each competitor a even chance. A sport of kings.

Rich race directors are like Loch Ness monsters, there's lots of talk but no one has produced any evidence they really exist.

RD of NYCM makes over $200K.

ne wrote:

RD of NYCM makes over $200K.

And you would call him "Some marketing geek that drives the route in his new Jetta and calls it "close enough" to 10K and gets his permits from the city."?

I didn't call HER anything, just pointed out to YOU that, contrary to your statement, there are some RDs who are handsomely paid.

First of all, drop the holyier-than-thou attitude and read the post above yours. That sums it up perfectly. Your misreading what I'm saying - I don't want being a runner to make me seem cool with my friends or girls or anything like that, I want being a runner to be cool (that is to say fun and appealing) so that young people might want to actually do it.

Why would I or anyone my age want to participate in the three ring circus that is road racing today(which doen't even really involve any racing)? Give me popscile stick low key events with real competition, other young people, an accurate certified course, and some beer and I'll be there in 10 minutes.

Give me more of this $80, everyones a winner, your all heros, please buy our dryfit/coolmax/lycra crap, touchy feely nonsense designed to make money off of soccer moms - Well thats why I really didn't think it was all that important to keep running after college in the first place. You get the type of participants you market for and right now in running thats soccer moms and couch potatos. Not much fun to me.

Road racing today is expensive and most of the time its not even a race or any fun. Bring back the competition, the focus on times and improving them and you'll bring back the young competative people.

Or just keep believing that you're generation was just a different breed and that runners today are just, through some miracle of genetics, bigger wusses.

"We can't go back because cities won't close off streets without permits, insurance, police, etc, anymore. Getting more people isn't an effort to drive costs up, but to keep them down and make the event possible in the first place. If we have to get rid of the soccer moms and aging gimps we eliminate the financial support, and the race itself."

This is bullshit. Somehow the USATF Pacific Association (PA) has managed to create a great series of road and cross country races that attract great post-collegate competition, are inexpensive, run on accurate courses, don't involve marketing gimicks like costume contests or mile marker rock bands, and are actually a fun RACE for all levels of ability. Somehow they haven't had to join the race to the bottom, touchy feely marketing frenzy to stay afloat. Not only that, but they also offer prize money, keep standings and rankings, and you get to compete against the same people week in an week out.

Contrast that with your typical $80 bullshit race where like three people show up who aren't planning on walking, you get 50 pamphlets selling all kinds of shit thrown at you in a "goodie bag", the course could be any distance within half a mile of the advertised distance, no one even gives a crap enough to even keep results, and you get looked at like you have three heads for wanting to know your time.

The problem isn't that there are slower runners, and I don't think they are inferior people (your words not mine), the problem is that road racing has sold its soul to get those penguin dollars - dollars which are not going back into the sport.

A couple questions came to mind in your recent posts. If we got rid of the "soccer mom" runners wouldn't companies stop sponsoring athletes? Wasn't that a problem in the 70s where most of true elites were having problems making enough money to train full time? I thought that was a problem back then. I am asking questions and not trying to bash any opinions, but if you got rid of the masses aren't you also going to get rid of the sponsors? The sponsors just want their product in front of as many people as possibleThat will decrease the numbers racing even more.Also, so of the greatest people I have met at races have been these "soccer mom" types or the type that gets excited if they finished 4th in their age group in a race with 50 people. They just enjoy themselves...not everyone has to be there to compete against a watch.

cgaites wrote:

This is bullshit. Somehow the USATF Pacific Association (PA) has managed to create a great series of road and cross country races that attract great post-collegate competition, are inexpensive, run on accurate courses, don't involve marketing gimicks like costume contests or mile marker rock bands, and are actually a fun RACE for all levels of ability. Somehow they haven't had to join the race to the bottom, touchy feely marketing frenzy to stay afloat. Not only that, but they also offer prize money, keep standings and rankings, and you get to compete against the same people week in an week out.

The problem isn't that there are slower runners, and I don't think they are inferior people (your words not mine), the problem is that road racing has sold its soul to get those penguin dollars - dollars which are not going back into the sport.

To answer your questions:

"A couple questions came to mind in your recent posts. If we got rid of the "soccer mom" runners wouldn't companies stop sponsoring athletes? Wasn't that a problem in the 70s where most of true elites were having problems making enough money to train full time? I thought that was a problem back then."

Its not about getting rid of the soccer moms. Its about marketing races as RACES, not costume contests or a weightloss plan. Sure you probaly will lose some soccer moms in the process because the main reason they are there is wieghtloss or costumes or what not, but thats not the goal. There is no need to eliminate anyone from racing, everyone who wants to race can line up right next to me as far as I am concerned.

Also the issue of sponsoring athletes I believe is a seperate one. Young people don't need money to get involved in running, it just needs to be fun and interesting and cool to them. Some may not believe it, but attending your moms costume party is not fun to young people, but racing your buddies is. If races were races again, even if sponsorship money dried up for elites (which I doubt it would, look at skateboarding, or surfing which are soley youth sports and have way more sponsorship money than running) you would see a lot more competative runners than today.

"I am asking questions and not trying to bash any opinions, but if you got rid of the masses aren't you also going to get rid of the sponsors? The sponsors just want their product in front of as many people as possible"

You don't need masses, infact you do a lot better with the marketing and sale of your product when you have a smaller, but highly invested demographic. Who has done better in terms of profitability recently, Ferrari or General Motors?

"Also, so of the greatest people I have met at races have been these "soccer mom" types or the type that gets excited if they finished 4th in their age group in a race with 50 people. They just enjoy themselves...not everyone has to be there to compete against a watch."

There is a time and a place for everything and everyone. However there is an ever expanding number of options which cater to the soccer mom, and precious few that cater to those who still "compete against a watch" (which is really the point isn't it). Make a few more events which cater to those who want to compete and more will get involved - the PA races I talked about above are a big part of the reason I picked up running again and am trying to hit sub 2:30 in February.