In 1980, the median finishing time for male runners in United States marathons was 3 hours 32 minutes 17 seconds, a pace of about eight minutes per mile. In 2008, the median finishing time was 4:16, a pace of 9:46. For women, that time in 1980 was 4:03:39. Last year, it was 4:43:32.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sports/23marathon.html?_r=2&hpw
more participants = more who just want to complete or just do one
Awesome article, thank you!
I loved the part about the "slow police" in Berlin picking people up if they can't finish in 6:!5.
I think that at the least, those "finishers medals" that are given out should be graded. Gold, Silver and Bronze based on your time, age, gender or a combination.
The around the bay 30k race (www.aroundthebayroadrace.com) does this.
That just tells you the slower set that was doing doughnut calisthenics in 1980 some of them has decided to do marathons today with the popularity. Is the top 500 any slower on average that is the question.
The slow police is a great idea. I don't think it would ever fly in the U.S. Lawsuits everywhere!You'd probably have lawyers running next to the BOP just waiting for slow police to take someone off the course. That would be an event onto itself!Are the finishers medals age graded too? I would say a 3:15 by a 50 y.o. is more impressive than a 2:55 by a 30 yo. (with a hypothetical 3 hour Gold/Silver graded break).
Happy Runner 123 wrote:
Awesome article, thank you!
I loved the part about the "slow police" in Berlin picking people up if they can't finish in 6:!5.
I think that at the least, those "finishers medals" that are given out should be graded. Gold, Silver and Bronze based on your time, age, gender or a combination.
The around the bay 30k race (www.aroundthebayroadrace.com) does this.
I don't get these people who do 4 hour marathons and are up in arms about how the 6 hour crowd shouldn't be allowed to participate. You don't see 2:05 marathoners complaining about the 3 hour people. Obviously, it gets a little ridiculous to close the streets of a major city so that people can walk down the middle of the streets for 6 hours, but boosting the egos of 4 hour marathoners (or 3, or 2) is no reason to cut off the participation.
According to Manthropology, the average finishing time in 1680 was 1 hour 47 minutes. The first European came in 21st and complained that real men wore wooden shoes and sometimes ice skates instead of the Indians' minimalist moccasins.
“I always ask those people, ‘What was your time?’ If it’s six hours or more, I say, ‘Oh great, that’s fine, but you didn’t really run it,’ ” said Givens, who finished the Baltimore race in 4:05:52. “The mystique of the marathon still exists. It’s the mystique of the fast marathon.”
That guy sounds like an ass. Plus he didn't "run" either.
What was the number of people running faster than 3:32 in 1980 vs 2008?
Except in a handfull of years 2:33ish would put you top 100 at NYCM.
I think it's great for everyone to do marathons.
Only thing that bothers me is the fatso who walks it who thinks he's better than me because I haven't done one. As a woman who runs 18 mins for the 5k, I'm pretty sure I'm the fastest person in my office, but I would never get the same bragging rights as someone who jogged a WHOLE marathon. When I tell people I run, the first question they ask is whether I've done 26.2, and they are thoroughly unimpressed if I tell them no.
Whiny Adenoids wrote:
According to Manthropology, the average finishing time in 1680 was 1 hour 47 minutes. The first European came in 21st and complained that real men wore wooden shoes and sometimes ice skates instead of the Indians' minimalist moccasins.
Hahaha! I like it. Don't worry, at least one person got the joke.
for your 2:46 in NYC in 1983, you get a handy 630th place.
make that two...
ming ding xiong wrote:
Whiny Adenoids wrote:According to Manthropology, the average finishing time in 1680 was 1 hour 47 minutes. The first European came in 21st and complained that real men wore wooden shoes and sometimes ice skates instead of the Indians' minimalist moccasins.
Hahaha! I like it. Don't worry, at least one person got the joke.
I'd just like to see races like Boston, stay as races
no charity tie-in's bring back the old qualifying times and such
nothing wrong with rewarding those who still put in the efford
let the DK's of the world hold participatory marathons
this just follows how life has changed in the US, in the past how you did at a sport/tast/work mattered ..now its all about just taking part and giving johnny a medal even though he didn't try for sh*t
seriously...during that whole Chicago fiasco people were doing the marathon with effing camcorders!!
+1 for time-based medals, no age-grading just flat out time
wiley old coyote wrote:
I'd just like to see races like Boston, stay as races
no charity tie-in's bring back the old qualifying times and such
nothing wrong with rewarding those who still put in the efford
let the DK's of the world hold participatory marathons
this just follows how life has changed in the US, in the past how you did at a sport/tast/work mattered ..now its all about just taking part and giving johnny a medal even though he didn't try for sh*t
seriously...during that whole Chicago fiasco people were doing the marathon with effing camcorders!!
+1 for time-based medals, no age-grading just flat out time
Boston hasn't had that quality in decades. There should be just one qualifying time to get into Boston.
I don't care how slowly people run the marathon; at least they are out doing something active. A 6-hour marathon is about 14 minutes per mile; that is a good, brisk walk, and for every 1 person doing that there are probably 2 or 3 getting one day closer to congestive heart failure because they don't get around to ever moving at that pace.
Do 6-hour marathoners generally put in some amount of training over the months leading to the event?
Because the only (or even most) logical alternative to marathons is being inactive?
You can thank Galloway and the Penguin for that.
The fact of the matter is that if it weren't for these slow runners there would not be as many sponsors for races. So runners would have fewer races to pick from and the races we'd have would not have the budgets they do. I say sign up as many of them as possible (just keep them corralled).
If you're running 2:20-50 you'll never see these folks anyway. Who cares about bragging rights? Only runners really know what it takes to run these times anyway. When was the last time someone said you, "Wow, you ran a 2:xx! You must train like an animal!".