Why was NYC men's marathon 2015 so much slower than 1982?

olympic trials in feb

I don't think so. I think it's more than that.

Top 100 in NY were generally faster in 1982 even than they were 2011 (except some exceptions such as Geoffrey Mutai breaking the course record).

The marathon has become much slower for the second pack.

Much fewer men going under 2:20 and 2:25.

Why?

The threat of testing for PEDs has got runners around the world spooked.

People thought Chicago was odd for having slower than usual times but this has turned out to be the new normal.

The athletes today are no better than generations ago.

Sí, they have technology advances that runners in the past didn't have but the tech makes human beings lazy so it ends up being a push.

Therefore it is not surprising that the times mirror what they were in the 70s and 80s.

Just a guess, but if a runner is not in contention for the win or a high placing, then that runner is chasing a time and there are better places to do so than at NY. You could test this by looking at the history of the top times for all races to some depth.

Another possible factor is that, with the recent popularity of the marathon, the talent is more diluted between the major events. Moreover, there are non-major marathons that a 2:25 guy could reasonably hope to win and pick up a few bucks.

Energy gels, energy drinks, shoes, heart-rate and distance watches, apparel, training methods, info (on the web), all far advanced after 33 years.

Yet still, much slower.

Has speed lost its charm?

Ashlagi wrote:

I don't think so. I think it's more than that.

Top 100 in NY were generally faster in 1982 even than they were 2011 (except some exceptions such as Geoffrey Mutai breaking the course record).

The marathon has become much slower for the second pack.

Much fewer men going under 2:20 and 2:25.

Why?

The New York City Marathon has been fairly consistent for decades. It is not an easy course, and it lends itself for harsh blowups. In the day there was not such thing as pacers or 2:06 marathoners, but when you added both pacers and 2:06 marathoners the times remained the same. Today the depth is abysmal.

YEAR 1st 5th 10th USA East Africans

1982 2:09:29 2:12:48 2:14:00 5 0

1981 2:08:13 2:11:36 2:13:23 3 0

1980 2:09:41 2:13:20 2:14:13 5 0

2015 2:10:34 2:13:24 2:15:49 2 7

2014 2:10:55 2:13:25 2:15:39 3 6

2013 2:08:24 2:10:41 2:12:03 0 8

2011 2:05:06 2:08:26 2:12:26 2 4

2010 2:08:14 2:11:30 2:14:07 2 5

2009 2:09:15 2:12:14 2:14:39 6 1

2008 2:08:43 2:13:33 2:16:37 4 1

2007 2:09:04 2:12:25 2:15:32 0 4

2006 2:09:58 2:11:24 2:13:13 6 1

This is the empirical evidence you were looking for. How would Alberto Salazar have fared against today’s 2:04-05-06 runners. Alberto takes 3rd on the raw numbers, most likely takes 2nd in a real race.

Same course, same weather conditions.

1982 No 2:04 marathoners in the field. No 2:05s. No 2:06s. Not even a 2:07 or a 2:08

2013 All of those 2:06 guys thought the Pulaski Bridge was Brokeback Mountain.

Year 1982 2013 2014

TempS 47 47 45

TempF 50 48 45

DewPt 30 32 26

WindSt 14 14 10 (27)

Wind1h 23 17 =

Wind2h 21 16 8 (27)

HM 1:04:55 1:05:06 1:06:55

1st 2:09:29 2:08:24 2:10:55

2nd 2:09:33 2:09:16 2:11:06

3rd 2:11:54 2:09:45 2:12:13

10th 2:14:00 2:12:03 2:15:39

20th 2:16:33 2:22:48 2:23:30

30th 2:18:10 2:27:37 2:26:52

40th 2:19:03 2:32:08 2:30:31

50th 2:20:30 2:34:56 2:32:42

100 2:25:45 2:42:05 2:39:27

#1 - In 1982 there were far fewer marathons on the U.S. race calendar. Especially in the fall.

#2 - The cost and hassle associated with today's NYCM is driving second tier runners to smaller, more affordable races.

Perhaps people just don't want to train as hard.

Perhaps runners are too sophisticated for their own good.

Perhaps speed is out of fashion.

Citizen Runner wrote:

Just a guess, but if a runner is not in contention for the win or a high placing, then that runner is chasing a time and there are better places to do so than at NY. You could test this by looking at the history of the top times for all races to some depth.

Another possible factor is that, with the recent popularity of the marathon, the talent is more diluted between the major events. Moreover, there are non-major marathons that a 2:25 guy could reasonably hope to win and pick up a few bucks.

This is the most reasonable answer.

Are today's better runners just choosing other marathons to run in besides New York?

Compare the top 500-1000 times of all marathons combined from 1982 to 2015 to see if people are running slower marathons in general.

We know the elites are much faster now.

Two points:

1) The NYCM course was short between 1981 and 1987. Probably due to repaving between Statin Island and Central Park, it got almost 200 meters short after 1980. That is why Salazar's wr from '81 was taken off the books.

2) The trajectory of the average winning time is down. From my perspective, it's silly to draw much conclusion between two years. Basically, this year was a sit and kick race. The final 10k was about the mile equivalent of a 50 second final 400 meters. Sometimes the race goes out fast--either due to weather or because of the aggregated instincts of the lead pack, or they are cautious and watch each other.

Final note: It *is* interesting that there are fewer guys running under 2:20 than in the past. Take a look at how many broke 2:20 in the '83 race. That was not down only to a slightly short course--it was a different era. We don't have as many folks in the 2:15 - 2:20 cohort today. Talent draw from triathlon, perhaps?

1. Testing doesn't help, especially now that the WMM are starting to do out of competition testing

2. No incentive to run fast as 80% of the money goes to appearance fees

Fentrekker wrote:

Two points:

1) The NYCM course was short between 1981 and 1987. Probably due to repaving between Statin Island and Central Park, it got almost 200 meters short after 1980. That is why Salazar's wr from '81 was taken off the books.

FALSE. It was discovered short in 1981.

Video games.

The course was found to be 150-160 meters short of the newly applied standards. This would only account for 30+ seconds @ 5 min/mile pace. Not a factor at all for this topic

Citizen Runner wrote:

Just a guess, but if a runner is not in contention for the win or a high placing, then that runner is chasing a time and there are better places to do so than at NY. You could test this by looking at the history of the top times for all races to some depth.

Another possible factor is that, with the recent popularity of the marathon, the talent is more diluted between the major events. Moreover, there are non-major marathons that a 2:25 guy could reasonably hope to win and pick up a few bucks.

This makes no sense. If there are 100 fast guys in the race it's irrelevant if 5,000 or 50,000 people are behind them.

47 guys under 2:20 in 1982. Only 13 guys under 2:20 in 2015.

93 guys under 2:25 in 1982. Only 19 guys under 2:25 in 2015.

Those are crazy differences. Almost another species.

Read it again...slowly You didn't quite understand his point.

Dopers! wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:

Just a guess, but if a runner is not in contention for the win or a high placing, then that runner is chasing a time and there are better places to do so than at NY. You could test this by looking at the history of the top times for all races to some depth.

Another possible factor is that, with the recent popularity of the marathon, the talent is more diluted between the major events. Moreover, there are non-major marathons that a 2:25 guy could reasonably hope to win and pick up a few bucks.

This makes no sense. If there are 100 fast guys in the race it's irrelevant if 5,000 or 50,000 people are behind them.

D.Katz wrote:

The course was found to be 150-160 meters short of the newly applied standards. This would only account for 30+ seconds @ 5 min/mile pace. Not a factor at all for this topic

Which years was it short?

Only 1981? I have a NYCRR publication from 1988 celebrating Steve Jones victory on a "newly measured course". I am willing to be corrected, but I was going by what I considered to be a pretty reliable source.