Sub Elites getting slower

I think there are a couple things that are going on with the running community.

1) RunnersWorld says it is a good plan to run 30-40 MPW and then go run a marathon. This has created a group folks that have the goal of "finishing" rather than running fast. It has also created a group/culture that think running 30-40 MPW is a lot of running. What most people think is a lot of miles is not...the old school method was if you were not hitting 80+ MPW you were not even training.

2) I do think there is something to be said for the number of races out there. The multitude of races have spread runners out, which dilutes the quality depth in most races. Even with that, I do still agree that the depth of high quality runners is not the same as it was.

3) Culture, culture, culture. It is more about participating than competing, nobody wants to put the hours/miles in that it takes to compete at a high level, especially if there is no monetary pay off.

If so many runners stop bemoaning the fact that age groupers to sub-elites are so much slower now, how about they stop whinging about it and actually go out and train to improve it instead.

philsophat wrote:

2) I do think there is something to be said for the number of races out there. The multitude of races have spread runners out, which dilutes the quality depth in most races. Even with that, I do still agree that the depth of high quality runners is not the same as it was.

In trying to remain objective and find the most "tangible" reason for sub-elite performance decline, I think this is it.

Last year, there were 1,100 marathon events.

Technology is making thing easier for us in everything we do today. It's making us weak in every way.

There are more cars on the road.. more pollution. People use dishwashers and microwaves to save time. also a lot more people eat out instead of making home cooked meals so the nutrìtion is not as good.

Technology for watching tv has improved and more channels. The Internet with abundance of informatiin has manybpeople spending nuch of their living lives trapped in this information internet structure. Phone communication with other people is made easier by using cell phones instead of land lines.. people text more then ever. There is less 1 on 1 personal communication.

Bottom line is that technology has made the new generation of people weak. This weakness is embedded in them from when they are young. Kids want to go go play video games instead of join the track team. They are living in fantasy land. Technology is taking over the planet.

The people/aliens who want to take over our planet are winning

not a chance wrote:

No one now or EVER considers 2:38 to be sub-elite, unless you are a woman.

Sub-elite is short for sub standard elite. Here is the definition for sub standard.

sub·stand·ard

adjective: substandard; adjective: sub-standard

1.

below the usual or required standard.

By definition, EVERY runner who is not elite is below the usual or required standard so I can jog a 5 hour marathon and by definition be sub-elite.

Not only is there more marathons there are more options. Back in th 80s you did a 10k or a marathon, very few halfs or other odd ball distance races.

There's a leap in your logic. You assumed that the sub in sub elite means substandard. In reality, the pre-fix sub really just means under, beneath or below. Not altogether inconsistent with your position, but it goes to the subtle nuance. See the use of the prefix sub in the word "suburban." It does not simply mean less than urban - in that case each area outside of an urban area would be suburban; but our language is more subtle and nuanced than that, and thus we would not refer to rural areas as suburban.

So, in this scenario, you have elites (urban), average runners (rural), and sub-elites (suburban - not quite urban, but something other than rural).

I expect this thread to be full of losers whose prime (14:30, 30:30, 2:30:00) came in the 80s and 90s when the US was a non-factor on the world stage, but these losers will say how awful kids today are at running.

1970-80s:

Elite -- WR - 2:12

Sub-Elite -- 2:13 - 2:19

Normal -- 2:20 - 2:59

Get Better or Give Up -- 3:00 - 3:30

NOW (according to me):

Elite -- WR - 2:12

Sub-Elite -- 2:13 - 2:20

Normal -- 2:21-3:15

The bulk of what is out there (90%) -- 3:15 - 5:30

It doesn't matter who gets shoe money or what races they win or don't win. The fact of the matter is not what you or I consider "below-elite" athletes to be, or how far below elite you would define that to be (for you that includes 30 minutes below elite, or more than 1:00 per mile, a person who would have a hard time breaking 5:00 for the mile). The fact of the matter is that marathoners (below the pinnacle of the event) have gotten slower and the ability at nearly every level of depth has dropped off, despite the US population being 226.5 million in 1980 and 324.1 million now {a 43% increase} marathoners have gotten slower at all levels besides the very top of the event (2:03-2:12).

There are fewer 2:15-3:00 marathoners in 2016 than there were in 1978, or 1980, or 1982, or even 1986. Put another way: the 500th, 1000th, 2000th and 5000th fastest marathoner has gotten slower in 2016 compared to 1975-1985. There is no debating that.

It's interesting that, in comparison, while the UK had a real similar phenomenon over the last few decades, it has started improving quite dramatically in recent year.

Just looking at the Power of 10, back in 2006, 250th in the country ran 2.42; while by 2015, number 250 ran a 2.36.

Similarly, if you look at the 100th, the 1000th finisher and the London Marathon - they have all got much quicker in the last decade, even if they are still well down on the golden days of the 70s/80s.

I ran 2:38 this year and I wouldn't dream of calling myself sub-elite. That said, I'm sadly top 10 in my city in the marathon, and this is a city with professional sports teams.

Nowadays, more sports are accessible to the average public; and as a result, there are less runners who train seriously. That's why sub-elite times are slower.

keep whining wrote:

I expect this thread to be full of losers whose prime (14:30, 30:30, 2:30:00) came in the 80s and 90s when the US was a non-factor on the world stage, but these losers will say how awful kids today are at running.

Back in the 80s we didn't have words or titles like sub-elite!! We also had never heard of a tempo run, a global positioning system in a watch, or a chip that would time your race.

Actually kids today are quite good at running (because they are being coached by the runners from the 80s)

Doesn't 2:38 seem more impressive now simply because more people run and understand that a 2:38 is fast compared to there over 4 hour time-back in the 80s "everyone" didn't run, so 2:38 meant nothing because they did not have their own slow times to compare to. Probably 2:18 meant nothing to most people in the 80s as well. Just be happy that your 2:30-2:40 times seem impressive to most people now!

Another example of what I am saying- 2:38 is no more impressive to the people on this Forum now than it was to a serious runner in the 80s. So the impressiveness of a 2:38 among serious runners has likely not actually changed

Illinoisphotographer wrote:

The Overexplainer wrote:

Regardless of what a race says, or whether there is a team out there that will give you free shoes, those times are not considered "sub-elite" by the most important body who decides those things: people.

People have decided that 2:35-2:40 is "sub-elite". Based on the "people", those times will get you elite entry to many smaller marathons and gain basic sponsorship.

Illinoisphotographer - Obviously, when The Overexplainer said "the most important body who decides those things: people", he means the lrc message board.

club runner wrote:

I was a 33 min 10K runner and 1:15 HM'er in the mid 90's and those times were ok for a local racer in his 30's, but would fare much better today at most local and regional races.

same. 32:30, 1:12:30 for hobby runner in late 20s altough those were hit a few yrs ago. i fared well at the local level. always top end of the non-elites, my sub 16 5ks (dont worry i know im not special) won a lot of races too. theres SO many races too now.

I'm a talentless 2:40 guy and I'm not complaining. It's cool to be able to place highly or possibly even win a low key 13.1/26.2 race. It's impressive to the vast majority of the population who doesn't know any better.

minong wrote:

I'd be interested to know from some of the older guys what they see as the difference between the 80's and now. At least finishers wise, there's more people participating than ever. For whatever the reason, there's so few 2:30's guys around. Even in the last 5 years it's seemed to have dropped off significantly.

There was more money available in the 80's to be made than there is today. There were a few 5k's but if you were a good roadie you could survive (starving artist) on regional 10k's, 10 milers and 1/2's. Regional sponsored teams existed but after the Olympic years 84, 88, 92 the funds would dry up and you'd be lucky to get equipment. The East Africans started coming over in the late 80's along with many Euro's and really started grabbing the low hanging fruit. More post collegians competed back then that's for sure.