Sub Elites getting slower

I looked up the UK rankings and I'm shocked that only ~200 men in the UK went under 2:35

The point of running the big three, for people in the 2:30s, is that you will actually have people to run with. Otherwise you're likely to be soloing most of the race.

Incidentally, total participation numbers are dropping now too.

2:35-2:40 will not reliably get you basic sponsorship anywhere. Sure, there are probably some store teams that might take a guy in that range at let him buy shoes at cost, but that's not typical. And even the lowest level of manufacturer-direct sponsorship (Brooks ID, Saucony Hurricanes, etc.) isn't available at this range.

2:35-2:40 will also not get you elite entry at "many smaller marathons" because most of those marathons don't even have an elite category. They don't care if you can run 2:35.

I generally agree that it's a bit sad, but I also think that the quality or size of a city is far from a reliable indicator of the quality of its marathon. There are a huge number of road races these days, but the competitive runners typically only run in a handful of them. If you look at the complete race calendar for a lot of major cities, it would be child's play to win 90% of the races in a year. But that's not really important. What's more interesting is how fast and deep the competition is at the top 10-20 races. I've been in 5ks where 16-flat will put you in 40th place, while on the same weekend, there are multiple 5ks being won in over 20 minutes. It would be a mistake to use those slower 5ks as evidence that there are no competitive runners in an area.

Runner1112 wrote:

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.

Please tell us which additional sports are "accessible" now and how that access has improved?

800 dude wrote:

Incidentally, total participation numbers are dropping now too.

Point taken. After my post, I happened to read this article, which, among other things, highlighted the drop in participation.

Some of the faster marathoners cannot afford the $200 entry fees. So alot of the good runners aren't entering these marathon races. It's only the cellulite infested overweight people who can afford to run these races

Evidence, as imperfect as it may be, seems to indicate that endurance athletes generally tend to do well financially.https://www.supermoney.com/2014/05/endurance-athletes-wealthy/

Entry fees to high wrote:

Some of the faster marathoners cannot afford the $200 entry fees. So alot of the good runners aren't entering these marathon races. It's only the cellulite infested overweight people who can afford to run these races

What's the incentive for sub-elites now? Races are super expensive and cater to the charity crowd, companies expect 40+ hour workweeks AND for employees to be accessible 24/7, and there has been an explosion of alternate forms of exercise to participate and compete in.

The fact that there's endless races (and very few of them focusing on attracting competitive runners) doesn't help matters

What has the incentive ever been?

I honestly believe that most people who are competitive runners - and by that I don't mean that they are fast, but rather that they have identified challenging goals that they want to achieve and train hard to achieve them - do it because they get some degree of satisfaction out of challenging themselves mentally and physically in ways that they do not get out of other things.

If anything, the fact that I have a very full professional and personal life has made running competitively more attractive to me than at any time since competing collegiately.

800 dude wrote:

2:35-2:40 will not reliably get you basic sponsorship anywhere. Sure, there are probably some store teams that might take a guy in that range at let him buy shoes at cost, but that's not typical. And even the lowest level of manufacturer-direct sponsorship (Brooks ID, Saucony Hurricanes, etc.) isn't available at this range.

2:35-2:40 will also not get you elite entry at "many smaller marathons" because most of those marathons don't even have an elite category. They don't care if you can run 2:35.

I was talking about store teams. Most of your smaller single-stores don't have them, but the multi-location ones sometimes do. From IL, I know of at least three in the Chicago area and have 4 teammates from college (DIII) who are living through the US who have store sponsorships for a club team.

And you are right -- benefits do vary. Some are singlet, warmups, and 3-4 pairs of shoes. Others are singlet, warmups and cost for shoes.

As far as your elite entry thing, you're wrong. Not all do, but some do offer it. Marathons that I've run via elite entry:

Indianapolis

Green Bay

Campaign, IL

Twin Cities (USATF Marathon Champs)

Ones where I've contacted the RD/Elite coordinator and had interest in running but had conflicts with work/got injured:

Quad Cities

Marine Corps (guaranteed entry, still had to pay)

Des Moines

Illinoisphotographer wrote:

As far as your elite entry thing, you're wrong. Not all do, but some do offer it. Marathons that I've run via elite entry:

Indianapolis

Green Bay

Campaign, IL

Twin Cities (USATF Marathon Champs)

Ones where I've contacted the RD/Elite coordinator and had interest in running but had conflicts with work/got injured:

Quad Cities

Marine Corps (guaranteed entry, still had to pay)

Des Moines

Okay, I won't pretend to know the policies of every race out there. But my experience (and research when I'm looking at races) has been different. Incidentally, Twin Cities has a 2:25 cutoff for competitive status (2:35 for locals), so that doesn't prove your point. Marine Corps has no sub-elite program, but during their first lottery year they denied my request for guaranteed entry, despite my having a time faster than 2:35.

I won't dispute the original poster's claim, but I will point out a couple of things from around here:

1. If you put any kind of prize money in a race, sub-elites come out of the woodwork to run it. It doesn't even have to be a lot, and, also interesting, the sub-elites I'm thinking of, mostly have full time jobs anyway, so they don't even need the money.

2. The local cross country race series we have here is by far the most competitive thing around. It is absurd how deep the fields are relative to any other regional race. Whenever I skim through the results of one of these races, I'm reminded that we do have lots of fast runners around, this series is just the only time they gather in one place.

Everyone has been totally anecdotal so far.

Is there any data from 70-80-90-00s about marathon performances? I'm not so inclined to condemn this runner generation based on 100th place in 2 marathons.

There's so many more races these days. You can run track as a sub-elite. Do any number of distances. These anecdotal stories of every race is slow now is more about the number of races. There's fast dudes all over. They just don't do the same race.

Also, there's a lot of fast dudes coming out of college with no where to go. No support. Time to get the club scene built up in this country so dudes have an outlet to grow post college.

I have a friend who back in the day was a 2:23 marathoner. He usually got a free entry into NY and that included hotel for 4 nights and meal vouchers. The year he ran it in 1987 he had to run a good race at Falmouth to ensure a secured enrty with all the comps. He ran a mid 36 min time for 7 miles and that was good enough for the NYRRC. How times have changed.

I think you hit the nail on the head, there is a lot more participation and a lot more races allowing slower runners to win races/age groups.

I am old enough to remember the old days and on a given weekend there might be one or two races going on in driving distance and now there are 10. I also think that the sport has become an industry in the last 20 years and that has encouraged people who would have never "run" a race to do so now. Where 25 years ago it would be rare that a non-runner would compete in a marathon after only a few months of training, it now seems to be the norm. I wonder if a lot of sub-elites can't get into the bigger races due to the races popularity or they just troll the low end races where they can rack up a bunch of wins.

not a chance wrote:

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

Sub meaning under -> then actually EVERY runner who is not considered elite would then be sub-elite. :)

Well, there are 5/10k sub-elites, and there are marathon (and half-marathon sub-elites).

Back in the 70's and early to mid 80's there were literally 100's breaking 2:30 in the marathon every year. Local races in SoCal would have several guys breaking 2:20, and dozens under 2:30.

However, you did not have meets like Stanford with 5-6 5K heats of guys running with several of them full of low 14:00 or under. If you ran under 14, you were in heat 1 almost all the time.

Maybe back in those day when you got out of college you thought you had a chance as an elite marathoner. So all those 14:00 5k guys would continue to run thinking they could be that 2:10 guy winning Boston. No 14:00 guy today thinks he's going to run 2:07 or better to win Boston, or New York.

And there just aren't as many local marathons for you to win or place high in that local race (which in 1978 might still have 30-40 guys under 2:40).

So, in my view that are far fewer good marathoners and road racers today compared to 30-40 years ago, but there are far more good 1500/5000/10000 guys in college and beyond today than yesterday.

I call everyone "subelite" who is not elite. Unless you were in an OG or WC final, or in the $ in a major marathon or DL race, you are subelite. Pretty much everyone, by definition, is subelite. And if you are subelite, it does not matter how slow you are -- 2:38, 5:38, whatever. If you are not making your entire living from your running you are a hobbyjogger-- you can flatter yourself with "subelite" nonsense, but that is all it is -- self-congratulatory hobbyjogger nonsense.

I ran marathons from 1972-1976. I considered myself sub-elite. Best times each year: 2:22:20, 2:20:07, 2:19:15, 2:20:50, and 2:28:20. During those years averaged about 120 miles a week. I was a full time student or worked full time for most of those years. Received about a half dozen pairs of complimentary shoes, a couple of paid trips, lived slim pickens most of the time.

I heard a very average local runner bragging about his shoe contract. Had to just chuckle to myself.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I heard a very average local runner bragging about his shoe contract. Had to just chuckle to myself.

Igy

I was a sponsored runner when I was 15!

The sporting goods store I worked for ( The Sports Shack) let me print a t-shirt with their name on it and I wore it at the local races I ran.

They didn't pay my entry fees but back then most races only cost 3 or 4 dollars.