Historians, can anyone tell us why the 1985 Boston Marathon was so slow?

She claims it was very hot:

http://www.runnersworld.com/lisa-rainsberger-how-i-won-the-boston-marathon

Lack of prize money. Boston was late to the prize money game and most athletes refused to show up. 1986 was the first prize money year.

How you guys don't know this speaks volumes of your ignorance.

The athletes boycotted because of the lack of prize money. Geoff Smith returned only because he was the defending champion.

Prizefighters wrote:

Lack of prize money. Boston was late to the prize money game and most athletes refused to show up. 1986 was the first prize money year.

How you guys don't know this speaks volumes of your ignorance.

I too was surprised when I saw the thread was created by one of the LR founders ... I am 49, not much older than them.

Sean Norton wrote:

The athletes boycotted because of the lack of prize money. Geoff Smith returned only because he was the defending champion.

And lived in the area.

Sean Norton wrote:

Prizefighters wrote:

Lack of prize money. Boston was late to the prize money game and most athletes refused to show up. 1986 was the first prize money year.

How you guys don't know this speaks volumes of your ignorance.

I too was surprised when I saw the thread was created by one of the LR founders ... I am 49, not much older than them.

I'm sorry that you guys are mad that I'm not an expert on what happened at the Boston marathon when I was 12 years old.

It doesn't speak volumes to my ignorance. It actually speaks volumes to how well I understand running.

I figured there had to be a good reason as the results were way better in 1984 and 1986. And it wasn't hot in 1985 so I immediately asked what the reason was.

It's a shame that the BAA race history doesn't mention this fact.So don't get mad at me, get mad at the BAA.

rojo wrote:It doesn't speak volumes to my ignorance. It actually speaks volumes to how well I understand running.

No, it showed up something you didn't know, and that's fine. But it doesn't prove your running insight in the slightest.

rojo wrote:

Sean Norton wrote:

I too was surprised when I saw the thread was created by one of the LR founders ... I am 49, not much older than them.

I'm sorry that you guys are mad that I'm not an expert on what happened at the Boston marathon when I was 12 years old.

It doesn't speak volumes to my ignorance. It actually speaks volumes to how well I understand running.

I figured there had to be a good reason as the results were way better in 1984 and 1986. And it wasn't hot in 1985 so I immediately asked what the reason was.

It's a shame that the BAA race history doesn't mention this fact.So don't get mad at me, get mad at the BAA.

Um, it's history. A historian doesn't have to live in a different era.

Good old Wikipedia could have beeen a reliable enough source. You could at have asked this question 15 years ago.

I think Tom Derderian's book addresses it.

As someone else noted several other marathons offered prize and appearance money and Boston held out.

Rainsberger's win is 5 minutes slower than the winning time the year before and about 10 minutes slower than lots of years since. Notice the next year the winning time was back in line with subsequent winning times and Moeller's time from the year before.

While Rainsberger did not win prize money, she has certainly cashed in as the "last American woman" to win Boston. (Or as I like to say under my breath when she is introduced "in the slowest time in the professional era").

Tom Derderian is the premier source for everything Boston Marathon (perhaps better than BAA). He has written several volumes on the history of the event. "Boston Marathon" published by Human Kinetics in 1994 covers all races from 1896 to 1993 and can be used as a source for questions as this.

[quote]rojo wrote:

It doesn't speak volumes to my ignorance. It actually speaks volumes to how well I understand running.

/quote]

I actually lol-ed, did you not blush saying this?

You've hit a new low, rojo.

but was it really THAT slow relative to what the WR was at that time?

I mean if someone posts a 2.08-2.09 time today we dont say its a whoppy time even tho it is compared to the WR.

Prizefighters wrote:

Lack of prize money. Boston was late to the prize money game and most athletes refused to show up. 1986 was the first prize money year.

How you guys don't know this speaks volumes of your ignorance.

X1000

How dumb / lazy / ig'nant are you simps? Read books much? Ever?

oliverbrown wrote:

but was it really THAT slow relative to what the WR was at that time?

I mean if someone posts a 2.08-2.09 time today we dont say its a whoppy time even tho it is compared to the WR.

Agreed. It wasn't blazing but I don't think it was terribly slow. I think the bigger story is the gap between first and second and that was due to the absence of anyone aside from Smith who could get a decent payday elsewhere.

It was slow for Smith. He'd won the race about 4 minutes faster and was a 2:09 runner.

He gets kudos for trying to solo a WR in a non- competitive race.

By making this thread, it's now searchable on Letsrun and some people learned soemething new today.

For rojo, that's more useful than Googling it for just his own personal information.

Props to rojo.

Well, yeah, it was slow for him but he had no reason to run any faster what with a five minute gap over second place. Gary Tuttle, by the way, was a very good runner, I think he was 7th at World Cross one year, but his best distances were likely beyond the 10,000 and below the marathon.

Another day with a slight tailwind, made it feel much hotter than it was.

Smith went for a WR and totally blew up in less than ideal conditions.

HRE wrote:

Well, yeah, it was slow for him but he had no reason to run any faster what with a five minute gap over second place. Gary Tuttle, by the way, was a very good runner, I think he was 7th at World Cross one year, but his best distances were likely beyond the 10,000 and below the marathon.

He had no reason to but he was trying.