Marine Corps Marathon 1988 vs 2017

1. The race logistics are ridiculously bad -- the worst among major US marathons -- and half the fast runners either stay away or have to loop around walkers and slower runners for 10 miles.

2. Its also one of the biggest fund raising marathons in the world and therefore attracts tons of bucket listers.

HRE wrote:

Course measurer wrote:

It's a common fact that courses back then often measured short.

If it's a common fact, could you cite some references showing which courses were "measured short?" And could you particularly show the ones showing that the Marine Corps" course was one of them?

I remember that NYCM was once short...

Let's look at the number of marathon options now v 1988. Pretty sure there are waaaaay more options and MCM bills itself as the "people's marathon" so maybe a lot of people shy away from it. (I ran it once and loved the tour of the monuments, hated that damn hill at the end though!).

So maybe those 2:5x guys are more spread out over a dozen marathons that take place during the time around MCM. Does anyone have those numbers for people each year running 2:50-2:59?

Take a look at the list of marathons in October at Marathonguide.com. How many of them were around 30 years ago?

http://www.marathonguide.com/races/races.cfm?Sort=RaceDate&Place=USA&StartDate=8%2F22%2F17

I think this can be more easily explained by the fact that triathlon has grown tremendously since 1988. In 1988 Ironman was seen as an "extreme sport". We were not that far removed (in 1988) from a woman crawling over the line in the dark to finish--the moment that I think launched the triathlon. Talent has been attracted to the sport. The cynics can say other elements as well.

Luv2Run wrote:

HRE wrote:

If it's a common fact, could you cite some references showing which courses were "measured short?" And could you particularly show the ones showing that the Marine Corps" course was one of them?

I remember that NYCM was once short...

You consider your vague recollection a source? And the time you "remember", what decade was that?

Luv2Run wrote:

HRE wrote:

If it's a common fact, could you cite some references showing which courses were "measured short?" And could you particularly show the ones showing that the Marine Corps" course was one of them?

I remember that NYCM was once short...

Yes. Very occasionally a marathon course was found to be short. But that's not a common "fact," which probably would more properly be described as a common occurrence. That people remember that New York was short at one time kind of highlights how unusual that sort of thing was. And while "course measurer" says he can cite facts that will bear out his claim that it was common for courses in the last century to be short, I doubt that he actually will because the instances where that's true are very isolated.

more women running the race now

yesss wrote:

more women running the race now

More men are running in the race now too.

5. It used to be about "running" a race, and not completing it at any speed. Back in the 1980's it was embarrasing to walk. The mindset was to slow down if you had to, but whatever you do, don't walk! Now, just completing a marathon or walking the whole thing is acceptable.

6. Runners didn't take "days off" or run every other day back in the 1980's, like they do now. Exercising every other day was acceptable for weight lifting back then, but not for running. Those who ran every other day were considered not serious or lazy.

7. Running slow used to be a sign of weakness. I remember running a 5 mile road race back in the 1980's at a 7 mpm pace, and someone who was passing me asked if I was just doing it as a training run, which was pretty much the same as saying that I was running slow. That caused me to pick up the pace and run as fast I could. A lot more peer pressure back then.

8. There were higher expectations to run fast back in the 1980's. One local half marathon would give a patch to everyone who finished in 1:34 or less. (No idea of how they came up with that time). Today, you get a medal for finishing, regardless of your time.

9. In the 1980's you needed 2:50 to qualify for Boston. I ran a 2:59 in 1984 and missed the BQ by 9 minutes! Today, you only need a 3:05. So, if you run a 2:59, you may ease off on your training, since there's not much else to shoot for. Back in the 1980's, a 2:50 meant you needed to train more .

10. Running slow was looked at as a sign of weakness. When fininshing a track workout, the times would be called out as the faster runners finished. Then the slower runners were told the days of the week, and the remaining runners got the months of the year.

11. We walked uphill both ways in the snow to get to school. Now kids ride things called buses.

Yeah...

I was running in the 80s too, though I was 14 when the decade turned to the 90s.

If the mindset was all about 'in order to be a man, you have to run a sub 40 10k' (or whatever the marker for a serious runner was back then), then I'm glad we have moved on.

I still run. My highest training mileage week ever was around 60 miles. I've done runs up to 100k. My dad, who was running 150+ mile weeks for a good chunk of the early to mid 1980s? He blew out his knees and took up road bicycling.

Part of what makes the current running culture enjoyable is that we (well, most of us) don't think less of the runners we are passing. Competition merely for the sake of beating others is not healthy. I'd much rather compete against myself, and my aim these days is just to get into a faster start wave at BolderBoulder next year...

That is why we are the greatest generation and your everyone is a winner attitude is why this country has no future.

Supply and Demand wrote:

Quality of fields have been diluted because option for marathon have dramatically increased since 1987.

Is that really the case? Even though the MC Marathon has more than five eyes times the total number of finishers from 30 years ago?

Triathlons, especially the Ironman, are not a good comparison because (a) the biking portion is the longest portion of a triathlon in terms of percentage of finishing time spent in the activity, and (b) bike technology has increased speeds dramatically since then.

You are also comparing the pros to the pros (if you compare the top marathon finishers of 2017 to the top marathon finishers of 1988 and you see a similar disparity); this discussion is about amateurs.

I may have some of the facts a bit off but am close. A friend ran Boston around 1983 and ran 223. He said he finished in the 60s and almost everyone in front of him was American. My personal belief is less college runners are sticking with it in a serious way. After all, there are careers and other interests to pursue.....

My anecdotal evidence of the slow down in top amateur marathoners is as follows:

In 1983 I ran CIM in 2:27 and finished 42nd. That time places significantly higher now days.

In 1979 I ran NYC in 2:42 and finished 242nd. In 1987 I ran NYC in 2:35 and placed 128. The 2:35 would easily be in the top 100 now days.

Wow a blast from the past! my first marathon there 1988 29th in 2:34, Sunday 120something in 2:59 . Mark Cucuzzella

Couple that with % and volume and recompute dumb fvck

In addition to what's been posted here already, there's some other things.

For those that can afford to travel to a big marathon, most are working more than 40 hours a week which hurts training. It's hard to have a life, work 50 hours a week, and invest a good amount of time to training.

Nutrition is also a key, people are fat and lazy these days. There's not many people who are healthy enough to decide to start running and able to run a sub 3 hour marathon with only a year or two of training. And as others have already said, there are more options for runners, it used to be just the marathon but now you can do a tri's, ultras, general road racing, etc.