Caretaker/Overlook Hotel
So, I read a weekly political rag called "The Week". It's pretty good. Mostly neutral but does so by regulating flow of both conservative and liberal opinions. (meh)
Anyway, it covers everything in the world at the surface. If you want in-depth, this ain't it, however I noticed it had a blurb about running in it and so I read it. It seems the WSJ did an article on this phenomenon stating....."The median U.S. marathon finish rose 44 minutes from 1980 to 2011. Running experts blame 'performance related apathy' among Millennials who think competing and racing against the clock isn't cool."
My take?? Bullshit! More people (more regular folk) are running marathons these days and pushing their otherwise couch-bound ambitions to new levels. While exceeding the aspirations of the average joe, they are simply not of the caliber that would be of a more "exclusive" group running marathons in earlier years. (such as the 80's). Consider that women have only been running marathons for.....what.... 50 years or so??
Anywho, if anything, I blame the article for failure to produce credible information but if nothing else, I think we can chew on it & shine a more intelligent light.
Randy
Edit:
After further review, I'm wrong. We suck these days.
Skirt Runner
I've actually seen a few articles recently from different sources complaining about slow runners "ruining" the sport. Does it really bother faster runners all that much to share a course with slow people? If people obey race etiquette and line up in correct corrals and/or waves, then they shouldn't affect the fast runners at all. That's one thing I love about running, I can share a course with elite runners and Olympians and run the same race as them..... just a whole lot slower! I don't see how people getting out there and challenging themselves and working hard offends anyone, as long as they take it seriously and aren't causing harm to anyone else.
PRs: 5K- 28:16 (5/5/13) 10K- 1:00:13 (10/27/13) 4M- 41:43 (9/7/13) 15K- 1:34:25 (8/17/13) 10M- 1:56:30 (4/6/14) HM- 2:20:16 (4/13/14) Full- 5:55:33 (11/1/15)
I started a blog about running :) Check it out if you care to
Antipodean
I totally agree with what you are all saying. There are people running today who would never have thought of running a marathon two decades ago or would have been too intimidated to do so. It is more inclusive today.
The president of my running club bemoans the fact that the fastest local runners today are not a patch on the fastest local runners of the past - and that may be a valid complaint. Faster runners today are spread among triathlons and other endurance events, and he's remembering our heydays in the 1960s when Peter Snell ran for my club and Arthur Lydiard coached. I kid you not.
Anyway, doesn't matter to me. I just keep on plodding on.
Julie
"It's not the mountain we conquer, but ourselves."
~ Sir Edmund Hillary
I've seen the studies.
I think the slower times are directly related to "bucket list" runners. Those interested in "running" a marathon, simply to say they've done it.
Back in the day, people built into the marathon after running for many years.
These days, many people start with the marathon, run it once, and never run again.
Sure there's a lot more participation, but many of those new participants are vastly under-trained, hence the slower times.
(No, I haven't run a marathon. I'm not going to sign up for one until I run a sub 1:40 half at the very least)
(Yes, I'm a new runner, less than 2 years running)
Trail and Ultra Running User Group
With the exception of elites the quality of all race performances have suffered in the last 30+ years. In Bob Glover's 2nd edition of The New Competitive Runner's Handbook [very popular in the 80's] the pace chart on page 601 lists 4:22:13 as the slowest marathon time. That now is the average marathon finish! The average marathon finish time back then was under 3:30.
I'm tempted to go search for my copy of Ohio Runner with complete results from the 1981 Columbus marathon to see where my 3:35 debut * placed and the last place finisher's time. EDIT: Here it is. Winning time; Jon Sinclair - 2:13:29 [which is still the 2nd fastest time for this race]. 3,400 registered / 2168 finishers. 3:35:17 placed me 1017 - very average performance for the time. Last place finisher's time - 5:41:36.294 of all finishers went sub-3. Outside of the elites only two [2] women broke sub-3. The bulk were from the men's 25-29 & 30-34 A/G. The percentage of finishers to go sub-3 was 13.5%. By comparison, my 3:28:13 in the 2009 Columbus marathon placed me 665 overall of 4124 finishers. In the 1981 race with only 2168 finishers that same time would have placed me 832. The winning time for the 2009 race was 2:20:45. The percentage of finishers to go sub-3 was 2.7%.
* I should add my debut marathon was hardly a race I gave serious consideration. It was a last minute decision. I'd resumed running after a 6 year absence, with less than 800 total miles run for the year. There was no training schedule, except a single 17 mile long run three weeks prior. My marathon pace was almost 2 minutes slower than my [10k] race pace - essentually a jog. Easiest of my 20 marathons completed.
Youth Has No Age. ~ Picasso / 1st road race: Charleston Distance Run 15 Miler - 1974 / profile
I think the article is dead on. Look at the explosion of folks using Higdon Beginner's 1 to stumble their way across the finish line. They don't give a rat's ass about performance. For that matter, look at folks who run 10-15 marathons a year. There is no way you can run that many marathons and perform well in them. A marathon has become more of an event than a race.
I'm not making a value judgement. I just think it's a reality that few people do what is needed to maximize their performance in a marathon by putting in 70+ mile weeks and doing hard long runs, etc.
Short term goal: 17:59 5K
Mid term goal: 2:54:59 marathon
Long term goal: To say I've been a runner half my life. (I started running at age 45).
Labrat
Pulling from Running USA state of the marathon reports.
Well the very first thing that leaps out
1980 11% of finishers were female.
2012 42% were female
Median age up from 34M 31F (1980) to 40M 35F
Number of runners 143 000 to 487 000
~127 000 men in 1980 and 16 000 women
~253 000 men in 2012 and 234 000 women
The median for each has dropped (1980 was 3:32M and 4:03F, to 2012 4:17M and 4:42F)
I'd argue that the single biggest factor in overall averages/median is the gender ratio.
(About 30 mins increase in each gender's median, but getting on for a 40-45 min increases in the median due to more women participating)
More women running, is a good thing in my book no matter what effect it has on the median times.
(Being a slow and overweight male, I also think more of us should be out there working out as well)
2012 was slightly faster than 2006, 2007 and 2008 with more people participating
5K 20:23 (Vdot 48.7) 9/9/17
10K 44:06 (Vdot 46.3) 3/11/17
HM 1:33:48 (Vdot 48.6) 11/11/17
FM 4:13:43 (Vdot 35.4) 3/4/18
Hip Redux
Damn, women ruin EVERYTHING.
delicate flower
After reading all of this, all I can really say is, "Huh."
<3
I think the article is dead on. Look at the explosion of folks using Higdon Beginner's 1 to stumble their way across the finish line. They don't give a rat's ass about performance. For that matter, look at folks who run 10-15 marathons a year. There is no way you can run that many marathons and perform well in them. A marathon has become more of an event than a race. I'm not making a value judgement. I just think it's a reality that few people do what is needed to maximize their performance in a marathon by putting in 70+ mile weeks and doing hard long runs, etc.
Since 1981 I've started 21 marathons, completed 20. Due in part to the very low mileage [<900 mpy] for my 1st 4 marathons and even when I doubled that mileage in the '90s my marathon prep / race effort / recovery didn't encourage multiple marathons. It's only been in the last 5 years I've averaged >3000 mpy. Which, ironically, I've only run two marathons during that span. My goal, for the most part, was to run the marathon, like all of my events, to the best of my ability. Even running high mileage I would be hard pressed to do that if I ran more than two [2] per year.
I would agree with the 2nd statement. Of my 21 marathon attempts I only gave myself a chance to approach my potential in 6 races, and all of those happen to be my BQ marathons. The other BQ marathon, ironically my Master PB, was based more on performance gains in shorter events + overall mileage than adequete / specific preparation. And with the exception of my 1st BQ I felt extremely confident I would qualify the morning of the race. I'd run the volume, the speed work and the hills. I knew it was in me.
BQ
* Majority of my sub-par marathons were due to injury or illness. These two races remain a mystery to me. The 4:30:23 was the Nor'Easter @ Boston but that alone doesn't explain why I ran so poorly.
Smaller By The Day
It's not just the increase in participation, but the increase in races. The top talent is spread out. Indianapolis now has 2 marathons just a couple weeks apart. Before the boom in participation, the top guys and gals from this area would be in Chicago or traveling to New York. People like Andy Williams can take his sub 2:30 and find a winnable race, rather than going to a race filled with International talent.
Improvements
Weight 100 pounds lost
5K 31:02 Sept. 2012 / 23:36 Sept. 2013 (Same Course)
10K 48:59 April 2013
HM 2:03:56 Nov. 2012 / 1:46:50 March 2013
MARATHON 3:57:33 Nov. 2013
I'd like to commission a study to understand why people care so much about other people's motivations in the same hobby they partake in.
I'd follow that up with a study on why those same people care so much about why others may not really care about their finish times.
But more than likely I'm just going to run and do my thing and not worry so much about what anybody else may be doing. I am going to enjoy the increase in popularity of running and all the people it brings as there are more opportunities to race today than there were 10-15 years ago and ultimately that is a good thing.
ding ding ding
I'd like to commission a study to understand why people care so much about other people's motivations in the same hobby they partake in. I'd follow that up with a study on why those same people care so much about why others may not really care about their finish times. But more than likely I'm just going to run and do my thing and not worry so much about what anybody else may be doing. I am going to enjoy the increase in popularity of running and all the people it brings as there are more opportunities to race today than there were 10-15 years ago and ultimately that is a good thing.
Fear is a Liar
Hey - there's more runners, they're slower, and they all get Finisher Medals!
Just let them be - they aren't hurting anyone.
I'm so vegetarian I don't even eat animal crackers!