I'm trying to think of a way to analyze this so that the analysis would actually mean something but the problem is that there are so many more races than there used to be. Let's say you take the top 50 non-professional runners in a given race. Well, that's fine except that 30 years ago, that large marathon you use in your analysis was one of only two marathons per year within a 300 mile radius. (Yeah, I'm just making up numbers but the idea is the same). Now, within that same 300 mile radius, there are 30 marathons. Regardless of talent level, some folks may decide to run a closer marathon because it's cheaper or because they prefer smaller races or just because it's closer. The top 100 marathon runners in that 300 mile radius will be spread out among those 30 races rather than all of them focused on a couple.
Isn't it what I've been saying from the beginning? Is my Frenglish so weird that no one ever understands a word I say here?
PRs: Boston Marathon, 3:27, April 15th 2013
Cornwall Half-Marathon, 1:35, April 27th 2013
18 marathons, 18 BQs since 2010
Labrat
Well, how I think you could get a valid data set.
You can safely cut down the area to a region (say the North East) and a season (say Sept-Nov)
Pull all the races from 1980 (or whatever you start point is). Actually finding the results here could be the hardest part of the exercise
Rank by time and eliminate duplicates
Pull the many more races from 2012 for the same region and season
Rank by time and eliminate duplicates (probably a harder job this time round)
Not a perfect data set, but should be good enough to compare the top few hundred at a given distance.
(undoubtedly the tail is longer/slower, but that really isn't the question)
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
Completely unscientific conjecture:
I counted 62 locals (Buffalo and suburbs only) sub-3 in that 1981 Skylon race.
If there are 62 marathoners in Buffalo in sub-3 condition right now, I will eat my favorite pair of Elixirs. Maybe 30, and that's optimistic.
It is great that so many more people are running now, but looking only at a selfish "how badly would I get smoked if I could go back in time to 1981", the answer is "pretty badly." Even without concrete data.
Completely unscientific conjecture: I counted 62 locals (Buffalo and suburbs only) sub-3 in that 1981 Skylon race. If there are 62 marathoners in Buffalo in sub-3 condition right now, I will eat my favorite pair of Elixirs. Maybe 30, and that's optimistic. It is great that so many more people are running now, but looking only at a selfish "how badly would I get smoked if I could go back in time to 1981", the answer is "pretty badly." Even without concrete data.
Agreed. But wouldn't it be awesome to have that kind of competition for every race? I would kill to have 20 or 30 (or hell, 10) guys to really race in local races. I'd give up the AG stuff in a heartbeat, because I know it would be a) a lot more fun, b) produce faster times. Race dilution means we have to get lucky that someone shows up who's able to give a good fight, or a race has to have a reputation or be a USATFstatechampionship type race to guarantee some horses. In 2 of my 6 non-marathon races this year, I had one other guy to battle. Fun, but damn it'd be awesome to have more.
Come all you no-hopers, you jokers and roguesWe're on the road to nowhere, let's find out where it goes
Is it possible that young men (I say men because we can't really compare women today with those of 40 years ago...) with a strong athletic fibre in them are now involved in more sports than they were 40 years ago? How many Americans were serious competitive cyclists 40 years ago? How many played soccer competitively? Are swimming or tennis more accessible today compared to a few decades ago? I'm just throwing some thoughts out there... I have no clue... But I have a hard time believing that we are slower as human beings in 2013, compared to 1970. Or that the will to perform is in less of us, compared to the past.
Smaller By The Day
That's why this area just started a championship race at the end of October. You have to place top 4 in one of the qualifying races to participate. Talk to your local race directors and see what you can do.
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
The faster time are getting faster, and there are a lot more people participating as opposed to sitting on the couch, so I agree with your post. I guess as a whole we're slower and less competitive though, possibly due to the wide variety in race goals.
Former Bad Ass
Or like some have said, due to the number of participants being larger, so the percentage goes down.
Damaris
Slow and steady never wins anything.
I've ran almost 30 marathons in my life, most fast ones in early eighties, half of them sub 2:25 with PR in sub 2:20. I've never won a marathon (I did win over 100 other races). I don't think that the top talent is slower now, it is just spread out to more races. I don't know any elite runner, past or present, who is pissed off because there are more people than ever running/jogging/walking in all the races. The same people who now finish in 5, 6 and more hours and slowing down the average were the ones sitting in the all you can eat buffets and dying in their early fifties 30, 40 years ago. So the average times might be statistically slower but seeing more people participating regardless of their goal is just awesome in my book.
Great post, Goo.
Will run for scenery.
Also, trail running and ultra-marathons are lot more popular these days. A lot of great potential (or former) marathoners are involved in these events.
Stupid feet!
Stupid elbow!
I agree.
Out of curiosity, why do you feel you must run a sub-1:40 HM before you run a marathon? You finished your first HM in 1:55, why didn't you wait for a sub-45:00 10k first, and then aim for a sub-1:40 HM?
Below 1:40 in the half should put me right at sub 3:30 for the marathon.
I don't want to attempt the marathon until I can get to that speed. It's a personal judgment call.
The 10K idea is nice, but there aren't very many 10K's around me. The half is simply an easier race to find.
Trail and Ultra Running User Group
#artbydmcbride
Gravity is pulling harder!!
Runners run
Let's assume that's an accurate conjecture and I have no reason to doubt it. Why are there fewer sub 3 marathon runners in the Buffalo area now than there were 30 years ago even though more people are running? I have a few thoughts.
First, we're fatter. If you go to a race these days, you will see plenty of folks that still ought to drop 20 or 30 pounds. Heck, you'll see plenty who ought to drop 50. Those pounds slow you down. Second, we're older. The average age at races has gone way up as boomers and post-boomers suddenly came to the realization that they were mortal and keeping themselves in shape was a good way of extending the number of breaths allotted. Third, it is now socially acceptable to be a jogger. The only people you saw at races 30 years ago were folks who were very serious about training and racing. Casual runners simply didn't show up. Obviously, I don't know for certain if that's the case as I wasn't running 30 years ago but that's the sense I get from folks who were.
Hmmmm. If you could find some marathons that have been around for a while and still don't have a lot of competition within a 100 mile or so radius, you might just get a reasonably accurate sample.
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).