For the record, I think it's great that folks are getting out there and running.  The fewer people we have who are obese, the fewer we'll have to pay for with chronic diseases such as diabetes and arthritis.

 

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.

Yes.  Even further towards the top, those guys who could run 2:30 or better were still going to have to deal with a dozen or more competitors who could beat them.  These days, you run a 2:30, you're likely to win (or be very near it for) anything small to medium sized.

My favorite 5K was one where 5 guys were still in a tight lead pack around 3 miles.  That was a lot of fun, much more so than an unopposed blowout.  The one-on-one duels are pretty cool too, though.

Browsing a bit more, I found that the 1980 Skylon winner was none other than Pete Pfitzinger. 

I haven't read through all the posts. I hope to eventually, but I'd like to toss out some numbers from the early 70s.

Summarized from the 1971 Marathon Handbook published by Runner's World:

There were about 2000 marathoners in 1970. Approximately 750 ran sub-3:00.

Summarized from the 1972 Marathon Handbook published by Runner's World:

Approximately 1000 ran sub-3:00 in 1971.

I couldn't find figures for the number of marathoners but the number of marathons in the US increased from 73 to 102, so I'd estimate the number of marathoners about doubled since field sizes were also increasing. If so, that would still mean about 25% of marathoners ran sub-3:00. I believe the figure now is closer to 2-3%.

The 1972 Handbook has an article titled "Taking the Plunge". Here's a very telling quote from it:

"Today, runners rarely go into a marathon 'cold turkey,' without prior long distance training. They lay the groundwork, do the 'hard work' of     building up mileage, in their training, They get used to the distances and the pounding of the roads by training long distances on the roads. Then the race takes care of itself - even the first race."

The article also observes that high school runners and up are marathoners even if they don't race marathons in regard to their training mileage; that marathon training is the norm even among non-marathoners.

This was an era dominated by Lydiard's thinking and high mileage, e.g. 60-80 mpw, was the norm even for many high school runners and even more so for road racers. It wasn't just the elite running that kind of mileage. While some of the differences between then and today in marathoning can be attributed to the increased numbers of runners, the change in volume of training and also in attitude toward training  is far more telling in my opinion. The average marathoner today isn't interested in that type of commitment. They have different goals.

 

I was in the same boat, except I said I would wait until until a sub 1:50 HM before I started training for a FM. Just 11 days until I toe that line.

Good luck! Looks like you've got some solid mileage behind you.

Your 52 week graph is what I'd like mine to look like.  If I could just get my body (and job) to cooperate. 

Maybe someone mentioned it, but what about age ?  Yes we're a whole lot fatter now, but compared to the "good ole days", many more older people today get out there and seriously rock.

Once the kids fly the coop and the whole work thing is out of the way, it's time to train seriously, not move to the old folks home.  These days, runners in their 60's still kick my ass.

MYA : IOW, it's not just the gurls, it's the olde pharts.

I haven't read through all the posts. I hope to eventually, but I'd like to toss out some numbers from the early 70s.

Summarized from the 1971 Marathon Handbook published by Runner's World:

There were about 2000 marathoners in 1970. Approximately 750 ran sub-3:00.

Summarized from the 1972 Marathon Handbook published by Runner's World:

Approximately 1000 ran sub-3:00 in 1971.

I couldn't find figures for the number of marathoners but the number of marathons in the US increased from 73 to 102, so I'd estimate the number of marathoners about doubled since field sizes were also increasing. If so, that would still mean about 25% of marathoners ran sub-3:00. I believe the figure now is closer to 2-3%.

 

The 1972 Handbook has an article titled "Taking the Plunge". Here's a very telling quote from it:

"Today, runners rarely go into a marathon 'cold turkey,' without prior long distance training. They lay the groundwork, do the 'hard work' of     building up mileage, in their training, They get used to the distances and the pounding of the roads by training long distances on the roads. Then the race takes care of itself - even the first race."

The article also observes that high school runners and up are marathoners even if they don't race marathons in regard to their training mileage; that marathon training is the norm even among non-marathoners.

 

This was an era dominated by Lydiard's thinking and high mileage, e.g. 60-80 mpw, was the norm even for many high school runners and even more so for road racers. It wasn't just the elite running that kind of mileage. While some of the differences between then and today in marathoning can be attributed to the increased numbers of runners, the change in volume of training and also in attitude toward training  is far more telling in my opinion. The average marathoner today isn't interested in that type of commitment. They have different goals.

It's a combination of two things; lots more people are now running and entering races coupled with the fact they are doing so from a far lower baseline of fitness / level of preparation than the runners of 30-40 years ago. Back then the vast majority of people running were runners or other athetes conditioning for another sport. The key word here is athlete. Now you have people that are very average from a physical fitness stand point signing up for marathons [or half marathons]. You can argue the relative merit of this progression but it would stand to reason the overall performance [race times] would significantly suffer comparing the two eras. It's possible there's as many fast runners now, because so many more people are running, but the overall quality across the board isn't even in the same zip code - not close. Outside of the elite athletes that have advanced WRs what other group of runners are running faster times than those from earlier decades? Are sub-elite times faster now, even with greater participation, then it was years ago? Outside of the major marathons [that attract WR holders] compare the winning / top ten finish times now vs those same races from the 1970-80's. If the quality of the very good runners is better now than why are winning times slower? The good runners must be racing somewhere?  Yet the average winning times [excluding the major road races [Boston, NYC, Chicago] are slower now then they were decades ago.

We understand there are many more races, just as there are many more runners, today than 40 years ago. But the fact remains outside of the elite runners there are fewer quality times being run in the top 2-10% now than decades earlier. If you look at prestigious races, like NYC & Boston Marathon compare the times for the top 100 runners. The quality isn't there. Yet these will always be races that attract some of the best runners from around the world.

In Tom Derderian's book "Boston Marathon: The History of the World's Premier Running Event" he comments on page 525 the decline of the good but not elite level runners. In 1983, with 5,415 starters, there were 84 sub-2:20 finishers and 80 that finished between 2:20-2:25. The average finish time was 3:02:41. Compare the 2013 race with over 4 times the starters and there were only 21 sub-2:20 finishers and 20 between 2:20-2:25.

I ran in the OHIO USAT&F 5k Championships several years ago. The winning time was 15:05, 2nd was 15:07 and 3rd was 16:01 and 7th was 16:53. So the talented thinned out very quickly. There were only 31 sub-20 times recorded, for a state championship race. 30-40 years ago it was common to see those numbers from your local church 5k.

It's not a matter of "blaming" anyone, just a case of comparing data while factoring in cultural shifts. Times have changed since the 1970's. Fewer people, across all levels of ability, have the luxery of running 70-100 mile weeks than they did 30-40 years ago. No one is saying the runners of today aren't capable of out-performing runners from early eras, they just don't have the desire or freedom to put in the work. Priorities have shifted. Most of the good college runners now are concerned about finding a job, not running a sub-2:20 marathon post-college.

It's not a matter of "blaming" anyone, just a case of comparing data while factoring in cultural shifts. Times have changed since the 1970's. Fewer people, across all levels of ability, have the luxery of running 70-100 mile weeks than they did 30-40 years ago. No one is saying the runners of today aren't capable of out-performing runners from early eras, they just don't have the desire or freedom to put in the work. Priorities have shifted. Most of the good college runners now are concerned about finding a job, not running a sub-2:20 marathon post-college.

Good point, Mike.

I find it amusing that we discuss this very same topic once a month it seems. And they come out with these "studies" telling us the same thing over and over... Okay, we GET IT! We're fat and slow and old. Thanks for telling us, Mr Researcher, we wouldn't have known this without your good work. 

 

I'm working on it, man.

I'm watching you, coming up fast...