Why were NY Marathon times so slow?

hobby jogging harry wrote:

SouthernSun wrote:

No good reason - except I am 84 years old and have had both hips replaced due to tens of thousands of miles running on pavement. Are those sufficient reasons for not lining up?

As I noted, I did run in 1981. 2:32:29 at age 44.

So you're ripping people whose PRs are almost a half hour faster than yours. Gotcha. They really should look you up for some advice.

Nothing I said ripped anyone. I assume they ran the best they could on the day. But why did so many elites fall well short of their expected times on a day with such good weather conditions? Anyone can have a bad day. When I turned 40 in 1977 I ran my ass off in New York and ran 2:39. Much slower than I expected. It happens. But unlike the elite women, whose times on that course were good, the men, this year, in most cases fell short of expectations.

What also puzzles me is why there were so many more fast runners at New York 40 years ago. 222 were faster than I ran then. Less than a quarter as many were faster than my time this year. Again, that obviously is NOT a criticism of anyone; it is a simple observation.

Yes, the unusual conflict with Boston clearly partly explains it, but even in non-covid years, when Bodton is in April, the depth in New York is much diminished. My best guess is that nowadays there are so many other fitness challenges available to really competitive people that fewer choose long distsnce running.

Who fell short of their expected times?

If you are a male marathoner running between 2:20 and 2:50, and you don't live in New York, you probably aren't signing up for for NYC. It's too expensive (to register and to stay), the logistics are too difficult, and you aren't going to PR. I personally really enjoyed NYC when I ran it, but I lived in NYC, could sleep in my bed and take the subway to the ferry, and then just had a short bus ride to Wadsworth. Spending $1000+ to stay in Manhattan, waking up at 4:30, standing in line for a bus at Bryant Square, and then sitting around in a cold park for two hours before you stand at the start line for 45 minutes... it isn't exactly a recipe for a PR. It was a big race in 1982 but there is no way the expenses and logistics were as complicated.

roller coaster wrote:

Who fell short of their expected times?

I was really hoping Bekele would challenge the course record, yet he was more than ten minutes slower than his best time. Everyone praises Kipchoge - with reason - but they seem to forget that Bekele only missed by a couple of seconds from breaking Kipchoge's awesome world record. I wanted him to have a big race.

Also, with only three men under 2:11, surely there are several others who did not run up to reasonable expectations.

[I really appreciated your previous comment - noting I was just making an observation, not ripping anyone. ]

Your comment puzzles me since you say that the relatively fast - 2:20-2:50 - Americans were the only ones to have an incentive to run New York, despite all the costs and logistical challenges. But it was exactly those guys who did NOT show up in large numbers.

I do agree with you that the the costs and logistics for out-of-towners are daunting. I would think they are daunting even for locals. The entry fee in 1981 was $12. And, while I flew up from Florida, I stayed with my brother on Long Island, where we grew up. And he drove me right to the starting line. The bridge was open until only an hour or so before the start. I would hate today's hassle of buses and arriving hours before the race on a cold day.

SouthernSun wrote:

113 wrote:

If you are a male marathoner running between 2:20 and 2:50, and you don't live in New York, you probably aren't signing up for for NYC. It's too expensive (to register and to stay), the logistics are too difficult, and you aren't going to PR. I personally really enjoyed NYC when I ran it, but I lived in NYC, could sleep in my bed and take the subway to the ferry, and then just had a short bus ride to Wadsworth. Spending $1000+ to stay in Manhattan, waking up at 4:30, standing in line for a bus at Bryant Square, and then sitting around in a cold park for two hours before you stand at the start line for 45 minutes... it isn't exactly a recipe for a PR. It was a big race in 1982 but there is no way the expenses and logistics were as complicated.

Your comment puzzles me since you say that the relatively fast - 2:20-2:50 - Americans were the only ones to have an incentive to run New York, despite all the costs and logistical challenges. But it was exactly those guys who did NOT show up in large numbers.

I do agree with you that the the costs and logistics for out-of-towners are daunting. I would think they are daunting even for locals. The entry fee in 1981 was $12. And, while I flew up from Florida, I stayed with my brother on Long Island, where we grew up. And he drove me right to the starting line. The bridge was open until only an hour or so before the start. I would hate today's hassle of buses and arriving hours before the race on a cold day.[/quote]

I actually agree with you 100%-- my wording must have been unclear. Yes, I'm arguing that the typical 2:20-2:50 marathoner, unless they are a local, aren't going to show up to NYC. I think especially a 2:20 runner-- probably hunting for an OT B qualifying time on a good day-- it just isn't worth it.

Thanks for the info on the 1981 logistics. I had a suspicion that things were that easy, but I didn't want to assume.

The logistics of the way it is set up today make it a tough race, but I still think it's worth it, especially if you know a local you can stay with. It's the coolest marathon course I've ever run and I think if you have a smart approach you can run a reasonably fast time. You will certainly pass a hell of a lot of people in the last six miles.

Hardloper wrote:

Not what the OP was asking, but it is amazing that the average winning times in NY and Boston haven't changed since the 1980s, despite supershoes, East Africans, earlier start times

besides that Geoffrey Mutai guy

Coming back to the post #1:

if the weather conditions are fine, then the main factor is how hilly is the course. If the total elevation gain for the NYC course is somewhat 220-240 m, then you may virtually translate it into additional length by multiplying it by 2 ... 2.5. This means about a half km vs. an ideal flat course. Accordingly, considering the speed of the elite group to be around 3 min/km we get about 1'30" for those who fit well. Of course, for those really dying in the end, transiting to East Drive (mile 23) and even small hills in the CP may add much more.

Were the conditions perfect? Wasn't it a bit cold at the start?

I think it's been answered but having all of the majors in the fall & a smaller than usual field size will contribute to the overall times. I think NYC is usually slower than Chicago when you look at 100th/200th/300th/etc because it's a slower course & amateurs looking for a fast time will opt for the faster course. The one year I ran New York had not so great weather, I didn't run particularly well, but that time still had me in the top-300. On a better day I finish in the 100s (maybe even top-100). Can't touch that at Boston or Chicago.

The elites took the same hit in terms of depth. We need to remember that a 2:12 in NYC is worth a sub-2:10 somewhere else (or very close to it). If the elite fields don't get going early, you typically see the race won in 2:08-9 with a big negative split. Top-end elites care about time to an extent but they are also racers who will want to preserve energy and get the big payday.

Also the first two 40-44 year olds were women?! Great! One was in the elite field and the other was Shalane Flanagan. Women are good at running. I hate to break that news to you.

colder and wiser wrote:

International travel is still pretty dicey, so many runners from outside the U.S. probably didn't even try to show up this year. Then there's direct competition from Boston for the first time. It looks like if you had to choose either Boston or NYC, you chose Boston. In my age group, I managed to place in the top 30 at Boston, but my time at Boston plus 2 minutes would have put me at 6th in my age group at NYC. Boston had 7 sub-2:30 men in the 40-44 category, while NYC had 0.

This^. I was surprised to see that my Boston time would have been 2d in the age group at NY. Usually the top ten age group times are very close between the two races but this year the fast guys went to Boston.

Indianapolis monumental the day before had some impressive master times. A 49 year old ran. 2:33 and change. Fast courses are motivating factors. Tough to make the decision to travel to New York and go through all the logistics for a super slow course.

Salazar was special. I watched those races on TV here in England. The race was considered so important back then that even here 3000 miles across the pond it was a major event.

I was running back in the 80's, while the elite times are faster than back then, I believe the overall times are slower. In 1982 I ran a 2:39 marathon in Huntsville, Al at the Rocket City Marathon, that was good for 85th place in a field of about 3000 runners. In todays environment that would put me in at least the top 10 for a regional marathon like that. More people are running recreationally. Plus as has been noted, if you're an elite runner, you're either chasing the money, a Personal Record or both. London, Berlin and Chicago, are more conducive for those kinds of times. All of this is anecdotal, just an observational.

Old guy checking in with curmudgeonly observation having run 2:31 in 1980 at Boston good for 143rd place: The slow times, not just at NY but all over, has to do with a very different approach to marathoning. Put simply sub and non elite runners don't train as hard. They may not care about running fast. They are content to finish and put the 26.2 sticker on the car. I know I am risking becoming the caricature of the "back in my day" but the times don't lie and the training done by the serious club or recreational runners will not allow these runners to approach their potential. Each to their own.

kevrei wrote:

Old guy checking in with curmudgeonly observation having run 2:31 in 1980 at Boston good for 143rd place: The slow times, not just at NY but all over, has to do with a very different approach to marathoning. Put simply sub and non elite runners don't train as hard. They may not care about running fast. They are content to finish and put the 26.2 sticker on the car. I know I am risking becoming the caricature of the "back in my day" but the times don't lie and the training done by the serious club or recreational runners will not allow these runners to approach their potential. Each to their own.

yeah maybe but as many have pointed out, in the 80s there were *maybe* two serious marathons so talent was concentrated in those races. Now there are many good marathons, all over the country. Fast people used to converge on Boston and to a lesser degree NYC. Now they do other races.

And ultra running didn't really exist - now it has pulled off a lot of fast guys. As has cycling/triathlon and other sports.

And course measurements back in the 80s have to be taken with a dose of salt. I'm sure many smaller marathon courses were short. Certification wasn't really much a thing back then, except for championships/big races.

Remember once they measured NYC for real they found it was short and had to lenghthen it.

As a 2:30 guy, I'm not interested in running NY because of the all-in cost and crappy logistics. It's going to cost me about $1000 to run? I'd rather spend that money on a nice vacation. Hell, why not run Valencia for not too much more?

Other guys around me are choosing races like CIM, Chicago, or Houston in the fall, even though NY is much closer, because they're more conducive to fast times.