Can anyone explain why 2:45 takes 27th place at INC NY Marathon?

What 2:20-2:30 marathoner wants to pay $200 plus expensive lodging in New York City to wake up at 4am and spend 4 hours on buses and ferries before standing on a cold bridge for an hour before a race that he has spent months training for?

Especially when he could pay less than $100 to run a flat course in his own state. New York is just an expensive place to run slow for a sub-elite.

Here-Here

Marathons are just too damn expensive! For an elite runner who isn't good enough to get their entry fee comped, but who does already put a lot of time and money into running, it's very hard to justify spending so much to run these races.

That is not the only reason. Back in the 70s and even 80s there were a lot of runners willing to train as hard as Olympic caliper runners just for their own enjoyment and satisfaction.

There were no monetary gains, just the satisfaction of running as fast as you could was reward enough.

I was one of these runners, I ran 2:23 and was lucky to finish in the top 100 in the big races like Boston or NYC.

Now with big money in the picture, even a very good runner in the 2:15 range can not make a living on running/racing alone.

So there are many talented runners out there just not training hard because there is no incentive for them.

Just my 2 cents.

tacoguy wrote:

When was the INC NY marathon? It seems slower than the ING NY marathon!

INC.....ING. 27th place.....100th place. Pay no mind to the details.

categorically wrote:

What 2:20-2:30 marathoner wants to pay $200 plus expensive lodging in New York City to wake up at 4am and spend 4 hours on buses and ferries before standing on a cold bridge for an hour before a race that he has spent months training for?

Especially when he could pay less than $100 to run a flat course in his own state. New York is just an expensive place to run slow for a sub-elite.

Oh

I am just a 2:50 guy but you just made me realize. So true...

clamtackler wrote:

INC.....ING. 27th place.....100th place. Pay no mind to the details.

A Jewish guy named Iceberg sank the Titanic, too!

NYC is expensive, slow, and doesn't offer anything for 2:20 - 2:35 guy. You'll be no where near the top 5 - 10 and its a slow course. There won't be group of guys within your range your mostly by yourself.It's got nothing to do with the sub 2:19 crowdI ran 2:31 at NYC and the closest guy in front of me was 60 sec ahead, the closest behind was 60 secs. I went to Chicago to run 2:27 and I've had more fun running 2:29 at smaller races with more comp in my range.NYC is about NYC. Boston is about the Marathon. Other races are about running fast or great views or fun times. I look at the Verazono and Manhattan everyday on my runs and have no desire to run the marathon there.

observation wrote:

Don't forget that the US Olympic Trials are in 10 weeks. Not many Americans would risk doing something like this that would cause an injury, so close to the Trials.

Just a FYI. I totally agree that the fields are lacking, but this could be a good reason.

NYC Marathon is slow as shit course. dont race it unless you get money to do so.

the winning times were epic performances.

broken arrow wrote:

That is not the only reason. Back in the 70s and even 80s there were a lot of runners willing to train as hard as Olympic caliper runners just for their own enjoyment and satisfaction.

Now they are only willing to train as hard as olympic yard stick runners.

categorically wrote:

What 2:20-2:30 marathoner wants to pay $200 plus expensive lodging in New York City to wake up at 4am and spend 4 hours on buses and ferries before standing on a cold bridge for an hour before a race that he has spent months training for?

Especially when he could pay less than $100 to run a flat course in his own state. New York is just an expensive place to run slow for a sub-elite.

So true. There are many, many regional races that did not exist 30 years ago with more reasonable costs, fairly large fields and professional organization.

I love training for marathons, have run a couple dozen in the last 10 years but have never seriously considered Boston or New York due to the hassle factor especially those athletes' village concoctions.

Chicago's convenience for travel, the loop course and relatively inexpensive hotels(if you book early) make it an exception among the mega-events. The expectation of a fast time don't hurt none either.

The early sell outs are also a barrier to many folks who train hard. I can't register for a race 6 months in advance, risking non-refundable fees of $120 to register,

$250 to fly, and $200 for hotel when I know that it is not unusual for me to tweak something at least a couple times per year.

NY is a great race. They do an awesome job. It's New York City. It's maybe the biggest crowd for a marathon in the world. Every marathoner should do it once.

Plenty of sub-elites do the race. My hunch is that few of them go back. Someone would have to look at the results year-to-year to see how many sub 2:30 guys run the race again the next year. Once you take out the elites and the foreigners (who do it because its NYC) I bet it's a very small number.

Someone double check this for me.

http://web2.nyrrc.org/cgi-bin/start.cgi/mar-programs/archive/archive_search.html

In 1982 70 Americans ran sub 2:26 in New York

In 1992 it was down to 5.

There were no East Africans in the mix.

I'm guessing you could, at least in part, put this down to the explosion in the number of marathons.

How many Americans in total ran sub 2:30 last year and how does that compare to 1982?

Maybe back then, they were naive and thought NYC was the best to offer or the most lucrative? But then again , maybe more and more marathons popped up later (possibly a faster course?) so they got wise and decided to go that route? I don't know, it seems like NYC and the other major marathons are still lucrative these days. Now, I am confused.

categorically wrote:

What 2:20-2:30 marathoner wants to pay $200 plus expensive lodging in New York City to wake up at 4am and spend 4 hours on buses and ferries before standing on a cold bridge for an hour before a race that he has spent months training for?

Especially when he could pay less than $100 to run a flat course in his own state. New York is just an expensive place to run slow for a sub-elite.

I'm with you brother! I've run 2:30 and I tell that to people all the time whenever they ask me why I haven't run Boston or New York? They just don't get it cause they don't run themselves and if they do, they are "joggers." aka 5 hour Marathoners.

Maybe it's you who doesn't get it. You've got two races that the public cares about in our sport but many would rather complain that the public doesn't show interest in our sport.

I guess that makes sense. when I first qualified for Boston '78, the entry fee was thirty dollars, as I recall, perhaps three times what my Portland qualifier cost me, but a sub-3:00 got me in, no lottery or narrow window, no reserved spots for corporate neophytes; Later, it would take sub-2:50, but that was again fair. There was no circus about it. everyone had earned a spot on the line, (or slightly behind it,) and though my plane ticket was exhorbitant by today's standards, I was happy to take three days of unpaid leave from teaching and stay with a cousin in order to run the granddaddy of them all. I qualified five times, ran twice. It was a badge of honor, because I had to achieve my way in, and everyone knew it. Now, Boston and New York are distinctive for tradition, yes, but attract attention primarily because they are BIG, and have lots of money spent on them. Lots for the elites, and Sunday's race was marathoning at its best. Lots for the four and five hour runners, too, because they get to bask in the reflected hoopla. Not much for the dedicated amateurs, though. Not even many people of similar abilities to race against.

100th place on sunday and now included on an LRC thread, feelin official

Race is over but NYC marathon keeps swaggin me out