Why were NY Marathon times so slow?

On your last point, I hope you didn't draw an inference that I was displeased at two women running faster than I had done. Far from it! I have a photo on my wall of Greta Waitz and me, shoulder to shoulder at about 1.5 miles in the 1980 Gasparilla 15K. I had gone out fast, had a good race, and won the Masters, but she destroyed me by over two minutes and set a then record of 48:01. I never minded being beaten by anyone, male or female, who was clearly faster than me. I did HATE to lose to anyone, male or female, who I thought I should beat.

The same with a lot of different activites since weve opened up from the pandemic. Restaurants, movies and a lot of things that we did just because we felt we needed to be in crowds or doing the next big thing isn't as important any more.

People are staying home more and doing more things around the house. Maybe even reconnectling as families and neighbors. We're saving money, more relaxed and maybe enjoying life alittle more.

Not a bad thing.

RunScotchSleep wrote:

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.

As a Master who ran Monumental, can confirm: that field was spicy. There were only 4,000 finishers, and a 2:43 was only good for 110th place!

greenandgold wrote:

There's an easy explanation for 100th place being so much slower than in other years — the NYC marathon didn't accept time qualifiers for this year's race. There were probably some people signed up for 2020 who time qualified and then deferred to 2021, but that means those people's qualifying races took place more than two years ago.

This is exactly the reason, plus only 24K people finished (compared to 53K in 2019).

Fair enough -- can't be too sure with folks on this website.

I think the 2:30 guy nailed it. It costs a ton of $$$ to run NYC & it's not a particularly fast course so you don't want your 1-2 shots/year at a good marathon wasted there. When I ran it was a logistical nightmare. Not as fast as 2:30 but was in corral A. waited forever to get on the bus downtown. took 2+ hours to get to Staten Island. took forever to get through really intense security. corral closed 1 hr before and we just had to hang out there. finally got to the start line & the NYPD runners were put in front of us, making the bridge a challenge, having the dodge all of the walkers and people who should have started with people running their pace.

NYC has become a bucket list race. A sub-2:40 guy or sub-3 woman will run it once & maybe not come back to it. NYC doesn't care because there are too many people that want to run it every year. They could care less if faster runners aren't showing up. They're getting their money.

I will say the sub-elite start is good but it's still not enough to retain those folks.

I didn't realize how much smaller the marathon was yesterday. Under 25K runners when its typically around 54K. BQ% was pretty much in line with usual even with time being 5 mins faster than the last time it was run.

Correction: realizing the 2019 would be the same BQ times as 2020, so I suppose it was a tad slower. That being said 7.7% is a normal number historically.

Why didn't you run and show them how it's done?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

So....you are saying a mid-40's guy (now in his mid 80's) running low 2:30's in 1981 doesn't have a say on this medium? What was YOUR PR in your mid 40's? So you think only sub-2:08 (M) and 2:22 (W) can comment on NY? It's a good thing I don't work for you.

This is BS. There was Columbus, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc...back in the 1980's. Heck , Greg Meyer ran his first in Detroit in 1980 and had the fastest debut marathon until Salazar broke it weeks later. You probably are clueless on him winning Chicago the next year in sub 2:11. Shorter courses?? Talk to David Katz, you sir are clueless.

If you are talking about depth, look at the results of those races and see how many guy broke 2:30 as it wasn't all NY and Boston, no way.

runman1954 wrote:

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.

There were several good posts illustrating this concept. I figured I'd quote this one. We all know the fastest 1% or less has gotten gradually faster. This year's winning times would have been a big deal once. But once you get get to the groups going slower than the pros, many of you posters are dead-on. The masses are much slower.

So this is just an echo of several posts, including the one above:

If the quoted poster's 1954 year is accurate, I would have been the next generation. Guys like that were winning the races in which I was trying to win 17-and-under. There was a 20 mile race in my locale as a teenager. Actually, it's still there and I've done it a number of times back then and recently. One time I remember running was 2:11. Less than 30 seconds change I think (pre-internet results exist only in memory). 6:33 pace. This was not just a long run. It was a big regional event and the focal point of my Fall calendar. (As an aside, my peers and I ran mainly road races: it was socially acceptable at the time.)

I was so deep in the pack every time I did that race that I couldn't tell you my place. 40th? 50th? Well, decades go by and I'm looking at results. One recent year my 16-year-old self would have been 2nd overall. In actuality, that run, my best time at that event, didn't get top-3 in my age group. A time that gets you on the Open podium now missed the Junior podium in the time period referred to by the quoted poster and several others. When I've run it in middle age, anything close to 7:00 pace you could see the lead pack for much of the race.

I think there are various reasons why the pack behind sub-elites has dwindles away. One is that at the age I was during the Running Boom, no one does these kind of races anymore. You may be tempted to suggest that a lack of under-24 runners should affect things much, but those that remember the Boom accurately may recall that the although the 2:20-2:30 marathon crowd was mostly older than that, the occasional high school boy made it to around 2:40 and girl around 2:50. A little slower and the young crowd was deep.

From personal experience (and this was just another local race) low 2:50s missed the podium for my division. In one such race I was fairly proud while crossing the line but the Girl's winner had already crossed. That just doesn't happen now: a 16-year-old girl running a marathon at all, much less under 3:00, would prompt a barrage of disapproving threads on this very Board. Yet, high school and college-aged runners were part of the depth that some of us remember.

So, high school and NCAA sucks up essentially all the young talent now. That's one of the differences. Actually, that's 2 of them, because there's some percentage of runners who, once aged out of school affiliation, don't move to roads. Look at 'Running With The Buffaloes'. Goucher was a star for a while, but not on tarmac. Those other guys who were pretty good didn't all become the 2:20-2:25 crowd that used to be so deep. If you start on roads, it requires no imagation or mental effort to 'move up' to roads. Some do. Deena did. Rupp did. Most don't.

Other factors are at play. Lack of monetary reward for that tier of good but not great. Lack of clubs training together at the paces for 2:20s men and 2:30s women. If you're significantly slower than the sponsored groups we all know of, you're on you own. Nobody feels justified spending the dough to create a team, with coach and various amenities, just to get a bunch of top-10 finishers at the Grandma's/CIM tier. I'm not unhappy about any of this. In my old age, I can once again get into the top 10 overall despite being slower than I was at 15!

I agree with Roy. There were races everywhere. They wanted certified measurement. Then they could claim Boston Qualifier status. The race brochures actually said that: TAC (what USATF was called) Certified Course. Official Boston Qualifier. The local guys who won the small-time races in your area would go to Boston, but they regularly ran decent times at the races in you state. Roy points out that even stars would run less-well-known events.

Good question about super shoes on the hills. And just answered by the original Vaporfly researchers.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095254621001113

They found the Vaporflys produced less advantage in up-and-down running than in flat running.

The Vapor 4% becomes a Vapor 3% on up-and-down courses, and then you have to remember to multiply by roughly .67 to get a "time" outcome rather than the "metabolic power" measured in the lab.

So now you've got a Vapor 2%. On up-and-down courses like Boston and NYC, super shoes might produce times that are about 1 to 2% faster than pre-carbon/superfoam shoes.

The researchers briefly speculated that manufacturers might next produce shoes that are essentially "tuned" to a particular course. Then you might have the Vaporfly Boston 5% and the Vaporfly NYC X%, and so on.

The difficulty of the course is the primary issue. It's not "just" the hills, it's the placement of the hills. They come at all the wrong places.

1) course difficulty = hills

2) Prevailing winds. South to north orientation of the course. You will almost always be running against the prevailing winds (northwest). When it rains the winds usually come from the south.

3) road conditions. New York roads are in horrible condition, but that has been mitigated to some degree in the last 10 years.

This is the result of my research 12 years ago for the years 1976 to 2010. Note that the top ten times are generally the same, but the depth beyond the top ten has been much greater in the past. The addition of 2:06 runners to the field has done little to change that.

https://imgur.com/a/4mjL7u2

Weather was great for the race but quality depth is down because they admitted 30k instead of 50k, because many international runners couldn't make it--and they are a source of a lot of the better performances--and because maybe there were fewer time qualifiers than usual. I can't say that having to get up at 4:20 a.m. for a 9:10 race is ideal for anyone, though.

I posted previously about the depth of master runners at London this year. I looked at the results again and noticed only 1 of the multitude of sub 2:30 master runners was from the US (one of the 50 year olds!)

There is obviously a different running culture in rest of the world vs the US. Not sure why the difference

I didn’t even realize the ny marathon had a time qualifier. Is it normally just a small section of the field with a more difficult standard than Boston (seeing how Boston is only time qualifiers?).

But you’re right, the elites ran times they were historically in line with the norm, but the say 2:30-3:00 crowd had to have been smaller than normal. I ran Sunday (admittedly first marathon) but the conditions were perfect. 45-50 the whole race, essentially flat wind. It seems unlikely that people just collectively had a bad day in those conditions. One thing I’ll say, and I have no idea if this is typical, but is the NYC course perhaps a bit long if you’re not in the elite field and can take the right line? I think my watch had it at ~500m long but that’s a shade over 2 minutes for a 3 hour guy.

So really no explanation other than, like you said, a weaker field. Or people just getting real amped after so much time away and falling apart in Central Park. But frankly…that’s not a super hard course and it certainly wasn’t on Sunday so weaker field is kinda the only explanation.

It's not a good idea to draw conclusions about running culture from any 2021 marathon. Have you tried international travel lately? If not, you have no idea how much it sucks. The standards for entering/exiting/transiting each country on your itinerary can change overnight without warning. Even the gate agents don't know what's required. Have fun showing up 3 hours early for a 6 AM flight. If you can choose between 3 WMM races in the U.S. versus trying to get into London, 2021 is a good year to stay closer to home.

That’s interesting to hear. As a bit of a newbie (to marathons) I wouldn’t have even called that a hilly course. Re your points though:

1) There are hills, and I’ll take your word on the placement, but none of them are steep enough to really take you out of a rhythm. Again though, I was running 4:10ks not 3:10s like the elites. The number of turns probably makes a difference as well?

2) Winds were max 5-6 mph at the start, and maybe its because I’m not a great runner and my cycling instincts are to find a wheel and it wasn’t hard to find a draft.

3) Definitely some small rough patches but I was actually surprised how nice the roads were.

Again, all to be taken with a grain of salt as I don’t really have anything to compare it to, but I’d reckon it’s just not a course the elites run for time, and the slow tikes beyond that is just owing to a weaker field if they didn’t have time qualifier entries this year.

colder and wiser wrote:

It's not a good idea to draw conclusions about running culture from any 2021 marathon. Have you tried international travel lately? If not, you have no idea how much it sucks. The standards for entering/exiting/transiting each country on your itinerary can change overnight without warning. Even the gate agents don't know what's required. Have fun showing up 3 hours early for a 6 AM flight. If you can choose between 3 WMM races in the U.S. versus trying to get into London, 2021 is a good year to stay closer to home.

That’s a good point as well. I’ve only traveled internationally once this last year and yeah, it’s a bit of a disaster.