Jump to content
Turtle

Marathon times

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Turts said:

Those peeps at the slower end may still be running it as well as they can. But maybe 10 yrs ago they wouldn't have felt comfortable entering at all. 

No, I definitely think there is a different ethos now, at least to what it was to when I started 35 years ago rather than 10.

I think back then it was more the norm for marathon runners to be marathon runners all year round, not just for 16 weeks of a training program with a limited number of solid weeks of mileage.

In the days of yore, for so many marathon runners the 30km long run was what you did every week year round, and I think it was reflected in performances right down through the field.

I'm all for more people getting out and enjoying their running and I love seeing runners of all shapes, sizes and ages having a go, but on the whole I don't think the sport is as performance-focused as it was decades ago.

There's a difference between running as well as you can on the day with the training you have done in the last few months, and running as well as you can.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, I was just about to type exactly what you put in your last paragraph.

I have run a couple of marathons where I feel I have got pretty much everything possible out of myself on the day. But I definitely didn’t do the prep necessary to achieve everything  I am capable of.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

No, I definitely think there is a different ethos now, at least to what it was to when I started 35 years ago rather than 10.

..........

I'm all for more people getting out and enjoying their running and I love seeing runners of all shapes, sizes and ages having a go, but on the whole I don't think the sport is as performance-focused as it was decades ago.

I think it is a combination of what Turts said & you Paul.

There are still the base of people that are there to run hard, and have the drive to get the best out of themselves that they can, but there are a huge number of people that 30 years ago would never have dreamed of running a Marathon, and these are the ones swelling the numbers and bringing down the average times.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the records that have recently been broken by the biggest margin  are older AGs, e.g. 70s  women Lavinia Petrie Melbourne 3hr 38min.  If record times are reducing across the board, no, not getting slower, not at the front of the front end.  But given increase in participation, around 4X per-capita adjusting for population growth from the numbers in that article,  averages, medians, and percentiles all getting slower as proportion of  less able/natural/dedicated/fanatic runners increases - but also  likely more taller/heavier/fatter runners. Not sure, but I thought there were also just more marathons nowadays.

Wonder what the results of e.g.  the top 1% in each AG in the Melbourne Marathon are like over the years ...

And will - or must? - (unboosted) human performance plateau :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

I think it is a combination of what Turts said & you Paul.

There are still the base of people that are there to run hard, and have the drive to get the best out of themselves that they can, but there are a huge number of people that 30 years ago would never have dreamed of running a Marathon, and these are the ones swelling the numbers and bringing down the average times.

 

3 hours use to be the bench mark now doing one is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Fitness Buddy said:

3 hours use to be the bench mark now doing one is.  

benchmark for what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is anyone to decide a benchmark or if someone is achieving their best.  This thread is moving to dangerous territory as far as I'm concerned.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Among my friends, 3hrs  was always considered the benchmarch, anyone who went under that was considered a great runner. Plenty of us didnt reach the benchmark but there was never any shame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's very elitist to tar everyone with the same benchmark and then judge performances based on what you think someone should achieve or is capable of achieving. 

 

We see elite athletes struggling all the time with anxiety and mental conditions and it's based on this mentality that there is a benchmark that has to be achieved.  It's bullshit and its so evident in this thread. 

 

Who cares what someone has or is capable of achieving?  Like does anyone actually care?  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, surfer101 said:

Among my friends, 3hrs  was always considered the benchmarch, anyone who went under that was considered a great runner. Plenty of us didnt reach the benchmark but there was never any shame

That is where i got it from too and a running club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fitness Buddy said:

 and a running club

I think this is part of the change. People who did marathons were from running clubs, so were active in the sport for a while. Marathons were seen as something the more serious did (not necessarily the fastest). Now a marathon is what everyone can do, with the right prep it is an achievable goal, hence the growth in numbers. And the slowing down of average time.

 

There is another factor that for some just doing one is enough, so doing 6-12 year is the target. Of this maybe one is the A race so do your best, the rest can be with others at a slower pace. I have a friend who does this will run 4hr in her A race and do 5 1/2+ for another 8 marathons a year supporting others who a 5 1/2 hr marathon is there best effort. This way she does 9 marathons a year. Me i can't be bothered with a run around at someone else's pace so each to there own. Hence i do 1 maybe 2 a year. Neither of us has a better method, just different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to set the benchmark, it sort of helps to show you met it. Though I agree whose benchmark and what is the point. No one will ever look at the end and say Tom was a great guy and a wonderful dad, gave his kids everything, but you know he never ran a sub 3 hour marathon.

Well Fu*)k me that's done it for me Tom was a waster can't believe we wasted so many years being friends with him. I know he gave to charity, looked after my kids after school when I had no access to care and he even gave me $5000 to help me with a house deposit but he ran a 3:05 marathon what a loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

If you are going to set the benchmark, it sort of helps to show you met it. Though I agree whose benchmark and what is the point. No one will ever look at the end and say Tom was a great guy and a wonderful dad, gave his kids everything, but you know he never ran a sub 3 hour marathon.

Well Fu*)k me that's done it for me Tom was a waster can't believe we wasted so many years being friends with him. I know he gave to charity, looked after my kids after school when I had no access to care and he even gave me $5000 to help me with a house deposit but he ran a 3:05 marathon what a loser.

The same can go for an Ironman too. Even possibly Strava we are telling everyone we did this trained 16 hours and in the top ten.  There is another thread based on it. And dont say it doesn't because it does.

The way everyone has interpreted my comment is as an attack on slow runners all i was stating that this what i was told many years ago, even read it in certain areas.   Notice Surfer101 backed this up.  Just because i left out of few words I am now an elitist.  Can to the gym to see how big an elitist I am.  

Sorry for not being politically correct or trannie correct or athlete correct.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paul Every said:

..... I was racing (3:05 on debut).......

 

 

16 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

...... he ran a 3:05 marathon what a loser.

:lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People tend to lament over the 'good old days' believing that life used to be better back then. The reality is, that life on planet Earth has never been better than it is now - humans are living longer, enjoying better health, have more leisure time and far more opportunities in life than any other time in history. Being a well fed, privileged human does not necessarily mean you'll be a great runner although you will have the means to participate and travel to the vast number of events and races that we now have.

In 2004 there was 1 Ironman race in Australia so the stakes were high - it was a big investment and a rare opportunity to race. For me, those factors kept your training honest. These days there are Ironman events on every weekend somewhere in the World. In this region, perhaps 6? or so, within 4hrs flight time. Same goes for the number of 'fun-runs' and opportunities to run full marathons. 

I believe so much opportunity and choice has diluted the standard of the field, even though participation numbers have increased. At the pointy end, the Elites have more choice on where they can go to race so you may not get a high concentration of Elites showing up at one particular event which may account for smaller numbers of sub 2.40 at any one event.

You can't blame technology for making humans slower, on the contrary, Garmins and Strava are an addiction that motivates some people to get out the door.

Participation in endurance sports has become a life-style choice due to greater leisure time and travel opportunities. Some people are simply happy to reach the finish line and participate. If they are happy, who are we to criticise?

Edited by The Customer
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2018 at 3:40 PM, pieman said:

*lock thread*

 

On 2/1/2018 at 3:45 PM, AA7 said:

Maybe they could just get their own thread and go back and forth on whatever topic they want.

It's called private Message system.

Agree with you still

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Customer said:

People tend to lament over the 'good old days' believing that life used to be better back then. The reality is, that life on planet Earth has never been better than it is now - humans are living longer, enjoying better health, have more leisure time and far more opportunities in life than any other time in history. Being a well fed, privileged human does not necessarily mean you'll be a great runner although you will have the means to participate and travel to the vast number of events and races that we now have.

In 2004 there was 1 Ironman race in Australia so the stakes were high - it was a big investment and a rare opportunity to race. For me, those factors kept your training honest. These days there are Ironman events on every weekend somewhere in the World. In this region, perhaps 6? or so, within 4hrs flight time. Same goes for the number of 'fun-runs' and opportunities to run full marathons. 

I believe so much opportunity and choice has diluted the standard of the field, even though participation numbers have increased. At the pointy end, the Elites have more choice on where they can go to race so you may not get a high concentration of Elites showing up at one particular event which may account for smaller numbers of sub 2.40 at any one event.

You can't blame technology for making humans slower, on the contrary, Garmins and Strava are an addiction that motivates some people to get out the door.

Participation in endurance sports has become a life-style choice due to greater leisure time and travel opportunities. Some people are simply happy to reach the finish line and participate. If they are happy, who are we to criticise?

It really pisses me off when I agree with you.

Fark you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Peter said:

It really pisses me off when I agree with you.

Fark you.

I'm offended because I have nothing else to be offended about today. ;)

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Customer said:

People tend to lament over the 'good old days' believing that life used to be better back then. The reality is, that life on planet Earth has never had it better than it is now - humans are living longer, enjoying better health, have more leisure time and far more opportunities in life than any other time in history. Being a well fed, privileged human does not necessarily mean you'll be a great runner although you will have the means to participate and travel to the vast number of events and races that we now have.

In 2004 there was 1 Ironman race in Australia so the stakes were high - it was a big investment and a rare opportunity to race. For me, those factors kept your training honest. These days there are Ironman events on every weekend somewhere in the World. In this region, perhaps 6? or so, within 4hrs flight time. Same goes for the number of 'fun-runs' and opportunities to run full marathons. 

I believe so much opportunity and choice has diluted the standard of the field, even though participation numbers have increased. At the pointy end, the Elites have more choice on where they can go to race so you may not get a high concentration of Elites showing up at one particular event which may account for smaller numbers of sub 2.40 at any one event.

You can't blame technology for making humans slower, on the contrary, Garmins and Strava are an addiction that motivates some people to get out the door.

Participation in endurance sports has become a life-style choice due to greater leisure time and travel opportunities. Some people are simply happy to reach the finish line and participate. If they are happy, who are we to criticise?

Good points. The choice of events, access to locations, and general awareness of them (i.e. social media, etc) has opened the fields up, especially to some who may not have been interested previously or thought they may not be able to do it. I think this is great and may be one of society's best hopes in the face of increasing obesity/health issues in the community. A side consequence may be that average times in some events are slower, but who cares. There'll always be those who are very serious about it and strive for wins/PBs etc, which is great for them, but others run/ride/whatever for their own reasons.

I agree re technology. I'd be pretty active even without it, but I know there are plenty of days when seeing on Strava that my mates have trained has helped get me out the door when I've been lacking some motivation.

6 hours ago, Paul Every said:

No, I definitely think there is a different ethos now, at least to what it was to when I started 35 years ago rather than 10.

I think back then it was more the norm for marathon runners to be marathon runners all year round, not just for 16 weeks of a training program with a limited number of solid weeks of mileage.

In the days of yore, for so many marathon runners the 30km long run was what you did every week year round, and I think it was reflected in performances right down through the field.

I'm all for more people getting out and enjoying their running and I love seeing runners of all shapes, sizes and ages having a go, but on the whole I don't think the sport is as performance-focused as it was decades ago.

There's a difference between running as well as you can on the day with the training you have done in the last few months, and running as well as you can.

I think the pointy end is still pointy. Others still have a 'performance focus', but you may be right in that it's shared across other events etc. As an example, I'll probably run Gold Coast marathon this year and will set a goal of around 3.30 (maybe 3.20 if training goes OK), which for me will be reasonable given my 3-4 month prep. If marathons were my main focus and I trained year in year out for them maybe I could run sub-3 by now, but I'll never know because I won't ever do it. I like the variety of different distance running, tri, and riding events and adjust my training to suit whatever interests me at the time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fitness Buddy said:

The same can go for an Ironman too. Even possibly Strava we are telling everyone we did this trained 16 hours and in the top ten.  There is another thread based on it. And dont say it doesn't because it does.

The way everyone has interpreted my comment is as an attack on slow runners all i was stating that this what i was told many years ago, even read it in certain areas.   Notice Surfer101 backed this up.  Just because i left out of few words I am now an elitist.  Can to the gym to see how big an elitist I am.  

Sorry for not being politically correct or trannie correct or athlete correct.  

 

 

1. Sometimes its called something like taking the piss, a joke, or even, banter. 

 

2. Maybe then u should put more effort into you posts so people dont mis interpret. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Customer said:

I believe so much opportunity and choice has diluted the standard of the field, even though participation numbers have increased. At the pointy end, the Elites have more choice on where they can go to race so you may not get a high concentration of Elites showing up at one particular event which may account for smaller numbers of sub 2.40 at any one event.

 

On 2/2/2018 at 11:52 AM, Fitness Buddy said:

In 1980 50 people ran below 2:40 and 384 below 3 hours 

In 2017 34 people ran below 2:40 and 254 people ran below 3 hours 

TC, it's much more than a dilution of depth of talent at the FOP in any particular race. As FitBud's stats show there are now fewer marathoners in Aust running faster times, despite the increases in participation numbers.

I'd be pretty sure that the numbers of sub 2:40 performances were even greater than 1980 as the popularity of marathons really gained momentum from '82 through to '84, (the Olympic year with Canberra Marathon being an open selection trial where no one wanted to look shabby).

With Deek's Fukuoka win in '81 (later recognised as a World Record), his epic come-from-behind Brisbane Comm Games victory in '82 and his World Champs Gold in '83, marathon running was elevated to a level in the public consciousness that it hasn't seen since. And performance levels at the sub-elite level and beyond followed.

I still occasionally wear my old sloppy-joe from the Canberra Marathon with 1984 Olympic Selection Trial in bold letters. On a day with a cruel headwind blasting the final 8km resulting in no one attaining a Games berth, I just missed qualifying by a little over 49 minutes.

Was pretty happy with a PB though. Closest I've ever been to making the Olympics! :)

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2018 at 11:52 AM, Fitness Buddy said:

In 1980 50 people ran below 2:40 and 384 below 3 hours 

In 2017 34 people ran below 2:40 and 254 people ran below 3 hours 

OK, these stats definitely peaked my interest as the numbers for 2017 do seem alarmingly low, (assuming it's referring to Aust performances in all marathons). So after a bit of hunting, here's what I found.

For 2017, 88 Aussie men ran sub 2:40 in marathons both domestically and abroad. Reference: https://aus.run/index.php?lyear=2017&uyear=2017&gender=M

In 1984, 78 Aussie men ran sub 2:40 in the Canberra Marathon alone. Reference: one musty old results book I just managed to dig out.

And the 435th runner across the line in 2:59:59...............Ian Green. :angel:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

OK, these stats definitely peaked my interest as the numbers for 2017 do seem alarmingly low, (assuming it's referring to Aust performances in all marathons). So after a bit of hunting, here's what I found.

For 2017, 88 Aussie men ran sub 2:40 in marathons both domestically and abroad. Reference: https://aus.run/index.php?lyear=2017&uyear=2017&gender=M

In 1984, 78 Aussie men ran sub 2:40 in the Canberra Marathon alone. Reference: one musty old results book I just managed to dig out.

And the 435th runner across the line in 2:59:59...............Ian Green. :angel:

The stats from me were Melb Marathon 1980 compared to 2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fitness Buddy said:

The stats from me were Melb Marathon 1980 compared to 2017

Without knowing the event is the course the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fitness Buddy said:

The stats from me were Melb Marathon 1980 compared to 2017

Thanks. Definitely reflect how the sport has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×