5% in the US
95% in Kenya

I just calculated that approximately 1.3% of the finishers of the 2004 New York City Marathon finished in under three hours. This percentage would obviously vary from race to race, but I suspect not by too much.

Regards,

Matt

Go back to the 1970s in NYC and you will find nearly 10% going under 3 hours.

10% - You've got to be kidding. I would say it is less than 1%. I would bet that of all the posters on slowtwitch less than 5% have run under a 3 hour marathon.

2.4% at the 2004 Twin Cities Marathon.

While I will agree that a higher percentage went under 3 hours many years ago I think it is a faulty comparison. The "marathon boom" has brought many more people to the back end of the marathon than the front end.



At Freescale this year 2.2% were under 3 hours. As a comparison 3,5% broke 3 hours in 2003. I did not look at 2004 as it was 120 degrees I believe;)

---

JW (on the comback trail)

sub tthree is not easy

I did 2:58:29 in blistering hot conditions in 1979. This put me in at 727 out of 10,000 or so runners.

I think it would put me around 300 or so now out of 30,000 runners.

We aren't just adding runners at the back. They have faded away from the front.

Great, thanks for the info. If it's closer to 2-3%, better, it strengthens my argument to my patients that they are not too old. When you have a 73 year-old man who is in the top 2-3% of all runners that ain't too shabby.

---

Dan Hollingsworth

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul." - Douglas MacArthur

Interesting topic, here's a story about the Boston marathon and sub 3 runners from a couple of years ago.

http://www.coolrunning.com/...nt=1180;s=6_1;site=1



greg

Unfortunately, this is the trend of US marathon "races":

http://www.womenwalkthemarathon.com/

---

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

Actually it's a lot more than that. I've researched this a little for the running club newsletter that I edit.

In 1973 the MEDIAN men's finishing time was 2:56:05, that is to say half the blokes were heading to the pub in under three.

This graph gives you a good idea as to how the median times have gone down the toilet:

Thanks for the article. Interesting!

I think they had better shoes back then ;)

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

I am not sure those first four years count. It was proably a very small race those years, not a broad participation event.

I have never considered walking in the marathon the same as "running" a marathon.

In my opinion, Oprah does not get credit for 'running' a marathon. She merely walked during the NY Marathon.

I'll go so far as to say that I was never completely satisfied with my first half IM finish several years ago because I had to walk some of the run. Finishers medals are great and you definitely feel satisfied that you completed something. But, its not the same feeling as you get when you are able to complete it w/o walking.

Also, I'm sure you all noticed a couple years back that Boston reduced their qualifing requirements in almost every age group.

Bollocks. That's so elitist. She ran 4-29 in 1994. And it was Washington, not NY.



And in reply to ajfranke's "I am not sure those first four years count", why the heck not? Marathoning wasn't huge then. Just cos there weren't 30,000 Oprahs out there doesn't make any difference. My buddy finished 9th in '73. Private-message me and I'll give you his email address so you can tell him it doesn't count.

Interesting stuff.

I know that I may get into trouble here but many runners these days are purely recreational. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's good for them. It's good for the sport of running. It's good for the businesses associated with the sport of running. It's ALL good. However, it is astounding to me that with so many more runners that actually times have been getting slower. That despite all the technology and training knowledge that times are getting slower. I know that in Canada, the ranks of very good runners is at an all time low.

If you stand on the side of the road at the finish line of the chicago, New York or Boston Marathons, you see this very interesting phenonmenon. The really good runners come in under 2:20, but then there is this 20 - 30 min no-mans land where there are very few runners at all. In my world if you run 2:35 - .45 that's a good rec runner performance, but you may end up running most of the way at New York all on your own, despite the fact that there are 35,000 runners in the race.

A few years ago I won a couple of running road races out right, that I finished just in the top 20, 20 years ago with exactly the same time! Strange.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Not directly related to the 5% issue, but below is a link to a list of all sub-2:45 marathons recorded by Americans in 2004.

http://personal.bgsu.edu/...marathonlist2004.pdf

A time of 2:30 ranked 165th among American runners in 2004

2:40 was 582nd.

2:45 was 920th.

(Note these are time rankings, not runner rankings. Some runners recorded multiple times of sub 2:45)

Part of the dilution of talent of which Fleck speaks (though certainly not all or even most of it) is attributable to an increase in the number of marathons. In the fall USA marathon season, NYC and Marine Corps used to be THE places to run. Chicago has only recently become the ultimate marathon time trial course in the USA. 10-15-20 years ago races like Columbus, Richmond, Philadelphia, Steamtown, Hartford, Twin Cities, and Baltimore were either much smaller or non-existent. But despite the number of race options, the marathon fields are definitely getting thinner in the sub-elite/fast recreational ranks.

I think nutrition is a key factor related to the decline in sub 3:00 as a percentage of total.

I bet the average runner is also carrying a lot more weight today vs. 20 or 30 years ago.

Well at least that's my excuse :)

What I have done for the past 10 years or so is always look at the 100th place time at the NYC marathon. The reason that I do this is that a number of years ago I was slated to go to NYC to run the NYC Marathon. Did not end up going and ran in another race round about that time. I ran my PB which was 2:40 and that year my goal for NYC was 2:40 and/or top 100. Well darned if that time/place has stayed more or less the same despite the race doubling in size. 100th place at the NYC marathon is always give or take around 2:40. So in that part of the field - good age-group runners, it's not getting any more competitive, really.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Last Sunday I ran a 3:03 in the Mercedes marathon. That was 14th overall. I felt pretty satisfied with that effort. However, I would like to run a 2:40. I currenty run around 50 mpw. How many miles will I need to run to improve 23 minutes? I run around a 36 minute 10k if that helps...

Your 10 K time would indicate that you should be able to run a much faster marathon time than 3:03. How is your pacing during your marathon races? Are you blowing up? are you finishing strong? This would be helpful.

The key run for you, I would suggest would be the tempo run at 6:00 - 6:30 pace. You want to be able to run as effciently and smoothly at that pace as you can - eventually hold that pace for 26 miles. 6:00 min/mile is about 2:37 for a the marathon. A half hour to one hour at this pace and eventually more, needs to become a weekly staple. Also racing frequently at the 10K to 1/2 marathon distance is very helpful.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

In 2002 I ran 2:59.52 for 1100th or so overall at Boston. In 2003, I ran 3:03.42 and was 826 overall. It all depends on the year and conditions, but I do agree with the article that these days few people do high mileage run programs. Back then, when people did 100 mile run weeks, that was like 12 hours of running per week. Now, you are hard pressed to find many sub 3 guys that do 6 hours a week of running. Truth be told, a lot of 3:08 guys might get to 2:58 going from 6 to 10 hours a week of running, but they might also burn out in a few marathons and quite the sport. I am increasingly convinced, that not too many are adequately designed from a muscular skeletal systems to average much more than 7 hours per week (say 80K average) over the course of the year. This would equate to >4100K per year 2600 miles per year. It seems this is what is needed to really excel at marathon for you average joe. I can handle this type of mileage for a few months per year before my body warns me of imminent blow up. This why biking and XC skiing are so good. You can go till your engine shuts down.

Hey Fleck,

From what I know of your 5k, 10k PB's you should have been able to run significantly faster than that for the marathon. I seem to remember you mentioning you were a 15' 5k runner. From my calculations you should have been capable of sub 2'28' for the marathon. Was it because you did not train enough for the marathon?

You gotta move back west man! I am sat at my home office desk staring out at the ocean and the snow capped mountains having just got back from a 14k run. Ahhhhhh!

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver