Run fast

84/263 -- that is unreal.

It could be argued that there was some performance enhancement going on in that time period as well. But... We'll never really know..

What performance enhancement at that time? Just curious - do you think 2:25 guys were blood doping?

Couldn't sub elite runners get away with doping today if they really wanted to? They might be testing people after races more often but never during training periods, that I know of. The arguments I have read suggest that there were just more guys taking running seriously back then and maybe now days the sub elite folks are deterred by the super human Africans. But I am no expert.

Subelite guys could easily get away with it. And some do. And I hope they all burn in hell.

I think another thing you have to consider about why Boston and NYC were so much deeper in the early 80s is because there were only a handful of marathons back then compared to today. If you were good, you ran Boston in the spring and NY in the fall. So there was a consolidation of talent.

Interesting for sure. What were the Olympic Trials qualifying times in the 80's? My friend's dad ran them in '84 and I think his PR is 2:27.

In 1984 it was 2:19:04 and there were 201 qualifiers.

I like those conclusions better than my own immediate assumption. That said, I'm sure there were blood dopers here and there, as well as other prescribed medications even including testosterone you know. I could see runners being more serious like Fritz said and I like Jake's comment about Boston and NYC being the only major marathons back then. That makes a lot of sense to me too.

I know there are sub elites getting away with performance enhancement some blatant and some not but still reap the rewards of it. And sadly it can happen more locally than we all think. I think it was back in 06 or 07 or something some ex doper that was banned on the professional scene came and ran Des News to scoop up some money.

Interesting to look at that statistic though 80/84 had the largest number of qualifiers relative to the time period. Popularity of the marathon increasing possibly due to Frank Shorter's success..

Hmm. His PR must have been 2:17 or something. Jake, have the number of qualifiers changed much over the years?

Here's all the numbers I was able to find when the announced the new standards in Dec 2012:

http://goo.gl/ooa0Yv

Faster standards usually equals more qualifiers.

The lists are only updated through July 11th for the 2016 cycle, but it looks like there are going to be even more runners who hit the new slightly tougher standards.

I agree with Jake that at least part of it is due to sub elites just don't run Boston like they used to. Why pay all that money to go run Boston when you can win a marathon else where and get money?

Distance running is doing well right now. If the same percentage of sub elites did Boston today as back in the 80s, I think it'd be more than you think breaking 2:20.

Look at last year's USA half champs, 39 guys (38 if we throw out the cheat Trafeh) broke 1:05, which is considered vastly more impressive than 2:20.

"Why pay all that money to go run Boston when you can win a marathon else where and get money?"

I can think of about a dozen good reasons, but yeah - that line of thinking is problematic and stops development.

Bringing up the HM distance is a good point... the half marathon didn't really exist back then. So you either ran 5K/10K on the track, or moved up to the marathon.

Is a 1:05 half considered "vastly more impressive" than a 2:20 full? Is that what the general running populous (whatever that is) thinks, or is that just your own opinion Riley? I am sincerely asking and not just trying to be controversial. I am so new to the sport that I don't know, but have some thoughts.

It is true (I know because I was a full grown adult runner back then) that there was a lot less prize money anywhere in the early 1980s. So decisions on where to race were rarely made for $ reasons.

Jake of course there's good reasons. I planned on paying and going before my injury. I'm just saying that is the line of reasoning with several runner that are capable of 2:20.

James most online calculators put a 2:20 on line with a high 1:06 half. I don't put a ton of stock in the accuracy of them, but almost two minutes buffer is enough to assume it's vastly superior. But on an individual basis it would depend on what type of runner someone is.

That question is a big can of worms :) as Riley said, every runner is different. For me, I know I have a chance at running a sub 2:20 whereas I have about a 2% chance of running a sub 1:05 half. Speedsters, on the other hand, might be able to pull of the sub 1:05 easier, although I think anyone capable of a sub 1:05 could, with time and proper training, crush a 2:20, as the calculator would suggest.

I agree with Riley on this one.. I like the Jack Daniels and McMillan charts and both put a 65 half about a 2:16-2:17.. Totally dependent on style of training and what "type" of runner one is... Fritz nailed it on the head. Some people draw even with the calculators. Others will see the scale lean towards one side rather than the other like Fritz is portraying.

Gotcha. Thanks. I obviously am no where near either of those. I am just hoping to improve and hang with you guys on one of your recovery days!

Riley I wasn't pointing fingers... or if I was, I'm doing it directly at myself, because I've fallen into the same trap - go for $ at meaningless races rather than go race the top competition. I think knowing you are going up against the best competition forces you to raise your game and get the best out of yourself.

In general 1:05 > 2:20 on paper, but it's probably harder for some guys to hit the marathon, simply because you can't do it as much and you need conditions to line up in your favor a little more than in the half. And then everyone's makeup is different, so there are no hard rules by any means. I think USATF's 1:05/2:18 standards are probably pretty close to equivalent.