Right, there are possible signs of potential to come, yet they could also be symptomatic of nothing at all. It has not happened yet and it seems to me that Meb, Kastor, Hall, Ritz, and their contemporaries 'came of age' in the marathon at a time when the average marathon finish time was about its slowest ever, around 4:30. That is why the stats used regarding the Chicago marathon numbers from 2008 and 2009 seem anecdotal and leading, at best. The author mentions that the conditions were "bracingly chill" (mean temp of 36F, low of 28F, and high of 45F) in 2009 yet leaves out that in 2008 they were far warmer than ideal (mean temp of 74F, low of 63F, and high of 86F). So yes, that difference could indeed realistically usher an extra 7% or so of finishers under the 3:30 mark. The other marathons used for the analysis also seem rather selective and say nothing of variables like weather, overall field sizes, differences in field sizes, raw number of sub-3:30 marathon performances (i.e. did a bunch of sub-3:30 performances simply shift venues rather than grow overall?), etc. from one year to the next. It seems mostly like inventing a conclusion and then finding statistics that, when taken out of context, would appear to support it.
Davila is indeed great and you are not likely to find a much bigger fan of her and the Hansons than yours truly, yet her success in the marathon - like that of teammate Melissa White, Andrew Carlson, Jason Lehmkuhle, and over half of the U.S. runners the author mentions by name - has come about in an era of increased group training opportunities at that level, which for whatever reason happens to coincide with more sub-3:30 marathoners at a handful of cited marathons. And this is where I would continue to find a disconnect. It is not as if these younger runners are somehow finding inspiration in more sub-3:30 or "BQ" performances -- as I have seen stated elsewhere, kids are not likely to be inclined to become involved in marathons as serious competitors simply because some adult they know runs marathons slowly (compared to the winners at the big races). The heyday to which oldcolonial refers happened in a time when the elite and sub-elite involvement in running clubs in the U.S. was incredibly strong and thus inclusive group training options were relatively easy to find in every metro area and college town around the country. For any number of reasons, that de facto system of clubs that fostered development fell into disrepair and ruin. The training groups that exist today seem to primarily be 'personal trainer' style setups that serve an income stream for a particular organization or individual. It is no longer friends of similar ability who happen to be members of the same club (for social, etc. reasons) deciding to meet a few times a week to train, it is paying monthly fees for a coach (personal running trainer seems a more apt term) to organize the training and maybe hold a stopwatch and yell at workouts. A very different model that skews more to the affluent for whom the $75 (or whatever it comes out to) monthly fee does not represent something on the order of cutting one's monthly grocery bill by 20%+. It discriminates financially whereas the old model tended not to. This has resulted in fewer meaningfully inclusive group training opportunities today. So even if the sub-3:30 ranks are swelling, which does not seem to be definite (perhaps a quick visit to marathonguide.com would yield the truth), it does not seem apparent that it is incrementally pushing the sub-3:00, sub-2:50, sub-2:40, sub-2:30 ranks to grow. If all the growth is in the 3:00-3:30 range then that still leaves the huge chasm between 3:00 and 2:20 that became a no-man's land over the past 20 years. The upper end of the sport (sub-2:20) would still be as lacking in meaningful competitive support from below. So I would not hold my breath for any so-called surge to surface.
I certainly side with the author when he insists that "[the] sport should build its image on races, not records." When people enjoy competition rather than fixate on the clock then they seemingly would be less apt to be disappointed in the outcome. It is building an infrastructure for success. And that goes all the way down to the 3:30 and "BQ" chasers. I do not think that you can celebrate the obsession with qualifying for BAA John Hancock yet denigrate that ideal as it applies to chasing records. They are related, one will follow naturally from the other. I also agree regarding the NYRR and ING NYCM, it is part of the reason why it enjoys its status as the top annual open marathon in the U.S. and the world. The 2009 edition was one of the best races I have ever seen, despite the heavy favorites with the top PR times being reduced to nonfactors.
This is all just how I see things, though -- what are the thoughts of others?
