THE PIONEERING exercise physiologist Archibald Hill concluded long ago (1924) that one could learn much about the limits of athletic performance by studying the results of the performers themselves, particularly during competition. Athletes train very hard to perform well on the given day, and mentally they are prepared to deliver their best effort. Sport competition follows fairly specific rules and generates accurate data in the form of race results. Because the marathon is contested over road courses rather than a track and requires more than two hours to complete, external influences such as adverse weather and/or course terrain can significantly slow performance. When we study the very fastest marathon performances over a long period of time, however, these external influences cancel out, leaving elite athleticism as the primary contributor to performance excellence. When we study large numbers of these performances, our analyses yield substantially reliable conclusions.

A 20-YEAR STUDY

For more than 20 years, I have been compiling top-level marathon performances worldwide. This study started as a side project when I was preparing an in-depth appendix for a book written to chronicle the history of the marathon (The Marathon Footrace, 1979). The compiling has continued ever since, as one aspect of a project to provide useful information to enhance my coaching perspective with elite-level athletes.

The activity has also been essential in my role as marathon results compiler and analyst for the annual statistical book produced by the Association of Track and Field Statisticians (Athletics, 1996). Also, as statistician (i.e., results compiler) for the Association of International Marathons (AIMS), I have often found that I can apply conclusions derived from the study of top-level performances to questions concerning global trends in marathon participation. The database is essentially a complete record of almost 20,000 entries for men, and nearly 18,000 for women. Maintaining such a large database is challenging, but at the same time the work is valuable for generating meaningful answers to interesting questions.

The performance limits I’ve used for marathon results collection have been sub-2:20:00 for men and sub-2:55:00 for women. How did I select these limits? When I started this record keeping, for the men, 2:20:00 was a “barrier” that was nearly as mystical as the sub-4:00-minute mile. After the 2:20:00 barrier was broken, it became fascinating to keep a list of the superstars who had done so. I’ve just continued to keep track every year since. For the women, initially, I just kept results that were faster than 3:00:00, as that time was also a challenging barrier. However, the limit for women has been tightened to 2:55:00 because that gives a yearly sample size similar to that of the men.

For the past 15 years, about 12 minutes have separated the men’s fastest time and 2:20:00. In contrast, for the women, about 31 minutes has separated their annual fastest time and 2:55:00. What explains this much larger time difference for the women than for the men? One probable factor is that marathon racing for women is a newer sport than it is for the men and has fewer participants. Another factor is the existence of sociocultural restrictions in many parts of the world that limit opportunities for women to live an athlete’s lifestyle. Thus, the gene pool is smaller, and the depth of competition is less.

This larger time differential for the women has important performance implications, however. For whatever reason, an elite woman marathoner can “have a bad day” in her race and run a slower time than expected, yet she will not fall back nearly as far in the database rankings as a man who had a time-equivalent misfortune. This is not to say that women can be less serious about their training for excellence, but a mistake for them is not so costly. Conversely, a woman’s especially fine performance will be more easily noticed.

ANALYSIS OF THE MEN’S PERFORMANCES

Table 1 summarizes top-level marathon activity by men, starting with the first bona fide sub-2:20:00 performance on a 42,195-meter course by Jim Peters at Chiswick back in June of 1953. This table ends with 19,997 sub-2:20:00 performances recorded as of the end of 1996. Summarized for each year are the following:

• the number of such fast performances
• the number of nations represented
• the top six nations contributing to these performances
• the percent contribution of these six nations to the total top-level marathon activity.

Let me make some of the more obvious conclusions from these data.

Since 1961, Japan has been among the top six nations every year, and in first place for 19 of these 36 years, most recently since 1992. Japan’s 2,288 sub-2:20:00 performances represent 11.4 percent of the total. Although not shown directly on this table, Japan’s top-level talent has produced well-known excellence in world competition. At the Olympic level, for example, during this period Japanese athletes have earned a bronze (in ’64), two silvers (in ’68 and ’92), and two fourth places (in ’84 and ’88).

Over this same 36 year period (1991–1996), however, the United States has actually accumulated the most sub-2:20:00 performances—2,309 or 11.5

TABLE 1 — Nations With the Most Sub-2:20:00 Marathon Performances by Men

Year	# Performances	# Nations	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	% of Total
1953	4	1	GBR 4
1954	1	1	GBR 1
1955	0	0
1956	4	1	FIN 4
1957	1	1	URS 1
1958	2	2	URS 1	CHN 1
1959	2	2	TCH 1	URS 1
1960	12	6	GBR 5	URS 2	NZL 2	ETH 1	MAR 1	FIN 1	100%
1961	3	3	NZL 1	JPN 1	TCH 1				100%
1962	11	5	JPN 7	URS 1	PRK 1	USA 1	TCH 1		100%
1963	22	7	JPN 10	GBR 4	USA 2	URS 2	NZL 2	BEL 1	95.5%
1964	47	10	JPN 23	GBR 8	ETH 4	NZL 3	BEL 2	FIN 2	89.4%
1965	44	7	JPN 28	GBR 8	URS 3	USA 2	BEL 1	CHN 1	97.7%
1966	80	11	JPN 45	GDR 7	NZL 5	GBR 3	USA 2	CAN 2	80.0%
1967	58	10	JPN 27	GBR 8	NZL 5	GDR 6	URS 5	USA 2	91.4%
1968	93	20	JPN 37	GBR 11	URS 8	HUN 5	FIN 5	KOR 3	74.2%
1969	82	16	JPN 25	GBR 16	ETH 5	CAN 4	MEX 4	NZL 4	70.7%
1970	102	19	JPN 30	GBR 26	NZL 7	URS 7	AUS 5	GDR 3	76.5%
1971	140	25	JPN 23	GBR 31	URS 15	FIN 9	NZL 8	AUS 7	66.4%
1972	156	26	GBR 26	URS 17	JPN 16	USA 12	FIN 12	FRG 10	59.6%
1973	165	20	URS 31	JPN 26	GBR 26	USA 12	FIN 12	FRG 9	70.3%
1974	209	24	JPN 40	URS 27	GBR 25	USA 22	GDR 18	FIN 10	67.9%
1975	274	30	JPN 47	USA 40	URS 36	GBR 34	GDR 20	NZL 13	69.3%
1976	260	32	USA 37	JPN 35	URS 32	ITA 17	GBR 16	GDR 14	58.1%
1977	286	33	USA 45	JPN 37	GBR 36	URS 34	FIN 16	GDR 15	64.0%
1978	448	34	USA 87	JPN 51	GBR 49	URS 46	POL 25	FRG 15	60.9%
1979	580	38	USA 163	URS 71	JPN 64	GBR 55	RSA 24	FRA 19	68.3%
1980	754	42	USA 187	URS 105	GBR 69	JPN 60	FRA 28	FRG 25	62.9%
1981	731	42	USA 193	GBR 83	JPN 60	URS 50	RSA 33	ITA 27	61.0%
1982	834	51	USA 191	GBR 79	URS 71	JPN 63	ITA 30	RSA 26	55.2%
1983	1134	48	USA 267	GBR 137	JPN 88	URS 63	ITA 49	BEL 36	56.5%
1984	1101	57	USA 165	GBR 116	JPN 102	URS 86	ITA 43	POL 42	50.3%

percent of the total. And its Olympic level excellence has been comparable to Japan’s: a gold (in ’72), a silver (in ’76), and two fourth places (in ’72, ’76). However, the growth pattern of U.S. top-level marathoners has been quite different from that of Japan. During the 1960s, when Japan was leading the world in marathon performance, the United States was far behind, along with other nations. Then, beginning in 1972, when Frank Shorter earned his Munich gold medal, U.S. marathon racing activity increased. Notice in Table 1 that 1976 launched a “golden decade” of amazing U.S. dominance in terms of the sheer numbers of top-level marathon performances delivered. Then, starting with 1985, a year after the Los Angeles Olympic Games, a new trend of steadily decreasing U.S. performances began—and continues to this day. In the early 1980s, U.S. marathoners routinely ran 100 to 200 sub-2:20:00 performances; now that number has dwindled to a low of 40 such performances in 1996 (see Figure 1).

Year	# Performances	# Nations	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	% of Total
1985	996	54	USA 99	JPN 100	URS 97	GBR 96	POL 46	BEL 40	48.0%
1986	1024	49	USA 114	JPN 103	POL 81	GBR 73	URS 69	HUN 39	46.7%
1987	1026	56	JPN 116	USA 96	URS 91	GBR 66	POL 55	ITA 42	45.4%
1988	980	53	URS 94	JPN 90	USA 65	GBR 62	POL 54	ITA 53	42.6%
1989	943	53	URS 110	JPN 83	POL 75	USA 63	GBR 52	ITA 38	44.5%
1990	954	57	JPN 104	URS 82	USA 75	POL 65	FRA 41	GBR 38	42.5%
1991	1070	56	URS 140	JPN 122	USA 93	POL 63	GBR 46	RSA 39	47.0%
1992	1048	60	JPN 113	URS 92	USA 64	POL 58	ITA 41	GBR 37	38.6%
1993	1097	62	JPN 124	RUS 92	POL 61	USA 57	MEX 52	RSA 50	39.7%
1994	1145	64	JPN 128	RUS 98	KEN 79	POL 69	USA 53	ETH 53	41.9%
1995	1034	68	JPN 123	KEN 86	RUS 82	MEX 62	USA 59	POL 52	44.9%
1996	1040	66	JPN 137	KEN 109	RUS 75	POL 61	ETH 51	ITA 47	46.2%
TOTAL	19,997

Figure 2 illustrates the depth of performance among world and U.S. men marathon runners. The black lines show the 1st, 10th, 20th, 30th, 40th, and 50th fastest performance for U.S. men during the past 16 years, 1981 through 1996. The lines in color in Figure 2 chart the world scene and presents the annual 1st, 50th, 100th, 250th, 500th, 750th, and 1,000th fastest performances over this same period. For both groups, the fastest performance each year over this period hasn’t changed much, hovering around 2:08:00 for the world and 2:10:00 for the United States. However, when the entire population of U.S. and world performances are compared, we see some interesting differences. For example, the 50th fastest world performance has improved by over 2 minutes, from 2:12:59 in 1981 to 2:10:52 in 1996, while the 50th fastest U.S. performance has slowed from 2:14:22 in 1983 to 2:21:08 in 1996.

What is the explanation for this recent but continuing fall-off in U.S. performance quality? Is the U.S. athlete population changing in such a way that the athletes are at an increasing disadvantage to perform well? Or are the characteristics of the competing world population changing? I’ll attempt to answer these questions shortly.

Population Demographics

Can we learn anything about the trend of declining U.S. performance from studying population demographics? Age as an influencing variable can indeed be considered, because athlete birth date and performance race date comprise part of each performance entry. Table 2 summarizes the fastest, youngest, and oldest men among the top 50 world performances each year and Table 3 does the same for U.S. men, with standard deviations to give an idea of variability. Also included is the 50th fastest time to indicate the high quality of this group, and the average age at which all of each year’s top 50 performances were run.

There are some similarities in age among the U.S. and world men. The very fastest athletes each year average 27 to 28 years of age. And the average age for the runners of the top 50 performances each year is 28 to 29 years. However, among the youngest and oldest runners, the U.S. runners differ from the world at large. Each year, the youngest male marathoner among the top 50 performances worldwide continues to be 20 to 21 years of age. But the youngest U.S. athlete among the top 50 U.S. performances is getting older—in recent years, 23 to 24 years of age.

Two possibilities might explain this trend: There are fewer talented high school and college level male distance runners, and fewer of these runners are opting for marathon racing. If the second possibility is in fact occurring, then we would expect to see an increasingly aging U.S. men’s marathon-running population, as the current marathoners continue to compete.

Although no data are available to address the first possibility, the data presented in Tables 2 and 3 shows that the U.S. men’s marathon population is indeed aging. Comparing the top 50 U.S. and world marathon performances over the past 16 years, we see that the mean age of the oldest U.S. runner is

Table 2: Age Characteristics of the Top 50 World Men Marathon Performances

Year	50th Fastest Time	Mean Age	Standard Deviation	Fastest	Youngest	Oldest
1981	2:12:59	27.9	3.16	24 – de Castella (AUS)	22 – Rinde (USA)	36 – Mora (COL)
1982	2:12:40	28.3	3.22	23 – Salazar (USA)	22 – Ikangaa (TAN)	36 – Marczak (POL)
1983	2:11:21	28.0	3.48	26 – de Castella (AUS)	21 – Jorgensen (DEN)	37 – Stahl (SWE)
1984	2:11:44	27.4	3.92	29 – Jones (GBR)	20 – Mekonnen (ETH)	37 – Lopes (POR)
1985	2:11:34	27.7	3.77	38 – Lopes (POR)	20 – Mtolo (RSA)	38 – Lopes (POR)
1986	2:11:42	27.4	3.67	28 – Kodama (JPN)	20 – Dinsamo (ETH)	34 – Spedding (GBR)
1987	2:12:13	27.7	3.52	27 – Nakayama (JPN)	21 – Naali (TAN)	34 – Spedding (GBR)
1988	2:11:44	28.4	3.84	22 – Dinsamo (TAN)	20 – Cruz (MEX)	39 – Campbell (NZL)
1989	2:12:09	28.3	3.79	29 – Ikangaa (TAN)	20 – Zeleka (ETH)	36 – Nyambui (KEN)
1990	2:12:02	29.0	3.94	28 – Moneghetti (AUS)	21 – Kim (KOR)	41 – Campbell (NZL)
1991	2:11:48	28.1	3.06	23 – Morishita (JPN)	22 – Tadi (ETH)	35 – Peter (GDR)
1992	2:11:35	27.7	4.10	25 – Tsebe (RSA)	19 – Negere (ETH)	37 – Jones (GBR)
1993	2:11:18	27.6	3.65	28 – Ceron (MEX)	20 – Kebede (ETH)	35 – O’Reilly (IRL)
1994	2:10:57	27.8	3.57	22 – Ndeti (KEN)	21 – Cho (KOR)	34 – Taniguchi (JPN)
1995	2:11:19	29.3	3.96	31 – Lelei (KEN)	21 – Wainaina (KEN)	37 – Martin (GBR)
1996	2:10:52	29.0	3.71	33 – Fiz (ESP)	21 – Tangus (TAN)	39 – Salah (DJI)
MEAN	2:11:45	28.1	3.65	27.3 +/- 4.18 S.D.	20.7 +/- 0.85 S.D.	36.6 +/- 1.94 S.D.

nearly two years older than that of the world men. Thus, the notion that U.S. male runners “make a career” out of marathoning instead of “giving it their all” in youth may have some validity. However, these U.S. runners may find it increasingly difficult to succeed because of the trend illustrated on the mean top-50 performance lists that shows that male runners at the world level are not slowing down, while the U.S. men’s times are slowing substantially.

An additional demographic point of interest is that only 2 of the 16 youngest male marathoners worldwide are Caucasian white athletes, and only 4 of the 16 oldest male marathoners worldwide are not. The sociocultural aspects of this distribution could be debated at length, so I’ll leave them for readers to explore. This sociocultural issue is complex, as it involves the gamut of athletes from rigidly-controlled societies, whose governments have a high priority for sport, to athletes from more free societies that have made sport a viable means of earning an acceptable living for many years as a kind of sports business.

TABLE 3   Age Characteristics of the 50 Fastest USA Men Marathon Performances

Year	50th Fastest Time	Mean Age	Standard Deviation	Fastest	Youngest	Oldest
1981	2:15:13	27.0	3.16	23 – Salazar	21 – Ortiz	33 – Rodgers
1982	2:15:10	27.4	3.20	25 – Beardsley	20 – Law	34 – Rodgers
1983	2:14:42	26.7	3.04	27 – Meyer	20 – Law	35 – Rodgers
1984	2:16:22	27.1	3.70	26 – Martin	22 – Eyestone	40 – Brown
1985	2:16:59	28.7	3.37	31 – Coppess	23 – Olds	37 – Rodgers
1986	2:16:55	28.7	3.60	30 – Donakowski	22 – Brownsberger	38 – Rodgers
1987	2:18:03	29.7	3.58	29 – Froelich	23 – Gompers	39 – Rodgers
1988	2:19:21	29.6	3.88	27 – Conover	24 – Gompers	40 – Rodgers
1989	2:18:33	31.1	4.17	31 – Martin	23 – General	38 – Judson
1990	2:18:38	30.1	3.97	29 – Eyestone	24 – Hudson	40 – Judson
1991	2:18:26	31.1	4.15	33 – Martin	24 – Hudson	40 – Judson
1992	2:19:25	30.4	3.84	29 – Spence	23 – Evans	40 – Kurtis
1993	2:19:33	32.1	4.88	27 – Lawson	22 – Kieser	41 – Kurtis
1994	2:19:40	31.5	4.38	27 – Kempainen	23 – Dudley	42 – Kurtis
1995	2:19:48	30.5	3.55	28 – Kempainen	24 – Collins	38 – Plasencia
1996	2:21:08	30.6	4.09	30 – Lawson	24 – Dimoff	40 – Hawthorne
MEAN	2:17:47	29.5	3.79	28.3 +/- 2.43 S.D.	22.6 +/- 1.32 S.D.	38.4 +/- 2.47 S.D.

Analysis of the Women’s Performances

Studying the performance dynamics of women marathoners is equally fascinating, although a much more recent story, dating back only to 1984 regarding Olympic participation. The data show similarities to and differences from the men. Table 4 and Figure 3 (page 38–40) present the same kind of information as Table 1 and Figure 2 did. Recall that the sub-2:55:00 cutoff for performances gives a yearly sample size similar to that of the men.

Table 4 takes us back to the very first sub-2:55:00 performance, by Adrienne Beames of Australia at Werribee in August of 1971, followed in December by the U.S.’s Cheryl Bridges at the Culver City Marathon in December. The dramatic rise in women’s participation in 1978 and 1979 was helped substantially by the creation of the worldwide Avon International Running Circuit, a six-year program of international marathons and shorter road races intended by the Avon Corporation to focus attention on its products for women, promote a healthy lifestyle among women, and assist the cause of adding a marathon for women on the Olympic schedule.

The Avon circuit director was none other than 1967 Boston Marathon entrant Kathrine Switzer, whose attempted ejection from that race by a chauvinistic race official caused worldwide attention to the inequities regarding women’s sport participation. Starting with Atlanta in 1978, well-attended annual Avon-sponsored international marathons moved around the world, from Germany to London to Ottawa to San Francisco, and finally, in 1983, to what would be the Los Angeles Olympic marathon course.

As Table 4 shows, the United States has been the unquestioned dominant force in the sheer numbers of participants at the top level. Of the 17,720 sub-2:55:00 performances in the women’s database, 4,458 have been run by U.S. athletes, which is 25 percent of the total. One probable reason for this large percentage is that socioculturally a more receptive attitude regarding women’s athletic competition has prevailed in the United States since the 1970s, more so even than in Europe, where athleticism was widely practiced at the highest levels. During the 1980s, Great Britain was a major force in women’s marathon participation, with the Soviet Union not far behind. During the 1990s, with the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia has remained a consistent major player, with Japan close behind.

As with the men, the number of countries contributing top-level women marathoners is increasing, which steadily decreases the relative contribution of the top six most active nations in the total number of performances. Joan Benoit’s Olympic gold medal in 1984 doubtless provided a year’s-long impetus for other U.S. women to continue their devotion to top-level marathoning. This movement has been enhanced not only by the increasing financial incentives among women’s prize-money arrangements at mixed races, but also by the increasing numbers of women’s-only marathons at the highest level, especially in Japan.

Another likely contributing factor to the continued high level of marathon activity by women relates to the more limited track opportunities for women distance runners than for men until very recently. The 10,000-meter event was added to the Olympic schedule only in 1988, the 5,000-meter event in 1996. Thus, at the top level, the marathon was the distance of choice for women.

Notice in Table 4 the interesting cyclic variation in the number of U.S. women performances over the four-year Olympic period, evident since 1980. The post-Olympic year has far fewer performances than the year previous (for example, 156 in 1985, 199 in 1989, and 171 in 1993), with a steady increase over the next few years until the year following the Games. This cyclicity isn’t seen either with men’s (U.S. or world) or world women’s performances.

TABLE 4   Nations With the Most Sub-2:55:00 Marathon Performances by Women

Year	# Performances	# Nations	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	% of Total
1971	2	2	AUS 1	USA 1					100%
1972	0	0
1973	2	1	USA 2						100%
1974	9	3	USA 4	FRG 3	FRA 2				100%
1975	18	5	USA 11	FRG 4	HOL 1	HUN 1	FRA 1		100%
1976	39	10	USA 21	FRG 6	HOL 2	HUN 2	ITA 1	GBR 1	84.6%
1977	45	8	USA 34	FRG 4	FRA 2	ITA 1	NZL 1	NOR 1	95.6%
1978	91	15	USA 57	FRG 9	CAN 5	GBR 5	BRA 2	AUS 2	87.9%
1979	209	16	USA 122	GBR 18	CAN 17	FRG 11	NOR 9	FRA 6	87.6%
1980	310	22	USA 147	GBR 30	FRG 21	FRA 15	URS 14	NZL 12	77.1%
1981	448	29	USA 180	GBR 39	URS 36	CAN 32	FRG 27	NZL 20	74.6%
1982	694	35	USA 269	GBR 69	URS 56	FRG 40	NZL 32	CAN 23	70.5%
1983	1038	41	USA 385	GBR 101	URS 72	FRG 63	CAN 35	AUS 27	65.8%
1984	1203	46	USA 403	URS 117	GBR 92	FRG 59	CAN 49	ITA 39	63.1%
1985	894	37	USA 156	GBR 104	URS 89	FRG 59	ITA 42	JPN 42	55.0%
1986	1003	40	USA 229	URS 113	FRG 76	GBR 69	JPN 41	ITA 35	56.1%
1987	1092	46	USA 305	URS 90	GBR 67	FRG 62	JPN 46	CHN 41	56.0%
1988	1203	55	USA 314	URS 117	FRG 70	GBR 69	ITA 59	JPN 54	56.8%
1989	1031	51	USA 199	URS 94	JPN 80	GBR 79	FRG 61	ITA 50	54.6%
1990	1121	56	USA 203	URS 127	JPN 110	GBR 60	FRG 54	POL 41	53.1%
1991	1268	53	USA 272	URS 168	JPN 109	GBR 72	FRA 57	GER 53	57.6%
1992	1201	62	USA 222	JPN 118	RUS 111	GER 68	GBR 60	FRA 43	51.8%
1993	1126	57	USA 171	RUS 129	JPN 107	FRA 53	CHN 51	GER 47	49.6%
1994	1205	60	USA 222	RUS 141	JPN 120	GBR 54	GER 45	FRA 45	52.0%
1995	1214	65	USA 296	RUS 126	JPN 123	GER 50	POL 44	FRA 42	56.1%
1996	1254	60	USA 233	JPN 188	RUS 127	GER 49	POL 44	FRA 44	54.6%
Total	17,720

Population Demographics

As with the men, much can be learned about the top U.S. and world women marathoners by assessing the entire database. As Figure 3 shows, the fastest annual women’s time varies widely, among both the world and U.S. databases,

but since 1983 at the world level (2:24:00) and 1988 for the United States (2:28:00), the times have been fairly stable.

Age demographics for elite women marathoners are shown in Table 5 for the world and Table 6 for the United States. The mean age for the fastest time for the world top 50 women’s performances is 28.3 years, and the mean age for the single fastest performance each year is 27.5 years. These ages are similar to the men. However, for the U.S. women, the average age of their annual top 50 performances is slightly older at 29.2, similar to the average age of the single athlete running the fastest performance each year.

For the U.S. women, as with the U.S. men, among both the very youngest and the very oldest top-level performances, we see that the athletes are getting older. The mean age of the youngest top women marathoners worldwide is remaining constant (between 19 and 20 years of age), but the average age of the youngest top-level U.S. women marathoner is steadily getting older (from 19 to 20 years of age in the early 1980s to 24 to 25 in the early 1990s). Also, notice in Tables 5 and 6 that the oldest U.S. women are about two years younger than the oldest women at the world level. This is the opposite of what we observed for the men. The mean age for the oldest U.S. men running the 50 fastest performances is older than the world mean.

TABLE 5 Age Characteristics of the Top 50 World Women Marathon Performances

Year	50th Fastest Time	Mean Age	Standard Deviation	Fastest	Youngest	Oldest
1981	2:39:08	26.4	4.55	24 – Roe (NZL)	19 – Bush (CAY)	43 – Smith (GBR)
1982	2:37:51	27.8	5.31	25 – Benoit (USA)	18 – Masuda (JPN)	44 – Smith (GBR)
1983	2:35:16	27.2	5.92	25 – Benoit (USA)	19 – Masuda (JPN)	45 – Smith (GBR)
1984	2:33:40	27.3	5.10	28 – Kristiansen (NOR)	20 – Masuda (JPN)	46 – Smith (GBR)
1985	2:34:16	27.5	3.98	29 – Kristiansen (NOR)	20 – Weinhold (GDR)	35 – Teske (FRG)
1986	2:33:39	30.2	4.43	32 – Waitz (NOR)	23 – Martins (GDR)	44 – Palm (SWE)
1987	2:32:38	29.4	5.26	31 – Kristiansen (NOR)	19 – Zhong (CHN)	42 – Welch (GBR)
1988	2:31:21	29.5	5.15	27 – Martin (AUS)	20 – O’Brien (USA)	43 – Welch (GBR)
1989	2:32:47	29.6	5.08	33 – Kristiansen (NOR)	20 – Mun (PRK)	47 – Palm (SWE)
1990	2:32:26	29.5	4.24	31 – Mota (POR)	20 – Hyodo (JPN)	38 – Beurskens (NED)
1991	2:31:44	29.4	3.85	32 – Panfil (POL)	23 – Markova (RUS)	38 – Smith (USA)
1992	2:31:33	27.2	4.04	23 – Markova (RUS)	20 – Kokamo (JPN)	39 – Smith (USA)
1993	2:30:58	26.6	5.19	20 – Wang (CHN)	19 – Gu (CHN)	41 – Beurskens (NED)
1994	2:31:45	28.1	4.56	28 – Pippig (GER)	20 – Yamazoe (JPN)	42 – Beurskens (NED)
1995	2:31:20	28.5	4.01	29 – Pippig (GER)	20 – Kim (PRK)	38 – Pozdnyakova (RUS)
1996	2:30:08	28.5	4.37	34 – Dorre (GER)	20 – Chickahira (JPN)	37 – Kokowska (POL)
MEAN	2:33:09	28.3	4.71	27.5 +/- 4.70 S.D.	20.0 +/- 1.27 S.D.	41.4 +/- 3.41 S.D.

TABLE 6 Age Characteristics of the 50 Fastest USA Women Marathon Performances

Year	50th Fastest Time	Mean Age	Standard Deviation	Fastest	Youngest	Oldest
1981	2:44:08	26.2	4.79	28 – Catalano	16 – Erickson	39 – Dalrymple
1982	2:44:06	26.9	4.70	25 – Benoit	20 – Dunn	40 – Dalrymple
1983	2:39:21	25.6	4.50	25 – Benoit	19 – Spangler	36 – Binder
1984	2:38:44	25.6	3.95	27 – Benoit	16 – Schiro	39 – Madeira
1985	2:44:28	27.7	3.67	28 – Samuelson	20 – Erickson	37 – Binder
1986	2:41:50	28.6	3.82	31 – Raunig	20 – Erickson	37 – Buch
1987	2:43:55	28.7	4.68	32 – Roben	20 – O’Brien	41 – Ladage
1988	2:41:05	28.9	3.58	26 – Weidenbach	20 – O’Brien	35 – Smith
1989	2:42:18	29.4	3.57	31 – Jones	21 – O’Brien	41 – Binder
1990	2:42:07	30.5	4.18	37 – Smith	23 – Lamena	43 – Binder
1991	2:42:00	31.0	4.23	32 – Jones	23 – O’Brien	44 – Binder
1992	2:40:19	31.7	3.78	31 – Klecker	24 – O’Brien	41 – Gilbert
1993	2:43:51	30.9	3.39	27 – Johnston	24 – Legacki	38 – Welzel
1994	2:41:30	31.3	3.23	30 – Appell	25 – Legacki	38 – Raunig
1995	2:43:23	31.0	3.10	32 – Appell	24 – Gausman	40 – Thurau
1996	2:41:38	32.4	3.41	33 – Appell	26 – Peterson	41 – Thurau
MEAN	2:42:10	29.2	3.91	29.7 +/- 3.20 S.D.	21.3 +/- 2.89 S.D.	39.4 +/- 2.39 S.D.

Regarding sociocultural demographics, as with the men, very few of the youngest world women marathoners are Caucasian whites, while the oldest are primarily Caucasian whites, mainly European residents.

REDUCED MARATHON PARTICIPATION BY U.S. MEN

Athletes from an increasingly large number of nations have started to achieve top-level success in the marathon. This dilutes the percentage of U.S. performances when compared to the total, but it does not explain the steady decline in total numbers of U.S. marathon performances faster than the 2:20:00 standard. The explanation is simply fewer athletes competing. The reasons for this are many. Let’s look at several of the contributing factors.

Recruiting Foreign Distance Runners

First (and this is a contentious issue) is the ongoing recruitment of substantial numbers of collegiate distance runners from other nations, which deprives U.S. runners of a chance to develop their expertise at any distance, including the marathon. One reason coaches give for such recruiting practices is that if one college goes after the world gene pool, then others must as well to remain competitive. Another reason coaches offer for overlooking the local talent is that athletes emerging from today’s high schools are not as fit as athletes from around the world. One viable explanation for this may be that their high school coaches do not want to “burn out” their runners in high school. Instead, the coaches bring the runners along so they’ll love the sport, remain injury-free, and develop a long-term love for running that will extend into and beyond college. For U.S. athletes to be passed by in favor of foreign ones who are more fit, and then to have college funds go into developing these foreign runners—who will eventually go on to earn medals for their home nations—is a fairly unique bit of global American generosity, which the rest of the world appreciates but does not return in equal measure. The result is diminished development of U.S. distance-running talent in exchange for subsidizing talented athletes worldwide. This leads to a decline in the number of U.S. men distance runners in general, not solely marathon runners. The “problem” is not the marathon as an event, but the decreased number of scholarships that colleges could provide to talented U.S. distance runners.

Disappearing Role Models and the Attractiveness of Other Events

Disappearing role models and the attractiveness of other events have also been influential in decreasing marathon participation among men. A brief recall of history is appropriate. The first-, fourth-, and ninth-place excellence of Frank Shorter, Kenny Moore, and Jack Bacheler, respectively, in the 1972 Olympics was a big stimulus to American runners, who were thrilled to see the U.S. go head to head with the then-excellent-but-much-smaller marathoning world. In fact, their marathon performances represented the best showing by any nation since 1908, when Americans went first, third, and fourth (Johnny Hayes, Joe Forshaw, and Alton Welton, respectively). The 1973 Boston Marathon first and second place performances by Jon Anderson and Tom Fleming, respectively, continued this momentum and set the stage for sports media to give worldwide coverage to Bill Rodgers’s American record at Boston in 1975. No particular vision or well-thought-out plan just starting to bear fruit had been created by the national sports governing body (at that time, the Amateur Athletic Union) to explain this marathon excellence. (Nor is there a well-thought-out plan for

developing distance runners today either). During this era, we saw good athletes maturing and enjoying what they were doing and being motivated by their own individualism to be better than ever before in their chosen sport.

An Olympics in nearby Canada in 1976 provided a forum for American athletes to draw even more attention to the marathon. Frank Shorter took the silver medal, and Don Kardong placed fourth, missing the bronze by a scant three seconds. Rodgers was in that race as well, but the effects of an injury relegated him to 40th place. Later that fall, thanks to the genius of Fred Lebow, the New York City Marathon opted to “go international,” with a much-publicized race through the boroughs. Rodgers and Shorter were both healthy, went head-to-head, and placed first and second, in that order. American runners saw again that this sport (and particularly, winning at this sport!) could be great fun. Indeed, distance runners flocked to the event, and U.S. runners did have fun, for 10 golden years.

This period included the Moscow boycott, with no Olympic opportunity to shine. By 1984 and the next Olympics, the huge population of marathon-oriented distance runners suddenly realized that only three among their ranks could race in Los Angeles. Thus, for many a return to a track focus became a preferred option, and they sought team places in the steeplechase, 5K, and 10K.

In addition to Olympic-level sport, the International Amateur Athletic Federation responded to aggressive leadership by its new president, Primo Nebiolo, and created a series of World Championships that provided many distance running options: cross country and summertime track initially, ekidens and half marathons later. These events were intended to ensure control by the world governing body over major sporting opportunities and thus compete with the rapidly-increasing numbers of road races springing up worldwide. The chance to race more frequently (after all, racing is the fun part of being a distance runner!) and the larger number of event opportunities for earning money to support an athlete lifestyle has tended to dilute the focus on the marathon.

Loss of Fast U.S. Courses

A third contributing factor to explain the reduced appearance of U.S. men marathoners on the top-performance lists is a gradual loss in the number of dependably fast courses in the United States for runners to achieve fast times. The top-50 performance lists have increasingly been dominated by places like Rotterdam, Kyongju, London, Berlin, Fukuoka, and Tokyo for the men, and London, Berlin, Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya for the women. These courses have almost laboratory-like running conditions: flat courses, consistently chilly weather, cloudy skies, excellent competition, and pace-making athletes in front. Minimal travel stress helps Asians do well in Asia, and Europeans and Africans do well in Europe. U.S. runners face time-zone adaptation in either direction, and as a rule they are less able to cope with the hassle of different languages and cultures, and less familiar living conditions than those at home.

A related factor involves a trend for recent top-level U.S. championships to be awarded to courses less favorable to fast times (for example, Jersey City, Columbus, and Charlotte as compared to Niagara Falls and Eugene). Selecting fast U.S. courses to increase the chance of placing U.S. runners at the top of world performance lists is (perhaps logically) a lower priority to the national governing body than obtaining a high-dollar value in services and prize money provided by the race sponsor to produce a worthy event. But international race directors review lists of fastest marathoners in their quest for “suitable” invitees to their events.

Risk of Injury and Burnout

Finally, there is the substantially increased risk of injury and burnout required in marathon training to achieve success at the top level. When Frank Shorter won his four back-to-back races in Fukuoka in the 1970s, his 2:10+ efforts were as much as 2 minutes ahead of second place. There was much less depth of competition in those days. Now, it isn’t unusual in a marathon to see three athletes enter the stadium track together and sprint over the final 400 meters to determine the order of finish in 2:09 or faster. Thus, the intensity of training—and racing—necessary to be a viable finisher has greatly increased. The increased sophistication on a global level of athlete management by agents has also saturated marathon races with much larger quality fields than in Shorter’s day. These athletes, particularly from countries with economic standards vastly lower than those in the United States, are entirely willing to endure far more hardship—arduous training, living on another continent, and being away from their families and culture, for example—because the financial reward from race earnings has purchasing power back home that is almost incomprehensible to a U.S. athlete.

Conclusions

When we examine the fastest performances worldwide against an unchanging standard (2:20:00 for men and 2:55:00 for women), several trends emerge:

1. Worldwide, more men and women are participating in the marathon (and from more nations) than ever before.
2. Over the past 10 years the total number of performances within the selected standards has been relatively stable, with just over 1,000 performances each year.
3. The annual fastest individual performances by U.S. and world men and women have not been quickening. While we see an increase in depth among the top-level world women’s performances, the men’s performances have remained fairly stable.
4. In both quantity and quality, there has been a substantial reduction in total top-level U.S. men’s marathon activity. Among U.S. athletes, neither men nor women are running marathons at ages as young as previously.
5. As a group, U.S. women continue to account for more sub-2:55:00 performances per year than any other nation, well ahead of runner-ups Russia and Japan.
6. Among the men, Japanese athletes contribute the most sub-2:20:00 performances, followed by Kenya and Russia.

Marathon running is now almost a global passion. Never before have there been so many participants at all levels of ability, in every corner of the world, from Kathmandu to Kansas City, from Capetown to Canberra. This marathoning activity supports a myriad of industries that produce gadgets, personal agents, energy foods, touring and travel packages, and much more. The marathon environment is ever-changing in its complexity and diversity, making its future as bright as it is unpredictable.