Graph of 2011 LM finish times

6 messages
Kryten    pirate
29/04/2012 at 14:20
http://s3.runnersworld.co.uk/members/images/22383/gallery/london-marathon-2011-time-001.jpg?width=350&height=162&mode=max


Kryten    pirate
29/04/2012 at 14:23

Sorry that picture is a bit small. A clearer version is here.

Original article from Guardian is here.

Edited: 29/04/2012 at 14:42
29/04/2012 at 20:05
Strange peak and then dip just before the 4 hr mark for the men...then peaks again....wonder why?
02/05/2012 at 09:42
FF, the graph is working in 15 min intervals.  It might just be that everyone racing to beat the 4 hour mark was counted at 3:45.  (Which is the way it looks if you read the table in the original article.)
02/05/2012 at 10:39

It's amazing how much of a classic bell curve there is, if you look at the segment from 2:5x to 5:5x (i.e. for all interval classes where there are at least 1,000 finishers), centred around a mode of around 4:2x I guess.  I would've thought it would be more skewed with a long tail. 

Misleading comment of the day from the article...
"Ever wondered if you were born in the wrong century? A breakdown of finishing times for last year's London marathon shows that 992 runners finished in under three hours. A time like that 100 years ago would have ranked them among the fastest runners in the world."

Ummm, yeah - so not many people ran marathons 100 years ago.  How about comparing the proportion of sub-3 finishers in the race with 25 years ago? 

Edited: 02/05/2012 at 10:40
Cheerful Dave    pirate
02/05/2012 at 13:44
PhilPub wrote (see)

Misleading comment of the day from the article...
"Ever wondered if you were born in the wrong century? A breakdown of finishing times for last year's London marathon shows that 992 runners finished in under three hours. A time like that 100 years ago would have ranked them among the fastest runners in the world."

Ummm, yeah - so not many people ran marathons 100 years ago.  How about comparing the proportion of sub-3 finishers in the race with 25 years ago? 


It doesn't even need to be as a proportion PP.  For the last few years a time of 2:35 would get you a top 100 finish (this year was 2:36:28, although that does exclude the elite women).  In the first London Marathon in 1981 you'd have needed a 2:27 time to make the top 100. 

Of course, as a proportion of runners (6000 in 1981 vs 35000) it looks even worse, but that's a bit misleading as the running demographic has shifted hugely, in 1981 almost all were what would be described these days as serious club runners, with fewer 'run one and done' folks further back.


We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
6 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums