Race Results Archive

As mentioned on the Rochester Running Page, Don Mitchell has posted results from Buffalo and Rochester area races he timed dating back to 1984.
Runtime Services Race Archives.

It was interesting to take a look back at my own results. I ran the 1984 Lilac 10k in 37:15, 8 seconds off my all-time best 10k and remember being disappointed. I ran the first 5k in 17:50 and faded. Man I wish I faded like that now. I was 26 years old and remember having to run up to Wegman's before the race, about a mile from the start, to buy diapers for my 3 month old daughter Stacy, because Jan and I forgot to bring enough. I finished 133/2279 overall (top 7%) and 33/358 in my age group. Jan didn't race, probably some excuse like 3 children under the age of 6 to watch?

The 1985 Lilac I finished in 37:27, again in the top 10%, again disappointed I couldn't break 36 (actually my goal was sub-36). What an idiot.

Though I didn't know it at the time, that was pretty much the end of my "fast" running days. I didn't race again at Lilac until 1994, finishing in 40:31, but still 164/1253 overall. Flash ahead to 2003, now in the 45-49 age group, and I ran a 44:22. What an amazing decline in speed! But, I finished 170/1220 overall, so I guess the entire running population got slower? Jan ran her first Lilac, in 46:07, too close for my comfort.

This year, 2010, we ran Lilac again. I ran a 47:14, melting in the humidity, but was 218/1258. Jan, coming back from injury, ran a 55:54, but was 635/1258. I was 10 minutes slower than in 1984, but finished in the top 20%. Ridiculous.

So, why have race finishing times slowed so much? More people ran Lilac in the mid-80's and posted faster finishing times. Why have I slowed by so much? It doesn't seem like age should be the only reason. That's too big of a decline. Maybe I just don't have the reckless, go all out attitude in training and racing to produce times even semi-close?

If you have the answers, let me know. I'll be out on the roads, still running, though slower I guess.