> His time was 2 hours 46.03 minutes which by modern marathon times does not look so great but was good at that time.
This made me laugh a little. I guess at the Olympic level it "does not look so great", but that's a fantastic time: in the last SF marathon he would have gotten 20th place out of 5000. I had no idea he was such a good runner.
Runners are both much faster and much slower today. That time would get you into wave 1 corral 1 at Boston this year along with 999 other runners (just barely). And obviously the world record marathon time has dropped dramatically.
At the same time, there are a lot more runners today and most of them are a lot slower than in the 1980s running boom. You can look at winning times in almost any local race between the 80s and today and those 80s runners would easily trounce today's winners.
So Turing could probably win strategically picked small local marathons here and there, but at Boston he would've done better in his time than today.
This made me laugh a little. I guess at the Olympic level it "does not look so great", but that's a fantastic time: in the last SF marathon he would have gotten 20th place out of 5000. I had no idea he was such a good runner.