30-year-old Kenyan Ruth Chepngetich destroyed the women’s marathon world record today (13 Oct. 2024) at the 46th Bank of America Chicago Marathon. Her time of 2:09:56 ripped 1:57 from the previous mark set in Berlin 2023 by Ethiopia’s Tigst Assefa (2:11:53). It represents the seventh world record run in Chicago since Steve Jones posted his 2:08:05 in 1984.
At this point, the athletics record book ought to be written in No. 2 Ticonderoga pencil, considering how fast records fall in this age of technological and nutritional advances. This is especially true at the longer distances where such advancements create greater margins.
Still, Ruth Chepngetich’s new world record stands out as history’s first women’s sub-2:10, and first sub-5:00 per mile pace average. But Tigst Assefa’s 2:11:53 mark set last year in Berlin had us all cradling our heads, as well. That performance cut 2:11 off Brigid Kosgei‘s 2:14:04 record from Chicago 2019, which topped Paula Radcliffe‘s seemingly impregnable 2:15:25 set in London 2003.
In each case, Radcliffe’s, Kosgei’s, Assefa’s, and now Chepngetich’s, the records have left mouths agape in the immediacy of their efforts. But nothing should surprise us anymore.
Racing is often a self-fulfilling prophecy determined by one’s build-up. Ruth Chepngetich said in her TV interview she came into Chicago off a perfect three-months of training after her disappointing ninth-place finish in London in April (2:24:36). Two previous wins in the Windy City (2021 and 2022) and a runner-up in 2023 meant Ms. Chepngetich arrived well seasoned on this course, with a keen understanding of what training was required to produce such a record run.
Of course, no record in athletics can be free of skepticism considering the industrial level of PED use that is uncovered, seemingly, every other Tuesday. Still, though understandable, cynicism should not be one’s default reaction.
To maintain any allegiance to the game, to follow it with any interest at all, we have to celebrate each record at face value. Just as rabid fans have to acknowledge some records to be ill-gotten, cynics must accept that many special runs are exactly as they appear, above reproach.
Besides, when you break down Ruth’s 5k splits, each one from 5k to 35k was slower than the previous 5k. Not until the split from 35k to 40k (15:39) did she run faster than the split before (15:43 from 30 to 35k)
5k – 15:00
10k – 30:14 (15:14)
15k – 45:32 (15:18)
20k – 60:51 (15:19)
25k – 1:16:17 (15:26)
30k – 1:31:40 (15:32)
35k – 1:47:32 (15:43)
40k – 2:03:11 (15:39)
Fini – 2:09:56
1st half – 64:16
2nd half – 65:40
So congratulations to Ruth Chepngetich and her team for a marvelous run through a beautiful city. Now, let’s see how long this mark stays on the books before the No. 2 Ticonderoga pencil gets pulled out again.
BY THE NUMBERS
There have been 26 women’s world records set in the marathon since Beth Bonner‘s 2:55:22 in New York City in 1971. Over the ensuing 53 years, the average percentage change from one record to the next has been 1:26%. See WOMEN’S WORLD RECORD PROGRESSION.
Today’s record by Ruth Chepngetich, 2:09:56 (just one second slower than Bill Rodgers‘ American men’s record in Boston 1975!), lowered Tigst Assefa’s 2:11:53 mark by a healthy 1.5%. And Assefa’s time cut Brigid Kosgei’s 2:14:04 by 1.65%.
These latest records are still taking significant chunks off their predecessors and doing so in quick order. That suggests women are far from slicing everything they can from even this new record.
Yet, when comparing the women’s marathon world record to the men’s (2:00:35, set by the late Kelvin Kiptum in Chicago 2023), we see a slim differential of 7.2%. That is by far the best women’s record vis-à-vis the men’s mark throughout the running event spectrum. Second place on that list is Florence Griffith-Joyner‘s 10.49 100m world record in relation to Usain Bolt‘s 9.58 for men, a percentage difference of 8.675%.
The traditional rule of thumb has been a 10% gap between men’s and women’s records. But there are so many factors in play, it is difficult to make any definitive statement that explains one event, much less one athlete. I guess that’s why we keep watching.
Onward!
END
tonireavis.com 
maybe they should change that bullshit bq time difference between men and women from 30 minutes to 10 now?
I don”t buy this at all!
I believe it’s impossible to dismiss Brian’s concerns regarding PEDs, regardless of not being in the market for a bridge. It could also be attributed to socio-economic situations, which can also help explain their do-or-die training efforts as well as temptation for using PEDs. Plus East African cultural “advantages,’ i.e. their outlook on life, living in the moment, etc. which also informs their training approaches. So no guarantee of cheating, especially given, as you say, technological, nutritional, etc advances. (I still don’t need that bridge, Brian.) But suspicions certainly seem fair, so I hope those pencils still come with erasers.
Perhaps any or all of this explains the US runners huge gap back to our best, with our men well behind their predecessors. Relatively easy l-i-v-i-n for our folks, and the price for being busted for cheating is (publicly) severe, right Shelby, Marion, …? (How would runners from wealthier countries train if the prize was $1B?) It’s as if in the glorious ‘80s our closest runner was around 2:14 or so. Back in those days that would have been a crowd. So why should the shoe companies sponsor them with a living wage, especially given the running masses don’t care?
Rico
Sorry, Toni, I understand what you’re saying, but for all of the people who believe that these achievements are accomplished without the use of PEDs, I have a hell of a deal for them on a bridge in Brooklyn.