http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAvmLDkAgAMyeah, okay wrote:
Butter butt wrote:a decent or even half-decent looking girl.
We runners. We chosen few. We band of brothers who sheds their blood with me shall be my brother throughout eternity.
Or something like that.
Dude, St. Crispin's Day was in October...
I got hooked on track when my Dad took my brother and I to the CYO indoor meets at Cole Field house. All through grade school we saw Pre, Ian Stewart, Marty Liquori, Eamonn Coghlan, Filbert Bayi, and others flying around those steep-banked turns every winter. We even saw Dick Buerkle (the bald guy, as we knew him) set the world record in the indoor mile. It was exciting back then, and got us psyched for spring track.
I'm glad some other people love them some St. Crispin's Day Speech (and I'm a little shocked that no one has corrected the first guy: "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother . . . " and so on, and so one, and so awesomely on).
Also, to actually contribute something to the main thrust of the thread:
1) There is a general, year-to-year trend which shows an increase in the number of marathons put on in the United States (although there was a dip from 350 to 340 from 2006 to 2007).
2) The number of marathoners has gone up every year since 2001 (with the exception of '01, which some attribute to the terrorist attacks of September 11th). The number of finishers are as follows:
2000: 299,000
2001: 295,000
2002: 324,000
2003: 334,000
2004: 362,000
2005: 383,000
2006: 397,000
2007: 407,000
That's some SERIOUS growth.
3) Marathons today are largely participation events: the average male time in '07 was 4:29:52, and the average female time was 4:59:28. That's pretty darn slow (although the medians would likely be a bit faster, and would be a better statistic to look at). I would be interested to see what average times were in the '70s.
4) The percentage of female marathoners seems to have plateaued at about 40% (it was between 39.1% and 40.0% every year 2003-2007). That's obviously a much higher % than than during the running boom.
All stats (except the one on amount-of-glory-per-person) are from the marathonguide.com 2007 report. When does the one on 2008 come out?
Not An Expert wrote:
2000: 299,000
2001: 295,000
2002: 324,000
2003: 334,000
2004: 362,000
2005: 383,000
2006: 397,000
2007: 407,000
That's some SERIOUS growth.
this is average growth of 4.5%/year. Not a boom.
If we apply this same rate back to 1980, that would imply 120k people running marathons then (when there were fewer choices). Still a significant number.
Huge races from the 80s have died (Brians Run...that was a great one). Aside from Bloomsday, B2B, Bolder Boulder and a few others, and ~10 marathons, there is just much less interest in running in the US now vs 30 years ago. And the depth is just not there.
Why? No idea...soccer, football, who knows.
But this is not an old curmudgeon talking. Races are much more shallow at all levels in the US than they were 30 years ago.
and when I say "interest", i mean at the general level of readers of this board - people who want to improve, try to run faster, rather than just finish.
*OUR* numbers are dwindling. The number of people merely showing up at races is increasingly at a trivial rate.
I don't think is was better back then but it was certainly different. I don't believe I would become a runner and a racer today. It's exciting but not compelling enough. In the 1970's it was just more compelling. For most of us it was new. Our parents hadn't run. So we were doing something new and different and on our own. I ran on the roads for four years before I raced for the first time in 1972.
Most of the runners I knew wanted run faster and not just participate. The pure depth in local races was startling. I ran in the low 5:20's at Bay to Breakers in the early 1980's and barely finished in the top 90 runners. These days I would finish in the top 40 or 50.
BQ was 3 hours (3:10 for masters and women).
Not An Expert wrote:
3) Marathons today are largely participation events: the average male time in '07 was 4:29:52, and the average female time was 4:59:28. That's pretty darn slow (although the medians would likely be a bit faster, and would be a better statistic to look at). I would be interested to see what average times were in the '70s.
Purely anecdotal:
My first marathon was in 1972 ("pre-Shorter"--though actually after his big Fukuoka win in 1971). I ran 3:56 and beat the last finisher by 10 seconds. Total field a few dozen, at least 2/3 of finishers under 3:30.
My second (and last) marathon was a few months later--the national championship. Ran 3:50 on (almost) the first hot day of the spring and doubt that I beat more than 20 other finishers. (Actually probably more like 10, and I'm not sure there were any finishers over 4:00. Total field size under 200, including the most women I ever raced against: 4.
From those experiences, I'm not sure but certainly think the median (men's) time was under 3:30 in those days, though probably well over 3:00. There weren't too many joke "runners" then, particularly after Boston established qualifying standards. I was considered only semi-serious, as I had no talent and averaged not much more than 50mpw.
Since then I've walked the marathon distance, multiple times, under five hours. For "runners," even those as untalented as I, to take five hours and more to complete a marathon just boggles my mind.
Oh yeah, and back then races followed IAAF rules: no water stops before 10km, and only every 5km thereafter.
I started running in 1979. I was 11 yrs old at the time and the reason I started running was that even in my podunk little town, they had a 5k road race.
So the running boom did affect me, and still is, becase I still churn out the miles. Now, running did become mainstream, but it was never as popular as the ball sports, and it never will be.
The main difference I see from now and then, is that back then people really did seem to run to get faster. Races were that- races. Some where around the '80s things went askew.
As far as the GenX vs Gen Y- I'm a GenXer, but we sucked up- collectively speaking. Other than Kennedy and Williams, we just didn't do much. Thank goodness GenY picked up the baton and ran with it after it was fumbled so badly by us.
I started running in 1979. I was 11 yrs old at the time and the reason I started running was that even in my podunk little town, they had a 5k road race.
So the running boom did affect me, and still is, becase I still churn out the miles. Now, running did become mainstream, but it was never as popular as the ball sports, and it never will be.
The main difference I see from now and then, is that back then people really did seem to run to get faster. Races were that- races. Some where around the '80s things went askew.
As far as the GenX vs Gen Y- I'm a GenXer, but we sucked up- collectively speaking. Other than Kennedy and Williams, we just didn't do much. Thank goodness GenY picked up the baton and ran with it after it was fumbled so badly by us.
I started running in 1979. I was 11 yrs old at the time and the reason I started running was that even in my podunk little town, they had a 5k road race.
So the running boom did affect me, and still is, becase I still churn out the miles. Now, running did become mainstream, but it was never as popular as the ball sports, and it never will be.
The main difference I see from now and then, is that back then people really did seem to run to get faster. Races were that- races. Some where around the '80s things went askew.
As far as the GenX vs Gen Y- I'm a GenXer, but we sucked up- collectively speaking. Other than Kennedy and Williams, we just didn't do much. Thank goodness GenY picked up the baton and ran with it after it was fumbled so badly by us.
No... never more popular than football, but football wasn't as omnipresent and near-religious as it is now.
Will concur with what a lot of what was said, and give my view as as mid-40s guy.
The success of US Olympians and the comparative better exposure of T&F/Distance Running did a lot. ABC's Wide World of Sports showed the major marathons and track meets. One who wasn't around has to realize sports-viewing TV options were far fewer. (Relatedly, in the northern US, XC skiing got a big jump when Bill Koch won a silver medal.)
I liken distance running in the 70s/early 80s to the "extreme sports" of today, sans the glitz and grandstanding. It was mainly younger (sub-age-35) guys trying to show their physical mettle outside the mainstream sports, and the thought was to hammer hard and improve, if only to match the prevailing standards and competition. As other stat-providing-posters implied, you had high miles and fast paces. I recall the local marathoners of northern Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, post-collegians and half were married and fathers, would run what appeared to be "all the freaking time" and ran mostly sub-3s. Marathon times over 3:30 were seen as average to disappointing, and 35-minute times were talked about in relation to 10k, not 8k/5 mi. A shirt-tail relative was very into his paper-mill corporate team and competition at the Fox Cities Marathon, with typical times for those in the running was 2:35-2:50... and this was a moderate-sized category for teams.
Overall, "back then" the populace was in comparatively better physical shape. Even the smoking non-weekend-warriors were fairly active with their chores, jobs, and recreation (such as softball leagues). The very-good to sub-elite-tier runners have become uncommon animals.
I know this sounds corny, but runners then were tougher. How? Believe it or not, not only the Kenyans run to and from school. In the 60's, 70's and even 80's many high school kids ran to and from school. Some just to, and after poractice got a ride home.
Think about how much stronger that would make you. Being asked to run 3 or 4 miles at practice would seem easy compared to running with a bookbag at 6 AM for the same distance.
pittsburgher wrote:
I know this sounds corny, but runners then were tougher. How? Believe it or not, not only the Kenyans run to and from school. In the 60's, 70's and even 80's many high school kids ran to and from school. Some just to, and after poractice got a ride home.
Think about how much stronger that would make you. Being asked to run 3 or 4 miles at practice would seem easy compared to running with a bookbag at 6 AM for the same distance.
That's possible. My senior year of HS my typical day consisted of running 2 miles to school with a XC team friend. Then whatever workout we had that day. The same two miles home....usually run but walked occasionally after a particularly brutal training session. Then a few times a week and on all weekend nights I'd run home from my girlfriend's house which was a couple of miles away also.
My favorite generational quotation:
“While the pathologically nostalgic baby boomers are busy popping Viagra and clinging to their endless squat in the spotlight, and when their self-obsessed, lip-synching progeny, the Millennials, are caught up in a perpetual hustle to take that spotlight away, the generation that is doing the hard, quiet work of keeping America from sucking is the one that still gets pegged as a bunch of slackers: Generation X.”
(Jeff Gordinier – X Saves the World)
Yes, the top level talent in the US was weak during the Gen X era, but I’d attribute that at least partially to the fact that there were many fewer of them than the preceding Boomer or subsequent Y generations. The more people in the system, the greater the odds of some outlier-type talent emerging.
One of the reasons we are seeing a resurgence is the willingness of Gen Y to accept structure, group training, and coaching. Xers worked their tails off independently and without a lot of smarts. Gen Y is working within a lot of structure and it is paying off.
But, back to the original post -- Xers are independent and on the whole could care less whether what they do is in the spotlight. They didn't care that our sport was less popular than others. I suspect that most Boomers reading this thread are troubled that our sport doesn't receive the recognition it once did. Xers will feel that all that matters is that you worked your butt off and gave it your best shot.
Just remember, these runners from the 60's and 70's are from a generation that expected life span is about 76 years. While the children today under age 27 are expected to have a life span of 72.
They live a more sedentery life now, and it will show.
100 years from now, historians will wonder how we let our children become so fat, lazy and out of shape.
The Gen-X issue
There was a demographic dip that (I believe) led to a drop off in total participation. some have posted times and depths contending there was no such drop off, but we know the numbers were not there in the late 80s and 90s. Ask any educator in the 70s and 80s and they will concur - student populations declined, and schools were closed.
The economy sucked too - to be in your early/mid 20s in the late 80s/early 90s was hell. And there was no sponsorship $ like now, no prize money. Nothing. Or so limited as to require a life of unending penury to be a full time runner.
Having lived through '78-'81 and everything it brought about, I can only tell young people, "hold on for a wild ride".
One other aside - people used to ask Jim Ryun (Wes Santee? Cunningham? - a Jayhawk) how he would train, go to school and work a part-time job. He replied, "We worked hard then. That was what people did. You always worked. It was just expected."
Actually, track was on tv all the time. As a fan, I took it for granted that some meet was going to be on- indoor meets every weekend and the spring U.S. meets. When a world record was set everyone talked about it.
I don't know why it lost popularity, but I do wish it would come back.
Could be soccer's youth league influence.
Not An Expert wrote:
Also, to actually contribute something to the main thrust of the thread:
2) The number of marathoners has gone up every year since 2001 (with the exception of '01, which some attribute to the terrorist attacks of September 11th). The number of finishers are as follows:
2000: 299,000
2001: 295,000
2002: 324,000
2003: 334,000
2004: 362,000
2005: 383,000
2006: 397,000
2007: 407,000
That's some SERIOUS growth.
Not every finisher in a marathon-event is a marathoner. In Nijmegen (Holland) there is a walking (not running!) event were in four days participants cover 200k (50k a day) in a pace which is in a lot of cases quicker than a lot of those so called marathoners.
mcordi wrote:
Actually, track was on tv all the time.
Not just TV, either. In the prime outdoor season, and most weeks during the prime indoor season, there'd be a track article in Sports Illustrated.
If your library keeps back issues of magazines, you can check it yourself. Look at the issues in the 1960s--not only articles (nearly) every week, but frequently the cover as well. Jim Ryun was on the cover when he was like 17.
In fact, Ryun was their Sportsman of the Year at least once. And their very first SOY was a track guy, as well. Do you see track athletes getting much consideration for that now?
The sport has changed. The culture has changed.