The History Of Competitive Distance Running In The U.S. Since 1954

If this is a draft, gret- lots of work went in, lots of facts, but wow- this needs some serious rewriting in terms of cleaning up sentences, clarifying usage, making sure big things like tense are appropriate. One glaring example, the thesis:

"My theory became that distance running in the U.S., after a long drought, was beginning to turn-around."

Since the premise is that this is going on now, should be is, not was. Since it's the concept the paper is built on, not a good spot to have this.

Another:

"By the mid eighties however, American runners were beginning to disappear once again. Today we need to account for the recent performances and times that seem to

suggest a turn-around?"

The last sentence- is it a question? Doesn't sound like one, but the question mark begs to differ.

My advice- get a good proof reader- and try get a good grade from what was clearly a lot of work.

yes, that was not the final copy, but a close-to-final draft. i had already made the changes you spoke of. the copy i sent to wejo was not completely finished/revised because of timliness issues. i wanted to get it out there in the aftermath of the world championships.

thanks for your comments. i'll try and stay out of further discussion for a while at least. i'm curious to hear other people's thoughts. any advice people can offer would help me to get the paper published, and (maybe?) get people talking about track and distance running in the academic community.

they gave u a summer grant for this piece of garbage. i didn't see any use of primary sources or a sophisticated thesis anywhere within this paper.

horrible wrote:

they gave u a summer grant for this piece of garbage. i didn't see any use of primary sources or a sophisticated thesis anywhere within this paper.

Hey man, it's the liberal arts. It's not our fault that we're the only ones so far who realize that "standards" are at best passe and quaint and at worst violent, punitive, and psychotically imperious.

Tend to agree on the sources- wikipedia is not an acceptable source for an academic paper.

doesn't look like wikipedia was used for anything regarding running. great paper though

Keep in mind I'm not in the liberal arts, nor do I have any real experience in writing or reading papers in such a subject. That being said, my first thoughts having read the paper (that haven't already been mentionned by previous posters) are these...

I'm not entirely sure you convinced me, as your audience, that there really are these definitive peaks and valleys in American distance running - you simply stated how the team did as a whole from Olympiad to Olympiad. I got the impression reading the paper that it was much like "in Olympics X, Americans placed A, B, C...in Olympics Y, Americans played D, E, F, without hypothesizing (convincingly anyways) WHY there was a peak/valley in performance that particular year. Is it coincidence? Environment? Politics? Coaching? Training? etc, etc, etc. Being a fan of the sport, I would have expected a history major, receiving funding for this type of project, to tell me more about the history of the sport than what I already knew from reading a few running novels and watching the sport on TV...and it doesn't appear I'm much older than you.

I'm more convinced that the sport in the U.S. is not much different than any other developed country of the world - each experience their own peaks and valleys for reasons probably no one can predict or describe, most of which probably aren't significant or due to pure chance alone. What about the growth of the sport around the world as a whole?

Clearly more countries take the sport seriously now than they did in the late 50s and early 60s. Could this be why we have seen a decline in performance recently?

All in all, a very well-written paper. I just wished you had hypothesized a bit more regarding any trends in performance and found concrete evidence to back it up. I'm afraid, however, I wasn't entirely convinced.

reminds me of a buddy of mine who used to lie to girls at bars and tell them he was a history Ph.D. candidate, working on a thesis: "German Central Bank Monetary Policy Between 1885 and 1903."

It was so obscure that people would feign interest, praise him for being so intellegent, but really have nothing to call him out about.

From the great comic novel Lucky Jim (and to the original poster, I don't mean this as a dig at your paper -- I look forward to reading it; the thread merely put me in mind of a passage in the book):

Assistant university lecturer Jim Dixon has written a history paper. When asked what the title is by his advisor, he stalls for a while, thinking:

"It was a perfect title, in that it crystallized the article's niggling mindlessness, its funereal parade of yawn-enforcing facts, the pseudo-light it threw upon non-problems. Dixon had read, or begun to read, dozens like it, but his own seemed worst than most in its air of being convinced of its own usefulness and significance. 'In considering this strangely neglected topic,' it began. This what neglected topic? This strangely what topic? This strangely neglected what? His thinking all this without having defiled and set fire to the typescript only made him appear to himself as more of a hypocrite and fool. 'Let's see,' [he says to his advisor]: 'Oh, yes; The Economic Influence of the Developments in Shipbuilding Techniques, 1450 to 1485.'

"Lucky Jim" kicks ass. Remember the description of the way he felt after waking up with a hangover?

The title needs to be changed since the paper only covers men's running. How about: "The History Of Men's Competitive Distance Running In The U.S. Since 1954

Well done Ben Raphelson. I'm glad you wrote it and I am happy to read it.

Tom