loved this:
"Or maybe it's the work ethic of the millennial generation, who seem more driven than the runners who grew up in the era of "everyone gets a medal".
loved this:
"Or maybe it's the work ethic of the millennial generation, who seem more driven than the runners who grew up in the era of "everyone gets a medal".
The administration must come clean!
maybe it's better training due to sites like LRC
Two words: crossfit
SUB-ELITES ARE BACK BABY!!! wrote:
"Or maybe it's the work ethic of the millennial generation, who seem more driven than the runners who grew up in the era of "everyone gets a medal".
I'm pretty sure that's the era when the millennials grew up.
That P'tree graph is easy to explain. In the 80s and early 90s Atlanta had about 100 guys running between 29:00 and 33:00 for 10K. By the late 90s these guys started getting older and slower or moved away. There wasn't enough young local guys to replace them and very few fast guys moved into town, thus the average time for 50th place got slower.
Blowing Rock Master! wrote:
SUB-ELITES ARE BACK BABY!!! wrote:"Or maybe it's the work ethic of the millennial generation, who seem more driven than the runners who grew up in the era of "everyone gets a medal".
I'm pretty sure that's the era when the millennials grew up.
in my late 20s & that's exactly what i thought when i read it...none of my college teammates run anymore, and all other people my age i know that 'run' are part of the mass-participation fun-run crowd.
hard to believe the premise of the article to be true IMO...sure races like Peachtree (a national champs event that attracts good comp) might look deeper, but i don't see it at local road races. i'm in a US city and ran a decent sized (300 runners) 10K on the 4th...no depth whatsoever. i won by 5 min, followed by a handful of guys in the 36-39min range, then NOTHING after that. hard to believe this would be the case in a race like that during the running boom in the 70s/80s.