Why were Americans so good in the 60s, 70s and early 80s?

retro wrote:

Teg's average pace is probably around 6:00, the difference is in the intensity, not the mileage.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. That pace is not hard for him to run.

I'm no running historian, but has anyone pondered the thought that maybe God created the east africans better suited for distance running. Maybe 30 years ago they lacked the know-how that they have today. I don't see any sub 13 or sub 27 Americans from back in the glory days. I don't think the talent or drive is any less today. These guys work and race their tales off and doing so they run faster than 20-30 years ago.

Pretty sure the Africans just "got with the program." You don't see any white american power sprinters. Different culture breed different tallent....IMO.

American men are running faster at shorter distances, but we still can't compare - by time or place - to previous generations of marathoners. We're getting closer, though - go Sell!

AMERICA WASN'T AN ASPHALT PARKING LOT BACK THEN. (shhh! you are yelling) oh, right. no more dirt roads.

Money wasn't the motivator.

Is Paula Radcliffe African?

Track was a much bigger sport in Gerry Lindgren's heyday. The dual meet between the US and the Soviet Union in 1964 at the Los Angeles Coliseum was filled to capacity. It was said that Robert Kennedy was moved to tears as he watched Lindgren beat the Soviets in the 10,000.

The US had a lot of major meets in those days, and there was a weekend television show in the early called "AAU Track and Field." Consequently, there was a lot more inspiration among high schoolers in the 1970s to try to go for the glory and try to emulate Ryun and Lindgren. It was astonishing how many high school boys were running sub 9 minutes for two miles in the 1970s. I think it was a combination of the high mileage and the sheer draw of the sport. Today, there are probably a lot of potential superstars who simply never run because the sport is so minor.

I think what hurt the sport's popularity was poor leadership at the top. Ollan Cassell was a control freak who didn't tolerate criticism and who refused to change with the times. I recall that every article I read about the guy was negative. The sport needed someone with the marketing savvy of a Pete Rozelle.

I also think the 1980 boycott of the Moscow Olympics sucked some of the wind out of US distance running. The team that year might have been our most competitive ever. Who knows what might have happened had they competed in the Olympics? Maybe our presence in Moscow would have inspired a lot more Bob Kennedys to take up running. Success breeds success.

[quote]antiboomer wrote:

The Cosmic event was the Kenyan Eclipse that didn't occur until after 1964-1988. Idolizing the Baby-boomer era heroes of track is on par with pining away for Ty Cobb and longing for the pre-Jackie Robinson days of baseball.

[quote]

EXACTLY. They didn't have boat loads of East Africans to race every weekend.

College Guy wrote:

retro wrote:

Teg's average pace is probably around 6:00, the difference is in the intensity, not the mileage.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. That pace is not hard for him to run.

He's saying he could do more, or do what he's doing faster, or possibly both.

road to hell is paved wrote:

AMERICA WASN'T AN ASPHALT PARKING LOT BACK THEN. (shhh! you are yelling) oh, right. no more dirt roads.

Yes it was.

It is so funny that there are so many experts out there to criticize Teg and his training. The real world is that Teg (and thousands of others) are competitive in college and get hurt trying to reach the next level. When it all comes together (Coach learns from mistakes, Teg communicates better, his growing slows down, he finally gets to train consistently, etc.) he is now running PR after PR. Now "the experts" want to get on here and say that the secret is that he just run 800 miles/week and he will be better!!!!! (that's why high mileage people like Rupp are just tearing the world up right now) Competing with the Kenyans is reachable, but defeating the best Africans in the steeple, 5k, and 10k is next to impossible! Much has to do with our culture and their culture. I have coached at the highest level and had some success; please don't be so critical of someone like Teg-Ritz-Webb-Goucher-Lincoln-Hall-Torres-Dobson-Broe, etc. These guys are doing a great job and trying to accomplish the "near impossible". Encourage them, cheer for them and let's hope that they can take American distance running to a new level!!!!

There are far more running paths today than in the 1960s and early 1970s. Back in those days, runners on the streets were an odd sight and were likely to get cans thrown at them.

I used to be harassed by the police when running a 10-mile loop around White Rock Lake in Dallas in 1969-1972. The police would announce over his intercom that runners were not allowed on the road and that I should leave. But around 1981, the city installed a jogging path around the perimeter of White Rock Lake, and the area became a running Mecca. This is probably the typical story, as the nation's parks and roads became much more accommodating to runners after the running boom started in 1975.

As for the Africans, that doesn't explain the dramatic fall off in the number of boys running under 9 minutes for 3200 meters in the 1980s versus under 9 minutes for the two mile in the 1970s. The numbers have picked up again, but the Africans have become even more dominant. So I don't think you can attribute the previous decline in US running to the Africans.

So many have made some great points in this arguement. It is very interesting.

First, we were competitive in more than just 1964. The idea is not just in winning one of 3 medals at the Olympics or worlds, it is in being part of a competitive race- making the final and, at some point, having an effect on the outcome- like Kennedy in 96.

Second, more people hammered more mileage back then. You hear a lot about burnout and (especially from some non-athletic parents)over training. They think anything is too much. More than 4 miles a day for a high schooler will be too much.

The kids who go for it are the ones who succeed.

Third, there was less to do and the world moved slower in the 60's and 70's. Kids now a days simply have too many options. It is more difficult to spend that hour a day running when you could be IMing your friends or playing some mindless computer game.

Fourth, since our world is based on finding the quickest, easiest way to do anything excelling in sports just doesn't work into the equation.

Fifth, don't fool yourself into thinking that track is the only sport we are not a good in as the 70's. Coaches in most high school sports complain that kids do not work as hard as they used to- too many other interests. That leads into the pro ranks being less skilled.

Don't blame it on better defense, in the NBA the best the sport has to offer have to shoot every 24 seconds and teams rarely score over 100 points in a game.

You see baseball players making so many more errors than in the past. The NFL used to be exciting, now it's just boring with a lower skill level.

But, the only important sport is track, of course. I truly believe that there are a lot of young people beginning to take the risks, they go out and hammer every day and DO NOT MAKE EXCUSES.

I was talking to a stranger who was a high school runner when I was (in the 70's) he, too noticed that kids don't run the mileage we did and we hammered almost every day.

We have gone soft as a nation (culture) not only in running but in many aspects- school, other sports, life in general. We are an onbese, lazy nation.

We'll there certainly was a move away from big mileage in the 80's. I see what HS kids are running now and it blows me away.

Good post. Here re some random thoughts. I was there in the 50s, 60s and 70s. We had the very great young runners like Ryun, Lindgren and dont forget Canadian Bruce Kidd. Things were simpler. It was strictly an amature sport and there were no drugs. But it was also harder.

Tracks were dirt and cinders and shoes were poor. On the other hand I think it was more fun and the young men mentioned each was llucky to have the right coach for training and motivation.

Many of the youth of today are spoiled and are being given too much. The Kenyans do not have that problem yet.

I would be willing to bet that today's NFLers are more skilled than many of the old timers. Just look at the sheer size of these guys. The "hogs" would be a severly undersized line these days.

As far as running, going back to big mileage will lead to better HS times. It already has.

I won't go on a "these kids today" rant. I think each generation thinks the young have it too easy. The only problem I have with today's HSer is that XC now competes with soccer. So many kids that would only have XC as a choice, now play soccer. We draw from the same pool, and soccer wins a lot of the time.

>>As for the Africans, that doesn't explain the dramatic fall off in the number of boys running under 9 minutes for 3200 meters in the 1980s versus under 9 minutes for the two mile in the 1970s.<<

http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/HighSchool/HSLists.htm

Living in the Past wrote:[/b ><

.....there was a lot more inspiration among high schoolers in the 1970s to try to go for the glory and try to emulate Ryun and Lindgren. It was astonishing how many high school boys were running sub 9 minutes for two miles in the 1970s. I think it was a combination of the high mileage and the sheer draw of the sport. Today, there are probably a lot of potential superstars who simply never run because the sport is so minor.

1970's saw 9 mins broken 104 times by a HSer(avg=10.4 per year). In 1976 if you ran 9:00.4 that was the 15th fastest 2 mile

In 2004 if you ran 9:00.3 that was the 20th fastest time

In the 00's we have about 72 to date(average=12per year).

Thanks for your kind reply. You brought up a point that is worthwhile to emphasize to younger guys on here. Until about 1970 or 1971, it was hard to find training shoes that were made specifically for running.

Runners had to make do with general gym shoes like the Adidas Rome or the Adidas Gazelle. The cushioning was poor, and the soles would break down faster than for shoes today.

As for Ryun, Kidd, and Lindgren having the right coach, I think it depends on what you mean. Their coaches managed to get the most out of them in high school. But they all were over the hill at an early age. Ryun peaked at 20, Lindgren went downhill immediately after college, and didn't Kidd quit running altogether after 22?

I recall Bruce Kidd competing in an insane number of races at the Commonwealth Games in 1962. He wanted to run everything from the 1500 to the marathon.

None of these guys reached their potential. You can argue that they wouldn't have been able to stay in the sport long enough to reach their potential anyway, because there was no money in it. But what if any one of these guys had had a John Kellogg? He would have brought them to a peak at 27 or 28.