Johnny Rotten wrote:
Maybe all those marathons were short?
equally likely that all those marathons were long.
Johnny Rotten wrote:
Maybe all those marathons were short?
equally likely that all those marathons were long.
Sid Vicious wrote:
Johnny Rotten wrote:Maybe all those marathons were short?
equally likely that all those marathons were long.
No.
malmo wrote: Wow, Pete you found one recurring 5k in the middle of nowhere where exactly 17 athletes ran 5:00 pace over a span of 21 years. What was I thinking? The Athlete's Foot 5K Spring Tune-Up, (duh moment) I'm so embarrassed to overlook such an event!
malmo, I know you can be surly, but I didn't think you would stoop to ridiculing the quality of racing in a small part of Canada. There are some good runners on that list. Not former AR holders like yourself, but some very decent talent nonetheless. One guy with a 15:40 time was a 30-flat guy back in the day.
There are several races listed there, but of course one of them appears more prominently in the listings. That was likely the only race that was close to being partly flat.
I know the guys who used to keep that list, and he is very fussy about what times got onto it, and was particular to screen out courses that weren't widely accepted among RDs and others who ought to know as being accurate.
The point I was trying to make with that list was twofold:
1) to rebut malmo's casual dismissal of the existence of 5k races before the dawn of time
2) to support the OP's thesis. Those times stand today because:
a) it was quality guys running the times
b) all the 5k courses in that province tend to be damn challenging;
and they stand in spite of the existence of more numerous 5ks in the province today.
Make of these (ridiculous) data what you will.
I can give a story about the Heart Run 10K in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida in the mid-80s. It was not a certified course for a number of years and people had some really fast times on that course. The year that they got it certified the start mysteriously moved back about one and a half city blocks. The finish may have moved the other way to make it even longer. Bottom line, the race was really short for most of its early years. Thus the fast times.
A few thoughts... I ran in HS and college from 1962 thru 1970; then resumed training in 1976, and raced pretty frequently through 1985. I have no 5k PR from that era... my recollection is that the shortest races were 5 miles, there were plenty of those; and 10ks, 10 miles, halves... that's what was out there. Closest to 5k was an occasional three mile on the track. To me, the emergence of the 5k was a reflection of people training less, and organizers response was to shorten the distance to keep the appeal to a greater number of people. 10k was too far.
I'd also observe that especially in my early days of running, there was not a great emphasis on precision. And it was much more common to have a race at an arbitrary distance... for example, a loop of the River Drives in Philly... everyone had a time for "the loop", which was all of 8.4 miles. Or the races put on by the late Olympian Browning Ross in South Jersey... who knows how they were measured, they certainly were not marked... he'd tell the field (usually < 100 people) to just follow Herb (Lorenz), or whichever local standout was running that day.
All of that being said, in the 76-80 era, my times were pretty consistent, with only an occasional race where the more knowledgeable would say afterward... I think that was short. My fastest races (PRs) were all on pretty reliable courses - Boston '79; Philly Dist Run '81; 10k was on the Fairmount Park 10K course that had been measured 1000 times by Chris Tatreau's group, several of whom worked at Memorial Hall, the starting line for that course. So, I can't subscribe to the idea that many/most courses in this later era were "off"... maybe more of the smaller, local races, but not the regional/national level races.
Finally, got to agree on the marathon times... a teammate, Chris Mason (former Villanova miler) ran 2:16 in the '79 Boston, which got him 75th; my 2:34 from the same race would have put me top 100 this year, if I remember correctly. I was something like 440th, a bit ahead of Joan Benoit's 2:35.xx win. There were just a LOT more people training a LOT harder BITD.
Here's the 10k list from the same province:
0:28:33 Norm Tinkham Halifax 1989 Youngstown, Ohio 1963 26 M 10 25-29
0:29:52 Dan Hennigar Halifax 1999 National 10K Championships, Montreal 1971 28 M 10 25-29
0:30:00 Bo MacGillivray Stellarton 1991 Halifax Police 10K, Halifax 1959 32 M 10 30-34
0:30:04 Bo MacGillivray Stellarton 1986 Navy 10K, Halifax 1959 27 M 10 25-29
0:30:05 Norm Tinkham Halifax 1985 Canadian 10K Championships, Calgary 1963 22 M 10 20-24
0:30:06 Ralph Williams Centreville 1984 Frederick Bruhm Memorial 10k, Mahone Bay 1952 32 M 10 30-34
0:30:11 Robert Englehutt Dartmouth 1984 Frederick Bruhm Memorial 10k, Mahone Bay 1958 26 M 10 25-29
0:30:14 Smartex Tambala Bedford 1986 Navy 10K, Halifax 1965 21 M 10 20-24
0:30:19 Smartex Tambala Bedford 1991 Halifax Police 10K, Halifax 1965 26 M 10 25-29
0:30:20 Randy Bullerwell Halifax 1990 Greenwood 10K, Greenwood 1957 33 M 10 30-34
0:30:30 Eric Gillis Antigonish 2003 Nordian 10K, Ottawa 1980 23 M 10 20-24
0:30:32 Smartex Tambala Bedford 1995 National 10K Championships, Richmond, BC 1965 30 M 10 30-34
0:30:39 Dan Hennigar Halifax 1995 National 10K Championships, Richmond 1971 24 M 10 20-24
0:30:46 Randy Bullerwell Halifax 1995 National 10K Championships, Richmond 1957 38 M 10 35-39
0:30:51 Kirk Sabean Halifax 1995 National 10K Championships, Richmond 1969 26 M 10 25-29
0:30:55 Jeff Gorman Halifax 2004 Peoples Beach to Beacon 10K, Maine 1978 26 M 10 25-29
0:31:12 Dan Kontak Halifax 1989 Eastern Passage/Cow Bay 10K, E. Pass. 1955 34 M 10 30-34
0:31:33 Mike Hamilton Middleton 1984 Frederick Bruhm Memorial 10k, Mahone Bay 1963 21 M 10 20-24
0:31:36 Peter Beazley Halifax 1996 Greenwood 10K, Greenwood 1969 27 M 10 25-29
0:31:37 Freeman Churchill Halifax 1983 Bridgewater Bulletin 10K, Bridgewater 1953 30 M 10 30-34
0:31:41 Dan Soucoup Halifax 1990 National 10K Championships, Ottawa 1949 41 M 10 40-44
0:31:43 Andy O'Rourke Halifax 1988 Greenwood 10K, Greenwood 1964 24 M 10 20-24
0:31:52 Brian Barkhouse Chester 1996 Bridgewater 10K, Bridgewater 1970 26 M 10 25-29
0:31:59 Bob Russell Dartmouth 1983 Frederick Bruhm Memorial 10k, Mahone Bay 1951 32 M 10 30-34
0:31:59 Gerald Romme Halifax 1986 Navy 10K, Halifax 1962 24 M 10 20-24
0:31:59 Bob Russell Dartmouth 1986 Run for Opportunity 10k, Lower Sackville 1951 35 M 10 35-39
None of these courses are flat. Note the relative absence of times from 1990 and beyond.
The existence of faster times in the 80s has nothing to do with short courses. These guys (some of them anyway) ran equivalent times on the track. There simply aren't as many serious runners putting in the training and duking it out with each other to get the faster times.
In that little backwater anyway.
malmo you are correct, most of the "5ks" were the 3 mile fun runs that were added to the real race of 10KM & beyond to attract the masses. Only after the US became softer & unable to get through 10km or the races were losing numbers of partipants did the 5KM become the race of choice as it is now days.
stillrunning wrote:
maybe more of the smaller, local races, but not the regional/national level races.
Yeah, that's really what I'm wondering about. Some course like Boston you don't argue with. But around here, courses--even for long-term races--change almost yearly.
This discussion started because my friend and I were comparing road racers of different eras, and the only way to do that is to compare times. It's a lot clearer to compare track times.
Pete wrote:malmo, I know you can be surly, but I didn't think you would stoop to ridiculing the quality of racing in a small part of Canada. There are some good runners on that list. Not former AR holders like yourself, but some very decent talent nonetheless. One guy with a 15:40 time was a 30-flat guy back in the day.
Pete, wake up. You're the one claiming I was asleep in the 80s.
I could advise you to stop the passive/aggressive act, but after years of dealing with you I know better. I'm sorry you take personal offense to my very objective response to your post that was to somehow show I was asleep and missed the great 5k surge of the 80s. You found a 5k race in the middle of nowhere, where over the course of 17 years exactly 12 runners were able to crack 5:00 miles. What was I supposed to do, Pete, bite my tongue to keep from laughing? C'mon, I'm supposed to know about this? I'd be willing to bet there were a few Turkey Trots that were 5k too, but as I recall, they were mostly 5 milers/10ks in the day.
Excuse me while I snore once more ...... when I wake up in the 'teens I'll be shocked to learn that all road races are now 1k Gallowalks.
stillrunning wrote:
Finally, got to agree on the marathon times... a teammate, Chris Mason (former Villanova miler) ran 2:16 in the '79 Boston, which got him 75th; my 2:34 from the same race would have put me top 100 this year, if I remember correctly. I was something like 440th, a bit ahead of Joan Benoit's 2:35.xx win. There were just a LOT more people training a LOT harder BITD.
This is the real illustration of the difference. At the Boston marathon a 2:30 used get you in the top 400. Today, there are 2:30 marathoners who, with all sincerity, believe they belong in the Olympic Trials.
malmo wrote: You found a 5k race in the middle of nowhere, where over the course of 17 years exactly 12 runners were able to crack 5:00 miles.
malmo, there are three different 5k races with results for the 80s on that list. One of them happens to have most of the results. As I've suggested, it was likely the flattest course (although I don't know that, not having run it). Most races in that province are quite hilly.
It's safe to assume that there were at least a couple other 5k races in the province during that time, but times didn't make the list because they weren't fast courses.
This is a province with about 700,000 people. That's what - about the size of a medium size county in one of your larger states?
If we assume that Nova Scotia wasn't a hotbed of 5k activity by comparison with the rest of North America, that means there were more than a few 5k races going on.
Granted, they may have been much less common and popular than other distances, but they existed. Even in your part of the world no doubt.
malmo wrote:
Typo: 12 athletes.
That's totally unfair malmo. There were at least two dozen athletes in a lot of those races. They may not have been runners, but I'm sure there where that many athletes.
Keith Stone wrote: There were at least two dozen athletes in a lot of those races. They may not have been runners, but I'm sure there where that many athletes.You're probably right on the first half - the fields would have been very small - but I doubt there were any non-runners, and were probably very few casual racers, competing in those races.
I have to agree with Malmo about the lack of 5 kms on the road in the old days. Many New England road races were run on particular courses with the start and finish in the same place, like the center of a town, and were only roughly measured and called to the nearest mile. A "ten" miler could be from 9 to 11.
So when ever any one ran a fast time the question was, "How short was it."
Tom
That's interesting, Tom. Rather Romantic, too: competition for the sake of kicking your buddy's ass. No point in comparing times--doesn't matter.
Pete wrote:
You're probably right on the first half - the fields would have been very small - but I doubt there were any non-runners, and were probably very few casual racers, competing in those races.
No, I was a non-runner then and I ran those races. I knew lots of non-runners that did. I qualified for nationals in swimming, and I know a bunch on gymnasts, football players, etc, that ran in those days because it was the thing to do. If you had a Friday night meet and your ass was hung over from the post meet party there was extra pressure to post up.
The Grape Crush Rush 5K they had on campus every year (77-80) pulled about 500 people and they didn't give shirts to anyone over 24 minutes. The Schlitz 5 milers did better because of the free beer afterwards (and the drinking age was 18 then). Neither did age group awards but they had a bunch of swag. Both had great looking babes handing things out. You also have to remember that running was 95% male then and the "booth babes" they had at the finish most certainly would never have done something like sweat unless they were being boinked.
"This is the real illustration of the difference. At the Boston marathon a 2:30 used get you in the top 400. Today, there are 2:30 marathoners who, with all sincerity, believe they belong in the Olympic Trials."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it that the nearly all the runners from the 80's believe themselves far superior to the present day runners? They are ridiculously arrogant, constantly citing the same Boston marathon sub 2:30 statistic, ridiculing the talent level and work ethic of nearly every contemporary distance runner - including some idiot criticizing Abdi (a 2:08 marathoner) for his stride length.
The original poster asked a question about the accuracy of the courses in the 80's as compared to today...and whenever this question is asked, a band of 80's has-been's jumps on board the "everyone today" sucks bandwagon, and never really caring to answer the question: Were the course short? Including the major road races and marathons?
My guess is 'yes' they were. And there is also more stringent drug testing today, but that's another topic of discussion.
Having experienced the New England Road Race scene first hand I'll tell you it's like none other. It seemed like you could run three or four races a week if you wanted to. Tom, why do you think that was so? Is is because there's a higher density of colleges there? Even in the 70s the money was good in those races.
Trident wrote: Why is it that the nearly all the runners from the 80's believe themselves far superior to the present day runners? They are ridiculously arrogant, constantly citing the same Boston marathon sub 2:30 statistic,
...
The original poster asked a question about the accuracy of the courses in the 80's as compared to today...and whenever this question is asked, a band of 80's has-been's jumps on board the "everyone today" sucks bandwagon, ....
How do you account for that Boston 2:30 statistic, then? Climate change?
I don't think any of the faster old guys (malmo, Derderian) presented runners of the 80s as superior to runners today, but that particular statistic does make a good point.
I think any of the older guys who've posted in this thread have acknowledged that a lot of courses may have been short.
I think you're reading what you want to read instead of what's been written. Nobody has said "everyone sucks" today. But you really can't argue against the fact that fewer runners have been running fast times than in the 70s and 80s.
scotth wrote:
Keith, I had a Ford Pinto I swear was right on the money for distance back in the day!
I have to say that well before I was what I'd consider a runner I helped a friend in the fraternity lay out an "official" course in a 1972 VW Microbus. I was along to lift the sandbags that were apparenty thought needed for the foldouts that were at each mile. We even drove real slow as we came up on the 3.1 so we'd put the last foldout in the right place.
It's a memory that comes back each time I calibrate my bike.