The year: 1984 & the USA had 165 Sub-2:20 performances

Portland, surprise!, you know I'm going to disagree w/you that RW is responsible (or largely so) for the decline in numbers at the top. I maintain that runners capable of fast times do not find their inspiration and information in RW. They are former college runners, nurtured in the ways of hard work, etc.

Yeah, we may lose a few runners to the RW mush but nowhere near the degree you think.

I agree that 'mainstream media' of the RW ilk has dumbed (or slowed) down running to the masses. This makes running more accessible to more people and sells more magazines. It is a bussiness after all. However, competent HS XC and track coaches can counter this by training kids well, ie: training them to run fast and more, and WIN, not just be there. I think the US education system in general, including HS athletics, does not put enough emphasis on competition. So fast kids are assumed to be just 'born with it' rather than properly trained and motivated. Of course the big three sports do siphon off some of the best athletes, but that is what most school officials, coaches, and parents want. Those sports sell tickets, fill stadiums, and garner advertising; track and XC haven't figured out how to do that yet. What we need is some trash talking, drug doing, bling-blinging XC and track stars to show kids that running is cool and can make you a major playa, instantly. Come on NIKE get to work!

RW both reflects and contributes to the trend.

Rog, I agree with you on most of your post.

I don't want to take anything away from Rodgers, Shorter, and Salazar but they competed in a much differnt era. When Rodgers made his big breakthrough in 75 he was suddenly one of the top marathoners in the world and a real contender for an Olympic Gold Medal. Shorter won gold in 72 by breaking away 10 miles into the race and winning in 2:12.

Today a 2:09 marathon is nobody special on the world scene.

The many great runners in the 70's were training hard and pulling out all the stops to be the best they could be. Those who are competing today are doing the same.

You don't think Culpeppar and Dan Browne are training hard?

One thing that is different is the HUGE psychological factor that being one good race away from number one in the world, the adrenaline, optimism, boost to the ego, rush, and motivation. Jorge Torres and Adam Goucher came out of college pretty much at the same fitness level as Salazar, Pre, Virgin , and others. But while those guys were racing for wins in Europe today a 13:15 guy makes the final in the Championship meets and finishes dead last.

Now I agree that there's no use in complaining and the only thing you can do is keep training hard but it is a barrier to overcome, this huge gap from national class to world class. This gap wasn't as big before the 90's and more people were encouraged to keep going in this sport.

So yeah, we had 191 people once under 2:20 aand I would bet every one of them had goals of winning Boston, making the Olympics, and being the next Bill Rodgers and a lot of people were running 100 plus miles a week in this country.

The World Record today is 2:04. We may never see another American win Boston. And fewer people are holding off careers to concentrate on marathons.

Maybe were just pussies today as was mentioned earlier. But things are not exactly the same now as then and being a pussy as opposed to running clearly for intrinsic reasons is the easier choice.

One person who has the talent and heart to actually gain real glory, like Shorter and Rodgers, is all it would take to turn the tide.

Hold on I'm not finished.

Before 1988, the African nations did not have, or for what ever reason were unable to, mobilise and develop their talent to the huge depth they have today. Actually Americans could hang with Kenya and Ethiopia in the World Cross Champs. not beating them but often splitting them up. And those countries really didn't come to the meet until round 1980. They had other important things to spend money on, such as wars and to keep from starving to death.

Later on their economies improved, things became a little more stable. And there became a lot more money out there for runners and stars emerged, like Ngugi and Ondieki, and coached and agents become much more organized and the armies of distance runners emerged.

I remember in 1992 when large groups of Kenyans started to come over and enter money races in groups of 10. The first one I remember that year was the Cooper River Bridge Run where Kenyans swept all top 10 places for the first time ever in a road race. ANd I remember guys like Brantly, Sinclair, and Donakowski, who were used to winning several road races a year, talking about this at one race. Things were never going to be the same and they knew it.

Although Keith did win Falmouth that year I believe, outkicking a mob of Kenyans. That hasn't happened there much since.

July 1976 cover of RW..I think...Rick Wohlhuter, 800 & 1500 mt monster. RW used to be a running mag, not now, no.

Trends in training start at the high school level but take years to show their affects at the national level. Thus, we're seeing the result today of what was going on five to ten years ago. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the trend was lower mileage, and performances suffered. In 1991, Alan Culpepper ran a 3:50 1500 as a high school senior, and its mile equivalent, 4:07, was faster than any high school mile that year. I'll bet 4:07 won't make the top ten this year. But Culpepper and others from that era are the national-class distance runners of today.

Now we're starting to see the results of the trend towards higher mileage. Probably not this year, but by the 2008 Olympics, the US should have a respectable distance team. By 2008, Ritz, Webb, Hall, and the rest will be ready to compete on the highest level.

malmo wrote:

191 Americans with 267 sub-2:20 performances in 1983.

Number of sub 2:20 American Performers (* adjusted for NYC and Oakland courses being short)

1981 = 218*

Does anyone here know how short the 1981 Oakland Marathon Course was? My dad ran his PR there (2:30:12) in 1981.

-Brent

Jzs wrote:

malmo thanks for the info. Where did you grab this from, url? Do you have the last two years? Also interested in the numbers of Marathon qualifiers this year's Marathon Trials 2004. I do know that in 1980 the standard was 2:21:54 & we had 225 qualifiers. In 1984 we had 201 qualifiers from a standard of 2:19:04!

How many do we have signed up for 2004 with the standards @ 2:20 & 2:22?

1981 Oakland 381 yards short.

1981 NYC 148m short.

This guy above says it well. Issue today is lack of patience in your athletes. They want everything today and run for the wrong reasons. Most of all they are not willing to do what it takes to run at an elite level or even national class level. How many or your running friends do you know are willing to work a 40 hour week and still run 120 mpw. With that give up on going out with their friends at night or not having a girlfriend or a nice new car ect or all the trappings of today. My guess. Few if any. There is your answer on one of many reasons todays post collegiate do run what they did years ago.

Plain and simple. Runners today are pussies.

>Although Keith did win Falmouth that year I believe, outkicking a mob of Kenyans. That hasn't happened there much since.<

Don't think so though he did have some excellent races there:

http://www.falmouthroadrace.com/racehistory/summary_highlights.shtml

I'll answer my own question, Much Thanks to someone on another thread! The USATF has listed 102 runners who have met the qualifying standards for this 2004 Trials. So we have 1/2 the runners making the Trials Qualifying times then we did 20 years ago!

Wrong Big Man. Not 1/2 of 20 years ago. The standard back in '84 was 2:19:04. Hate to know how many guys would have been between that mark and 2:22:00. At least the same number(if not many more) that you have qualified for the '04 trials.

Sorry, what do you carry for the old MAN? Be easy & polite with the young folks would you? What is that a difference here..of....3 minutes & about 6.71 sec/mile to get into the game? Stop beating me I can't take it...! I was just giving the benefit of the doubt I guess.

Heyt Malmo ,

With all due respect. I read your reply. I m making and educated guess here in that your a young runner in your early to mid 20;s. Let me say this. Runners years ago ran for nothing , but the pure desire to see how good they could be with there own individual abiltiy. Today runners are different. However if you ask me. I see a lot of runners who are say decent runners ( sub 4:00 1500ms, say 31 minute 10k or say mid 2:20;s marathoners ) Although decent journey men times they are not elite or even close. Even a 2:20 marathon is okay ,but thats about it. With todays technology, shoes, tracks and what not you would think that runners would be faster across the board. They are not and the stats show this. What it comes down to is this. Hunger and poverty warants a lot more desire. Do I think American runners or UK runners are less talented then Afircans. Hell not. What it comes down to is economics. Runners today run for different reasons then they did 20 plus years ago. If your a guy in your 20;s you really can;t comment on the way runners were in the 1970's or 1980;s . Nor can I comment on what motivated the great runners of say the 1960;s or 1950;s. Point being talent does not mean that much. The fact is runners back then ran for the Desire to see how good they could be. Runners today as a whole don;t or they are only interested in being decent , but not willing to sacrifice to the level it would take to get that little extra out of them. There is not much difference talent wise between a 2:23 marathoner and a 2:15 guy. It all comes down to work ethic and Desire to sacrifice. Beleave me or not, but thats my point of view from a runner who ran and trained 100 plus miles per week well working a full time job back in the day. If you were not in the day. You realy can;t comment. However we all enjoy your thoughts.

Marathon wrote:

Heyt Malmo ,

With all due respect. I read your reply. I m making and educated guess here in that your a young runner in your early to mid 20;s.

I really hope the rest of the post was facetious otherwise you need a new hypothesis.

There is no one answer for the decline in distance running but several.

1. Soccer- Today this sport draws our youth in with many promises. Why should they go running? Give em a ball and call them "Olympic Development".

2. PE- In our HS's today, a HS student may take as little as 12 weeks of PE in a year. Some schools it is half that and it is co-ed. I graduated in 1982 and I remember sweating hard during PE and competing in many games. We didn't play with the girls so we didn't worry about working so hard that we sweated and farted all the time.

3. PE Curriculum- Yesterday's student did wrestling, basketball, football, gymnastics, baseball, dodgeball, etc. Most or all of these are "too dangerous" for today's society. Badminton anyone?

4. Electronics- Why run the streets when you can "surf" the world?

5. Many more beyond counting...