but.... wrote:
There were 44 men's trials qualifiers from Chicago in 2006.
Yes there were 44 under 2:22:00, with a difference. They were all packed between 2:19:00 and 2:22:00.
Chicago 2006 had only 15 runners under 2:19 (the current standard.). Eugene 1979 had at least 33. Boston 1983 had over 70. New York 1983 had 26. Even NYC 1982 had 22.
Still, Chicago 2006 was probably the deepest non-trials marathon of the last 20 years for Americans.
2. Tony Sandoval 2:10:20
7. David Segura 2:13:59
33.Lionel Ortega 2:18:50
What a great showing by runners from New Mexico!
A lot of that has to do with the way NYRR treats the sub-elite American (hint: the answer is "like shit"). NYRR doesn't give a rat's ass about 2:16-2:28 guys, so they end up going somewhere else. They're too busy jerking off Ryan Hall.
malmo wrote:
1-10-25-50-100th place
Image:
http://i41.tinypic.com/14m55jb.jpg
malmo wrote:
but.... wrote:There were 44 men's trials qualifiers from Chicago in 2006.
Yes there were 44 under 2:22:00, with a difference. They were all packed between 2:19:00 and 2:22:00.
Chicago 2006 had only 15 runners under 2:19 (the current standard.). Eugene 1979 had at least 33. Boston 1983 had over 70. New York 1983 had 26. Even NYC 1982 had 22.
Still, Chicago 2006 was probably the deepest non-trials marathon of the last 20 years for Americans.
To me you are changing the rules in order to make the current crop look worse. I do not recall the weather conditions for Chicago in 2006, but the 1980 race was pretty darn nice (as Historian's post notes).
luv2run wrote:
To me you are changing the rules in order to make the current crop look worse.
????
te wrote:
2. Tony Sandoval 2:10:20
7. David Segura 2:13:59
33.Lionel Ortega 2:18:50
What a great showing by runners from New Mexico!
That was a bad day for Lionel.
There are a lot of good runners who would rather pursue other things than run 2:15.
I think it was a cultural things in the 80's to run hundreds of miles and be extremely thin, and sacrifice many other things in pursuing the marathon competitively.
A few make that sacrifice nowadays, but many choose not to. And you can run 2:18-2:22 without making a lot of those sacrifices.
I think this is the main difference.
Are there any old articles/profiles/accounts from this period on those runners held down full time jobs while training 120+ mpw to run 2:15?I'd love to hear their stories about work ethic, sacrifices, etc.
80s are not the 10s wrote:
There are a lot of good runners who would rather pursue other things than run 2:15.
I think it was a cultural things in the 80's to run hundreds of miles and be extremely thin, and sacrifice many other things in pursuing the marathon competitively.
A few make that sacrifice nowadays, but many choose not to. And you can run 2:18-2:22 without making a lot of those sacrifices.
I think this is the main difference.
I disagree with the comment on NYC not caring about the sub-elite runners. I am was part of the sub-elite division in 2008 and thought it was a great set-up. Police escorted bus to the start, warm-up tent full of bagels, power bars, water, coffee, our own set of porta-potties (I let Kara Goucher sneak in line in front of me). I am not sure what you expect as a 2:20 or so guy, but I though NYC did a very good job.
For 90s runners, the first edition of Pfitzinger's book has profiles of Joe LeMay and Rod DeHaven -- who both held non-running related full time jobs during thier heyday.
Wow, thanks everybody for making me feel average on all those lists. Sigh. I gave up my whole body to run 2:15. (who am I kidding? It was SO worth it!:))
Nor Cal Runner wrote:
Good thing USATF is doing so much to develop runners for this upswing in American distance running, returning us to our former greatness of the 80's. (I'm being sarcastic but that is what I was actually told by an upper-up at USATF).
Honestly, there's a lot more being done to develop American distance running today than there was back then.
Its the difference between night and day. Attitudes were to train hard and run fast. Hopefully some free shoes , entry fee comp , maybe a hotel room if traveling and free meal. Peanuts for prize money. Mind set entirely different.
Today, its about getting a agent "turning pro" , a contract , I have to make a living from running. Times have a changed , expectations are different , comfort zones are different ( to many people are comfortable with 2:15 or 2:33 marathon efforts ) Being the top american ?
Man, I can just imagine living and training up in Truchas for several weeks. That must've been awesome. Anyone know where Ortega is from?
te wrote:
2. Tony Sandoval 2:10:20
7. David Segura 2:13:59
33.Lionel Ortega 2:18:50
What a great showing by runners from New Mexico!
I think he ran for West Mesa High in Albuquerque.
Desire - I could not agree with you more. There is more $ in the sport than ever before, and more support than ever for the "sub-elite" men and women (2:17/2:18 - - 2:39/2:40ers). We have training groups which give their young kids 10x more support than many of these 2:12/2:13 guys ran in the late '80s. I speak to these young runners every day and the one thing that kills me is the unwillingness to sacrifice comfort. As long as everyone has a nice car, a cool cell phone, nice clothes, lap top etc. etc. then all is okay. But if you asked most of today's post collegians to live in the same manner that many of the Carter/Reagan era runners lived (which by the way is one of the reasons I believe they were so good) most kids would tell you to screw yourself. Kids are too damn worried about looking good and being cool than laying all they are to be the best - even if that means sleeping on a fu_ _ ing floor and getting up to toss in 20 before breakfast. In some ways - I am now beginning to believe that the extra $ in the sport has made us softer. The struggle makes champions and it is the reason 3rd world nations have something we cannot replicate.
riley stops wrote:
Runner's World just put out a nice piece on the 1983 Boston Marathon
http://bostonmarathon.runnersworld.com/2010/04/fast-times-at-the-1983-boston-marathon.html
Interesting article and certainly 83 was a banner year for Americans, but RW needs to correct #2 in the article. The record for sub-2:20 runners in a marathon is not 83 Boston, but 91 London with 105.
http://www.arrs.net/BT_Mara.htmfact checker wrote:
riley stops wrote:Runner's World just put out a nice piece on the 1983 Boston Marathon
http://bostonmarathon.runnersworld.com/2010/04/fast-times-at-the-1983-boston-marathon.htmlInteresting article and certainly 83 was a banner year for Americans, but RW needs to correct #2 in the article. The record for sub-2:20 runners in a marathon is not 83 Boston, but 91 London with 105.
http://www.arrs.net/BT_Mara.htm
Imagine running 2:19 and not even cracking the top 100 in a race.
How about the personal bests by two runners who were teammates at the same high school? Two top marathoners went to Richardson High School in Texas & were a year apart in grade level. John Lodwick, class of 1972 - 2:10:52 - I believe he was third behind Ssalazar & Beardsley in the 1982 Boston Marathon 'Duel in the Sun.' He also ran a high 2:10 at the 1979 Nike-OTC had many sub-2:15 performances. Kyle Heffner, class of 1973 - 2:10:54 PR for third in 1980 Olympic Trials. He also ran 2:12 at 1981 Boston & had a few other sub-2:15s.
Imagine there were a track race capable of holding thousands of runners. And imagine there were only a handful of track races each year. Would we be impressed with 50 people running 3:48 or 14:00 in one race? Truth is that we're soft in the Marathon. And there's nothing all that special about qualifying for OT marathon.
