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

Thanks for the data. As I said above, the number of sub-nine minute runners dropped off dramatically in the 1980s and have picked up since.

You say we had an average of 10.4 sub nines per year in the 1970s and an average of about 12 so far in the 00s. That's great news and shows that the future is bright.

What were the averages for the 1980s and 1990s?

I don't see what everyone's complaining about, the top Americans today are running way faster than their 60s 70s and 80s counterparts, with the exception of steve scott.

64(first)-69=avg 2 1/3 per year---14 total=10 yearly avg=1.4

80's=4.9

90's=1.7---------------------------17 total

Thanks again for the data. That's interesting. The 1970s and the present time are far more competitive for high school distance runners than were the 1980s or the 1990s.

I'm not trying to be critical of today's kids when I say they have too many options. I think that if the 60's 70's generation had the choices they would have taken them.

Plus, I do think there is a changing of attitude happening. I thikn that some people how post here may have that better attitude.

We all don't have the talent to be great (God knows, I have no talent, but I love running and will always run and compete at my level).

Those of you with the talent have to do what is necessary to nurture it.

"There's a BIG difference between 90-110 mile weeks and 120-140" Yes, exactly 30 miles/week difference. Not really that much, if doing two a days, but often the difference between being hurt and being healthy. Except for the marathon runners, that mileage is probably unnecessary even at the world class level. Especially someone basically concentrating on the 1500 - 5k range. Most hs coaches now can not run the same mileage that they did 20-25 years ago or their teams will break down.

Your comments are correct. Bruce ran the 5K, 10K and entered his first marathon at the Commonwealth games. His big mistake, however, may have been working out far to hard just before the Games. The marathon was to be run because he was there. That was in 1962. Ryun, Lindgren and Kidd had coaches who did not have access to the information we have today. How would they have done under any of the great coaches that have come on the scene since then?

But all three did do the work and yet they had their lives to lead also. I think one of the key problems with the sport today is professionalism and our society is too affluent.

It was a different mindset and a different timetable back then. "Chasing the Dream" back then meant run big miles, maximize your college racing experience, then give it a year or two of poverty and sacrifice (usually until the next Olympic Trials) to become elite. There was an urgency because you really needed to get a job before too long.

Today, runners are planning "careers" that allow them to peak at age 30. They figure that college is just a stepping stone and big miles can wait until 24 or 25. Score a shoe deal with a small stipend, work at a local running shop, live with the parents, etc. and you can "chase" for a decade or so. No urgency, therefore, no motivation to test your limits early.

Contrast that newer mindset with that of the Africans. Genetic arguments aside, they are more "old school" in their thinking. Start young, push physical and mental limits early and try to score the financial rewards to escape from poverty. They are not sitting around worrying about pacing themselves, staying injury free and hoping to get a huge PR at 30 or 35 and then open a shoe store or get a job designing shoes after retirement.

runn wrote:

I'm not trying to be critical of today's kids when I say they have too many options. I think that if the 60's 70's generation had the choices they would have taken them.

Plus, I do think there is a changing of attitude happening. I thikn that some people how post here may have that better attitude.

We all don't have the talent to be great (God knows, I have no talent, but I love running and will always run and compete at my level).

Those of you with the talent have to do what is necessary to nurture it.

HS class of 60 thru 75 choice of visiting southeast Asia in a nice green suit and a backpack or run your ash off to get in to college and join the Post College Birkenstock Backpack Tour thru Europe with a stop in The Dam being the HIGH point.

ef em wrote:

Bullshit

Runners today have to sacrifice twice as much

Everything $costs$ 200% more

Including my basement apartment

It's called inflation and the relative buying power of the dollar. It costs more, but the dollar is worth less compared to back then.

Look at the Norwegians in Nordic skiing in this past winter olympics (very few if any medals), fat and happy on oil revenues. The hard work ethic is reappearing in younger kids in the U.S. eventually some medals will follow.

I think one of the main reasons the Africans are beating everyone is that they run at an early age. I just got done working a pee-wee track camp for kids grades 4-8. We had them warm up by running 2 laps around the track. Almost all of them were dying after only the first one. Compare that with the 6 year old Kenyan who runs 5 miles to school and back every day. That's why the Africans kill everyone.

Population dynamics. We had more sub 2:20 marathoners in the 80s partially because we had more 20-somethings in the 80s. As far as the 60s and 70s go...we weren't faster, we were just able to compete better in a smaller pool.

Alan

Actually, Jack Daniels worked with Jim Ryun at Lake Tahoe before the 1968 Olympics. Bob Timmons was Ryun's coach, but none of the Daniels wisdom seemed to have rubbed off on Bob Timmons, who had Ryun doing lots of intervals most days.

As Dr Tim Noakes said sometime back at a sports medicine clinic: "For every successful Kenyan, there are nine more who fall by the wayside due to injury." We don't hear about this.

Waumama wrote:

As Dr Tim Noakes said sometime back at a sports medicine clinic: "For every successful Kenyan, there are nine more who fall by the wayside due to injury." We don't hear about this.

Well, except we hear about this every time this topic comes up, in form of "we don't hear about this."

That may have been a factor, but in years like 1982 and 83 alone, there were >200 sub 200 runners. Now what do we get, maybe 50 on real good year. The overall demographic 20 - 35 now must be close to equal to what it was 25 years ago (in total numbers), although the proportion might be lower.People are fatter now. They walk and exercise less. I think all the great milers and performances of the 50s and 60s inspired the widespread performances of the 70s and 80s. Sports like soccer may have cut into the talent pool of runners. The hunger to perform at the top seemed dip after the advent of prize money. Then many top elites began to plan for longevity and many races per year--to keep a good income, rather than aiming for Olympics or world-level meets. That went on for a decade or so, and then, with some notable exceptions, it came do just wanting to be the best Americans out there.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Population dynamics. We had more sub 2:20 marathoners in the 80s partially because we had more 20-somethings in the 80s. As far as the 60s and 70s go...we weren't faster, we were just able to compete better in a smaller pool.

Alan

Basically everything that is being said about the demise of distance running in the U.S. is correct to some extent. However, every cause and effect that has been mentioned I can make an argument that it not correct –or not correct to the full extent. The thing that is rarely mentioned is the fact that our sport takes center stage only every four years. In the U.S., during off Olympic years t&f ranks along side of swimming and gymnastics. I can not name a single great swimmer or gymnasts except by virtue of what they did in the Olympics; t&f is no different unless you are a participant. As an example, the X-Man said he was inspired by Michael Johnson’s 1996 Olympics. I was coaching age group track during the 90’s and every little girl wanted to be like FloJo.

The 1980 Olympic Boycott set us back more than most people realize. About 75% of our top marks in events 800m and longer were set during the early to mid 80s. In the early 80s, we had guys like John Gregorek running a 3:51x mile in college. In the mid 80s, we had a half dozen athletes running sub-1:45 in the 800m; guys from the early 80s like Steve Scott, Marsh, Dick Beardsley, Bill Rogers, Salazar and Greg Meyers are still at the top of our lists. In 1980, Mary Decker was an Olympic medal threat is two events. These athletes were devastated by the 1980 Boycott and although they continued to run well through out the 80s, (they missed their opportunity to inspire the next generation). As a case in point, the next decade, the 90s was by far the worst decade for U.S. middle and long distance running. From the 90s; I can only think of Bob Kennedy and Steve Holman. During the 90s, there were no idols; a lot of kids who would have been distance runners turned to soccer and helped grow that sport. I can go on, but I think the point is made.

We need athletes on the cover of Wheaties Boxes, in the newspapers, magazines and being interviewed by ESPN. We need an athlete to win an Olympic medal, break a U.S. National Record or something to inspire the next generation. I remember the buzz created when Webb broke the H.S. mile record, but we could not capitalize on that because his career since then has been up and down.

Although a case can be made that the 1980 Boycott did not affect sprinters. We did not lose sprinters to soccer and America succeeds in sprinting sometimes by sheer inertia.

(The Africans are not genetic freaks, they are not invincible.) The U.S. started going backwards at the same time the African started getting better. If you look at our performances from the 80s, if we would have made conservative statistical improvements, we would be right on the heels of the Africans. Genetics is often used as an easy excuse; good genetics helps, but in any aspect of life, it is never the total sum. Jeremy Wariner could have said I can’t compete with Blacks. Steve Scott, Coe and Ovett whose career ended two decades ago, would be competitive with the Africans today if they competed.

Personality, Culture and economics are more of a factor. Our former great distance runners weren’t good at anything else, they didn’t do anything but run, they were poor; some of them were the best in the world and was living off of welfare and foodstamps. They didn’t even have girlfriends (except for Pre). Like the Africans, they were single minded in their purist and most importantly; they were inspired. (The wolf is faster than the rabbit, but the wolf only catches the rabbit 1 in 10 tries because the wolf is only running for a meal and the rabbit is running for his life.) We are wolfs and the Africans are rabbits.

Btw – Things are getting better and we are not exactly chumps; if we ever put together a world cross country team of our best athletes only Kenya and Ethiopia could best us.

Take care,

Population pyramids from census.gov:

males, 20-24

1980: ~11m

1985: ~11m

1990: ~10m

1995: ~9m

2000: ~10m

2005: ~11m

males, 25-29

1980: ~10m

1985: ~11m

1990: ~11m

1995: ~10m

2000: ~10m

2005: ~10m

males, 30-34

1980: ~9m

1985: ~10m

1990: ~11m

1995: ~11m

2000: ~10m

2005: ~10m

Total males, 20-30

1980: ~30m

1985: ~32m

1990: ~32m

1995: ~30m

2000: ~30m

2005: ~31m

So we are seeing a resurgence in US distance running at the same time we are adding another million to the age group that is likely to produce great runners. Also, the mid 80s is seen as our best years, when we again had a population increase in that age group.

Alan