Accuracy of Road Roace Courses During the '70s and '80s

Johnny Rotten wrote:

I ask, because when you look at road race results from this era, when I first began running, you find many, many small 5K's or 10K's being won with relatively fast times--under 15:00 or under 31:00. Were so many runners of that time really that much faster, or did they merely race more (and faster) than your garden-variety elite of today?

Were a lot of those times run on short courses?

Not trying to cause an srgument, although undoubtedly we'll get one. I'm just curious.

The short answer is that a larger portion of the runners trained harder back in those days and ran faster. Many of the road courses here haven't changed but the times are much slower now. Used to be if you ran 31min for 10km you'd be 20th or 30th now you'd be a stud in 31 placing in the top 5 usually. The track times were a lot faster as well as evidenced by championship results at the high school and club level; at least in Canada. As far as distances; canada went metric in the late 70's so we seem to be more comfortable with the 5km/10km distances than in the states. Some of the threads talking about coversions are hilarious.

I think Pete and Malmo are arguing two different things; likely there were more 5km races in Canada and less in the states prior to 1990. Almost all are road races are metric here.

I find it kind of funny a big race like Gate river is 15km yet all the markers are in miles. A lot of runners here though still quote weekly distances in miles not km. I like km because it sounds like more.

Pete wrote:

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.

Pete, if you've ever followed any of "Tridents" posts you'd put it in proper perspective. If there's ever anyone who claims "everybody sucks" it's Trident.

Pete wrote:

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.

There are a number of differences. While I make jokes about the measuring techniques that's not really any main factor.

Let's look at demographics first. In the first running boom only 10% were women at most. The current running boom is over 50% women and many of them are never ran competitively in high school or college. That alone shoves the average time way down.

Now let's look at certain economic realities. Say you're a 4 minute miler. No one would argue that's pretty darn good. Now let's think about what it takes to be a 4 minute miler, and what a 4 minute miler could make against the world stage in money races.

I know the feeling. I was a darn good swimmer in my day. If I hadn't been hit by a diver in practice I could have been the 24th best butterflyer in the country. I could have made the trials and if things had gone just right I could have gone to the Olympics if the 12 people in front of me got the flu. Of course, my contemporary was Mark Spitz.

So, yea people were a lot faster in the 70's and early 80's. Yea, a lot of those courses were short but not that short. Today if you could get the same percentage of young healthy males to run road races average times would drop.

Let's look at some other facts. Say you're a 2:30 marathoner. You could trophy hunt and win possibly four small marathons a year and win maybe $2000 total. Along the way you can tell your wife you were the 24th best American at Boston and got this dandy shirt and medal.

The boys in the 70's had some gonads and desire that I think will never be equaled in that quantity. There's no incentive to be a 2:30 marathoner or 32 minute 10K runner once you've graduated from college.

For me, a big red flag for marathons of the day is the notorious Salazar "world best" fiasco at NYCM. And of course (hah) there was the persistent rumor of Clayton's Rotterdam record course being short; that is probably a result of a combination of disbelief and the ephemeral nature of the particular course used.

You can put the blame on the 1981 NYCM mismeasurement on Patricia Owens.

rift in the valley wrote:

For me, a big red flag for marathons of the day is the notorious Salazar "world best" fiasco at NYCM. And of course (hah) there was the persistent rumor of Clayton's Rotterdam record course being short; that is probably a result of a combination of disbelief and the ephemeral nature of the particular course used.

Wasn't there a pretty big marathon last year that was a mile off? it happens. fact is track times were faster in the early 80's and the tracks haven't changed.

malmo wrote:

Pete wrote:

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.

Pete, if you've ever followed any of "Tridents" posts you'd put it in proper perspective. If there's ever anyone who claims "everybody sucks" it's Trident.

That's a ridiculous comment, malmo. Not worth a response.

Pete, you said: "But you really can't argue against the fact that fewer runners have been running fast times than in the 70's and 80's." The initial post is (perhaps indirectly) making that very argument. If the courses were short in the 70's and 80's, then one could argue that the performances were not as superior as once believed.

But who isn't tired of hearing that the athletes in the 80's were tougher, stronger, more talented, etc. than the lazy, weaker athletes today? If anyone's being negative about the current state of distance running it would be the 80's die-hard, big-haired, I'm-tougher-than-the-world, and I run-392-miles backwards in a snowstorm to school with weights on my head peronsalities on this message board. I happen to believe the talent level today is cause to be extremely optimistic for the future of American distance running. But some poster saying the guys in the 80's were tougher, only sounds like unsubstantiated crap.

the bottom line is if the courses were discovered to be short (courses in the 80's) then that call into question many very well respected runners times, records, and finishes through their careers. and nobody likes to have their entire careers invalidated because some guy in a VW microbus with shovels and rakes and other implements of destruction couldn't measure the course right...do they?

Yes, of course there were some short courses in the 80's.

How far was the PapaJohns 10 miler a couple years ago?

The best runners today are the same as the best runners of the 80's. The depth today falls off very rapidly though.

A lot of good college and high school runners routinely ran roadraces when they weren't in season. Very few do this today. I would go to a small race with a couple hundred people and there would always be a couple small college all americans running sub 5 for 5 mile to 10k. A larger race may have 5-10 guys around 5 minute pace. While the larger races still get good times, most of those small races are won with a 5:30 pace.

I will have my reply as soon as I finish my chess game!

Trident wrote: I happen to believe the talent level today is cause to be extremely optimistic for the future of American distance running.

...

the bottom line is if the courses were discovered to be short (courses in the 80's) then that call into question many very well respected runners times, records, and finishes through their careers.

I agree with your first point. Even here in Canada there are strong signs of a resurgence like you're seeing south of our border.

I don't buy this last part. First of all, not all courses were short. Second, everyone would have had track times also to provide an honest baseline. The fast guys were fast, no matter the length of some of the courses they raced.

I agree with another poster's comment that the fastest runners today are as fast as they were back then (mostly, anyway), but depth at the pointy end falls off really fast (hence the Boston 2:30 statistic, which can be seen in any other major race). It's not just that average times are slower because there are more recreational runners and a much higher proportion of women in the races. The top 10, 100 whatever times are substantially slower than they were in the past. This is really indisputable.

That doesn't mean things can't turn around. People aren't any softer or weaker - they just need to train harder.

Most existing courses I measured in the early the 1980's (when I started measuring) were short until adjusted for certification. Whether this explains faster times I couldn't say for sure. It certainly could have been a contributing factor.

There were exceptions. My first marathon tured out to be about 1 1/4 miles too long. When the people hollered "Looking good! Only two miles to go" I thought they were crazy, as I know I had less than a mile to go. They weren't. Carl Hatfield wound up running around 2:27 on the course, and may have missed a qualifier for the Olympic team (this was 1974). This marathon gave me the measuring disease.

Of course, it's said that the fast people in the '70's and '80's trained harder than they do today, as speed may have been seen as more important than healthy lifestyle. I recall seeing it said by some racer "health is something you pass through on the way to fitness."

I remember watching Ron Ysais (sp?) and Dave Babriaki go to the line in 29 low in the late '70s. The course was accurate. Many of the courses were short - just like today - and many were accurate. They had surveyor's wheels way back then and a director who took the time to use it produced an accurate course. Also, a well calibrated bicycle odometer produced an accurate course. I've seen certified courses today that were very short. I'm not sure people understand what a "certified" course actually means.

The quality of competition was so much greater for many reasons. With not as much money out there, the top guys didn't save themselves for the "Big" races. One race with great competition was the Tom Sullivan 10k in Torrance which routinely had hoards of runners under 30. I was in a race with Steve Scott in Knox Berry Farm, of all places, in 1981. I think people liked to race back then. It seems now they're more fond of training and wondering what their workouts extrapolate out to.

As to the 5k issue. There were plenty of 5k's in California at least all through the '80s. If people need proof of this, I will dig up my old running logs and start listing them. It was a real sign of hardcore to finish your 5k, get 10-15 minutes rest and then run the 10k. If you could win both, you earned temporary local hero status.

I did a lot of racing between 86 - 90 in Connecticut. I don't know how things were elsewhere but I ran more 5k's than any other race.

I remember I would not run a race unless the course was TAC certified. I don't know if they measured with the same guidelines as today's courses but it's not like all the road races were measured with cars.

Anyway I dug up a couple of the 5k's that I decided to race in back in the late 80's. There were others but I did not race on the roads often because of school races.

All these races were in 88:

Vietnam Veteran's Scholorship 5k Norwalk Ct

Westport Summer Series 5k Westport Ct

J.F O'Connell's Holiday Run Bridgeport Ct

Christopher Martins Christmas Run for Children ? Ct

Monroe Police and Fire race Monroe Ct

In Memory and Life Police / Fire memorial 5k Monroe Ct

Springtime Festival 5k Danielson Ct

New Haven Road Race (Yes in addition to the 20k they had a 5k Eamon Coghlan ran that day and Bill Rodgers signed my number) New Haven Ct

There were some that I did that I didn't list here because I could not identify them.

There was a 5k almost every weekend in the Spring and Fall but I was busy with track and cross country.

I'd say anyone who thought there were no road 5k's in the 80's had to be sleeping.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but could it be possible to attribute Pete's recollection of 5K races in Canada as opposed to Malmo's perspective having to do with Canada being ahead of America on the move to meters. I recall Jimmy Carter's presidency having this interest in moving our country to meters during the late 70s. Most races I remember running on the roads were miles (3 aka fun run, 6, 10, etc) plus the ecentric 4.5 mile races and the like.

Good post. I, too, think that the good runners in the 70s and 80s raced more frequently than do the good runners today. Difference in money? In mentality? I don't know, and I'm not saying what's better, but there is definitely a difference.

Re:the 5K, in SoCal I remember the SPAAAU in the late 70s saying that they needed to have shorter races in order to attract more runners. The shortest race was typically 5m, with 10K being the most common distance. I ran my first road 5K in 1983, and I think it had been around for only a couple of years.

Off topic, but another difference between then (70s/80s) and now: age group awards. BITD there were no age group awards or, if there were, then it was juniors and masters, in addition to open. Nowadays there are awards for many age groups. Better today, or better then? I don't know; just different. However, I still cannot get used to people with iPods in races!

otter,

You can add the New London Sailfest Race to Ct 5k's that year..

Also, did you run the State champs 12k in Southington in '88? That race really proves how much stronger local races were back in the day. I went out in close to 5:00 and was with a pack of 20. I don't know how many guys broke 40 on a hard course on a humid day but it must have been a bunch. That would never happen today.

sisyphus wrote:

otter,

You can add the New London Sailfest Race to Ct 5k's that year..

Also, did you run the State champs 12k in Southington in '88? That race really proves how much stronger local races were back in the day. I went out in close to 5:00 and was with a pack of 20. I don't know how many guys broke 40 on a hard course on a humid day but it must have been a bunch. That would never happen today.

That's funny. I talk to a lot of runners now who think that the reason it is easy to win a local road race is because there are a lot of them. I seem to remember a ton of them back then and they were all filled with fast runners. A 16 minute 5k guy would never win a race back then.

I remember in high school coming through the first mile of a two mile State open track race in 4:55 and being in dead last place of the slow heat. I hung on only because I didn't want to be completely embarrassed.

"The quality of competition was so much greater for many reasons."

Sisyphus - Are you saying American competition is stronger or just competition in US is stronger? I'm going to have to argue this point, since as a whole, throughout the United States from Cherry Blossom's 10 mile in Washington D.C. to Carlsbad 5k in San Diego California the competition is far stronger today than it was in the 80's. Far far stronger. If today you wish to earn some money on the roads, and you're not in a US Championship, you would have to run well under 29 minutes in most cases, compete against a slew of "B" rate Kenyans and in some cases top tier Kenyans, as is the case at Cherry Blossoms or Beach to Beacon. Here's the top ten at Beach2Beacon last year.

1 1/248 M3034 27:46.3 4:29 27:47.5# Tom Nyariki 34 M 5 Concord MA KENYA

2 1/175 M1519 28:01.8 4:31 28:03.8# Lawrence Kiprotich 19 M 6 KENYA

3 1/209 M2529 28:07.5 4:32 28:08.9# Gilbert Okari 28 M 1 Boulder CO KENYA

4 1/107 M2024 28:07.5 4:32 28:08.9# Evans Cheryout 24 M 11 Eldoret KENYA

5 2/248 M3034 28:34.8 4:36 28:35.8# John Korir 30 M 3 KENYA

6 2/107 M2024 28:36.5 4:37 28:37.5# William Chebon 23 M 12 Nairobi KENYA

7 1/333 M3539 28:41.1 4:37 28:42.4# James Koskei 37 M 7 KENYA

8 2/209 M2529 28:42.1 4:38 28:43.0# Ed Moran 25 M 9 Williamsburg VA

9 3/107 M2024 28:45.5 4:38 28:46.5# Charles Kiama 20 M 2 KENYA

10 3/248 M3034 28:56.0 4:40 28:57.3# Luke Kipkosgie 30

1 American was able to sneak in for a top 10 finish. Luke Kipkosgie, a 2:08 marathoner, was 10th. He had an off day, just finishing under 29 on a not so perfectly easy course. This is just one example of many that illustrates the level of competition today, across the country, is stronger than it was back in the 80's.

Also, here are the results of the 2001 Carlsbad 5k (I just thought this year was particularly telling)...

Invite Men Overall Results

Place DivP SexP Name S A Location GunTime Pace NetTime Bib

1 1 1 Sammy Kipketer M 19 Kenya 13:00 4:11 2

2 2 2 Luke Kipkosgei M 25 Kenya 13:21 4:17 38

3 3 3 Abraham Chebii M 21 Kenya 13:23 4:18 46

4 4 4 Tom Nyariki M 29 Kenya 13:24 4:18 14

5 5 5 Leonard Mucheru M 22 Kenya 13:26 4:19 18

6 6 6 Reuben Cheryuit M 40 Kenya 13:28 4:20 40

7 7 7 Meb Keflezighi M 25 California 13:34 4:21 12

8 8 8 Felix Limo M 20 Kenya 13:40 4:23 16

9 9 9 Teodoro Vega M 24 Mexico 13:43 4:24 22

10 10 10 Pablo Olmedo M 25 Mexico 13:54 4:28

Is the competition stronger today?