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

Marathon,

I\'ll let Malmo tell you how old he is, but don\'t bet your rent on your estimate.

Running has become something different now than it used to be. Last autumn I was hurt and went to watch a 10k road race that I usually run. It\'s a small local race that\'s been around since 1975 in a smallish city with no particular running history. The winner did 35 something. Second place was 36 something.

I ran 35 and 36 in that race many times in the 70s and 80s and made the top 10 once. Typically I ran between 80 and 120 a week in those years. The winner,last October, was a guy who had been a very good local high school runner who went on to a good career at a decent DII school. He mentioned after the race that he trains very little because he'd rather "run a little and be healthy and able to run than injured and not able to run at all."

That's his business. But this is a guy who could be running 31s at the absolute worst, probably 29-30. 20-30 years ago he'd have raced against a lot of guys who were training as much as I was with better talent and his 35 would have been 10th or something and he'd most likely have been shamed into training more.

let's not make generalizations. There are plenty who do the the 100 mile weeks and work hard at it year round. Instead of making an example of some talented runner that only does 30 miles a week and is not reaching his/her potential, why aren't we talking about the workhorses (browne, wejo, etc, etc, and all road warriors) that ARE putting in the work that are doing well, but aren't able to compete with times of 20 years ago. There are many factors on why we can not compete internationally or why we lack depth. To say that todays runners are pussies and the evils of todays society have led to the distance running downfall is ludicrous. As if our talent today have all caught some time of "pusssy bug" only prevelent in the current generation of runners.

Give the current talent some credit or the unknown runner that is putting in 100 mpw.

No one's calling anyone anything, at least not in my post. My point is that 20-30 years ago there was an enormous number of people putting in a lot more training and even hacks like me were able to turn in times that would win races today. Now, the hacks aren't pushing the talented and many of the talented are not forced to their limits to stay on top.

I have respect for anyone who runs seriously and admire Dan Browne and Keflezhigi, even though I can't spell his last name. But from what I've read of their training it certainly isn't on a level of what many of their predecessors were doing. And it is their job, they don't have to fit it in around, say, schoolteaching like Buddy Edelen or George Young did.

Or I'll pit this another way. Twenty five years ago, if I wanted to talk to someone running 100 or more miles a week I could have found ten guys to do it with without having to make a long distance call. Today, I don't know any personally and once it was hard to avoind them.

Another hack who put in some miles, Bill Rodgers.

Rodger's training miles in the weeks before the 1975 BAA Marathon, Taken from Boston Marathon By Tom Derderian.

Jan: 201-WOW,136,85,140,96 = Ave 131.6/wk

Feb: 80(trials for IAAF XC team),117,143,125 = Ave 116.3/wk

March: 135,107(IAAF XC in Morocco in which BR placed 3rd),113,139 = Ave 123.5/wk

April: 140,128, taper off to 14 on Friday, 5 easy on Sat, 3 easy on Sun, BAA Monday 2:09:55

Before the taper BR ran about 126mi/wk for 15 weeks leading up to the race.

have to agree. i know plenty of guys working hard and trying to reach the next level. they certainly aren't getting rich doing it. they drive shitty old cars and live in run down old houses and eat sparingly because they can't afford food. they try to figure out how to buy new training shoes or racing flats with the last $50 they have, not to mention getting to the big meets or races. they are out there and, by the way it sounds, many of you have no clue what they are going through. they will never live up to the big names of the past no matter what they run.

Marathon wrote:

Heyt Malmo ,

1) I m making and educated guess here in that your a young runner in your early to mid 20;s.

2) 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.

3) If you were not in the day. You realy can;t comment. However we all enjoy your thoughts.

point one, malmo, just say yes.

point two, your smokin' something here dude, or you were working too hard.

point three, you could round out your argument by mentioning that Barbie preferred GI Joe to Ken back "in the day".

bcd wrote:

have to agree. i know plenty of guys working hard and trying to reach the next level. they certainly aren't getting rich doing it. they drive shitty old cars and live in run down old houses and eat sparingly because they can't afford food. they try to figure out how to buy new training shoes or racing flats with the last $50 they have, not to mention getting to the big meets or races. they are out there and, by the way it sounds, many of you have no clue what they are going through. they will never live up to the big names of the past no matter what they run.

We do know what they're going through, at least many of us old buggers do because we went through it. I recall freezing my legs for half a winter when I had no sweatpants and couldn't afford a pair. I'm sure there are still folks doing that sort of thing. But I find it hard to believe there's the concetration of them that there once was.

I used to hang out after races in the 70s and 80s and talk with people about how much mileage they did. Usually anyone in the top 25% of the field would throw around weekly mileages like 100,75,130, 100,80, etc. Now when I hang around after races and hear similar discussions from the higher finishers the numbers are more like 35-45. I once lived in a block in Washington, DC where there were four of us who routinely ran 100 mpw or better. This was DC, not some training mecca like Boulder or Gainesville. Some years ago I became something of a celebrity in a Cambridge running shop when the clerk asked how many miles I did in a week. I was loafing at the time, doing about 70. This was in one of the leading running shops in one of the leading running cities in the country. Seventy mpw shouldn't have created such a stir.

So to the topic of the thread and the decline in the numbers of US sub-2:20 marathoners, my point is that you seem to need a certain critical mass of people training very seriously and at a reasonable volume to produce a big number of sub 2:20s and I think the numbers of people doing so today has slipped below that threshold, whatever it may be. That's not a slap at the people who are training seriously. In fact, it's not even a slap at those who aren't.

My original contention is that the focus and goals of most runners today is different than it was in 1983-84 and surrounding years and that is a big part of the reason why we have so many less sub 2:20s, not because there are distractions. We had those in the past as well.

just for the record, the spelling errors from "marathon" have an uncanny resemblance to those made by the infamous Dave Sullivan of Athletics East who was a subject of two threads about 2 weeks ago . . . now you know why people in Boston have beefs with the guy

and I hope every day that there will be a renaissance of distance running - but I just don't think its going to happen (yet) without a national plan. There doesn't seem to be a system in place for a national program, some of it the fault of the shoe companies, some the fault of USATF, some of the athletes not realizing how important an elite training group is etc . . . I think that its great that Hanson's and the Farm Team have healthy competition, but there comes a time when the best of both teams (and all the others) should work together on a nationwide level. Bill Squires once proposed that regional clubs should serve as the minor league for the national team.

Listen we all ran harder then, plain & simple. WE just ran harder. People can say I over trained or blew out too many runs too fast, but I was at 6 minute pace most of the time & competitive. MY MISTAKE is that as malmo & Hodgie have pointed out is, I never got beyond the 50-75 mile/wk level. Ran hard & proud of the times I turned.

I am sure the runners from the past ran harder. I am sure guys like Jerry Lawson pound their runs, shows up in his marathon time also. Question, almost 40 years ago, but how many runners train as hard as Ron Clarke? Not Many, sure of it over here. People have to get the level where they run hard & long or WE will never get back up on top of the world.

Great photo of malmo. Is Hodgiesan in the pack too?

USA had 267 marathon performances below the 220 mark in 1983 with Meyer running 20900 & our 50th fastest runner that year was a 21442 time!!! This year(2003) we had what, 29 runners under 220, wow what a drop in 20 years.

You see, there's no Kenyans in the pack and the course was short. How would the old guard stand up to the Kenyans of today? They wouldn't.

America was better at everything 20 years ago. In the global economy America does not make anything

Ugali wrote:

You see, there's no Kenyans in the pack and the course was short. How would the old guard stand up to the Kenyans of today? They wouldn't.

2:09 is 2:09. 2:20 is 2:20. Would the "old guard" have gone faster and beaten the 2:07 Kenyans? Who knows. But they were still faster than the top Americans have been in most recent years and there were a lot more under 2:20 than there are now. Why is that so hard to understand?

Just give me two more years guys.

Screw Prefontaine, i'm going to be the next Tyrone Grandstrand.

One problem is that the fastest young guys aren't running enough mileage or attempting the marathon early enough. Shay and a bunch of the Hanson's guys are changing this trend, however. I bet you many of the guys running 2:20 to 2:30 now run about 70-80 miles a week. Imagine if they were training 120-140? Now imagine if you took every cross country All American and after they graduated put them on a plan that had themn at 120-140 miles a week... we would have hundreds of guys under 2:20 again.

We gave all our forign runners a chance to come here on scholarships and took away the chance for americans then the incentive went down from there. Now I see schools give a 26: 30 5-mile/8K kenyan aid when back in the day a walk on american would not make the travel squad with that time .

Hey, where the hell did "Marathon" go? HA HA HA HA HA.

This thread is turning into a big whine-fest.