A lot of old guys WERE pretty fast

A lot of us were nowhere near 14 min range, but we kept it going for the love of sport and competition. I worked 50 to 70 hours a week as a field biologist and grad student. Mileage would drop to 40s during heavy lifting period or when it was cold-dark, but if the weather was good I'd still put in 70-80 mile weeks. I remember applying for one of Cali's better clubs (SO ran for the girls team) with sub 32 10K credentials and they didn't even respond to my request. I'd have been a C teamer.

To: YoungGuy,

Most of those guys running fast times in the 'old days' were in their 20's & 30's. Many of them were married with families and worked 40+ hrs a week. The guys I ran with were dentists, lawyers, managers, iron workers, Naval Officers, firemen, cops, carpenters, cab drivers etc.

You're right, there was no upside to the sacrifice that serious running demanded; knowing that you are not going to "make it" as you say (whatever that means) and it is a long way for personal motivation to carry you. But there were a lot of runners in those days willing to make that sacrifice. The challenge of testing one's limits and trying to fulfill their potential. (Call it ego if you want) But the results were very rewarding.

I was in Southern California for part of that time. I do not think as many runners train as hard now as we did back then.

At one of those Pierce College summer meets Coach Igloi set up the race that Billy Mills ran to get an Olympic 10,000 meter qualifying time.

I ran the Culver City Marathon in 1971. Norm Higgins was second to Bill "Mad Dog" Scobey who ran every day since then until last month. Higgins and Scobey both ran in the 2:15s. 16 runners broke 2:32 in that Culver City Race.

In the 1950s Boston was found to be very short and was lengthened. In the early 1960s Bob Carman won Culver City but said he could not run as fast as they said he had run so he measured it with a wheel and had it certified by Ted Corbitt who was beginning to certify courses back then.

I once drove a course and was sure it was very short. The city manager said it had to be correct because the City Engineers had measured it---on a map in their office!

What was the typical training like back then for all of these fast, sub-elites? I guess us young guys can't imagine a world before Daniels Running Formula and LR and a million other websites were readily accessible to tell us how to do it.

Chronomix has been around for decades and their timing systems were used in races I was involved in going back to 1982. Courses were also accurately measured. Almost all the courses in my town paid for the TAC certification. Our local July 4th race this year was probably about 50meters+ short!!

That's the key point. We timed our races with sundials.

old guy 67 wrote:"Back in the old days ('80s are the old days?) there was no accurate way to measure the time so all these results are invalid."

Yeah, we used sundials.

I was not fast but did do the training. While with Coach Mihaly Igloi we ran 13 times a week of all intervals amounting to 475 miles a month.

There is a lot posted about that training on this message board and elsewhere. On here try: a thread called Mihaly Igloi started by dc449 on June 5, 2004. It is 15 pages and Bob Schul has posted on it. Also try the "Whatever happened to Bruce Kidd, Canadian Phenom" thread started by Steve Hoag on 1-15-07

There are also 2 threads on the Legends Lounge of Tracktalk.net.: One is called "Some of my Memories of the East York track Club" and the other is the Los Angeles track Club and Igloi. Both were started by me.

Most everyone I knew just ran, usually twice a day and generally at least 100 miles a week. If guys got together the running was pretty fast. A Sunday 20 miler was pretty standard. Every now and again someone would feel like he should do some interval stuff and would talk others into going to a track and doing something. It was usually longer stuff like mile reps and seemed to peter out after a few sessions. We raced more often than is common today.

Author: ggilder

Subject: RE: A lot of old guys WERE pretty fast

Message:

old guy 67 wrote:"Back in the old days ('80s are the old days?) there was no accurate way to measure the time so all these results are invalid."

Yeah, we used sundials.

Sorry, I (old guy 67) did not write this. I was responding to 'Modern man' who did write this. My comment was to insert the ('80s are the old days?), the reference to Banister that followed and that stopwatches are not NEW inventions. Please don't misquote me.

HRE wrote:

Most everyone I knew just ran, usually twice a day and generally at least 100 miles a week. If guys got together the running was pretty fast. A Sunday 20 miler was pretty standard. Every now and again someone would feel like he should do some interval stuff and would talk others into going to a track and doing something. It was usually longer stuff like mile reps and seemed to peter out after a few sessions. We raced more often than is common today.

Jerry Lindgren was doing a lot more than that - 250+. Typical day in HS was AM: 10, Afternoon: 15, PM: 10. Most of it was all hard.

Canadian coach/blogger Steve Boyd has argued that the decline in performances over the past thirty years has been the result of the "de-sportification" of running:

http://physi-kult.blogspot.ca/2012/02/de-sportification-of-running-p-k-poy.html

People no longer view running as a sport; it's now a "lifestyle activity."

His explanation makes a lot of sense to me.

I think that's a factor too. You're not likely to spend 90-120 minutes a day every day to get good at a lifestyle activity.

This is a good thread. I lived in the mid-Willamette Valley, Oregon, in the early and mid-80's. It wasn't Eugene fast at that time, but it was fast. Road runs were run by extremely talented individuals in fast times.

Entry fees were around $5 and you got a decent t-shirt. Also, while there were all comers track and cross country meets in Salem, Oregon, most people geared up for certain quality road runs during the year, a half-marathon, one at an Oktoberfest in a nearby town, etc. There wasn't a race every weekend.

When a good road race came along, the stud runners came out in force. Even if you were racing well and in good shape, it was tough to place high.

Down the road in Eugene, I notice the Butte to Butte doesn't have near the depth it did in the 80's. Today times are solid in that race, but not like decades earlier.

1984 Bronze Medalist Charlie Spedding has a similar explanation for the decline in English running (I think he wrote something like -- "Why would any kid want to get involved in something that his parents do horribly.") I don't think the English had any runners in the World Champs men's marathon this year.

Doofus wrote:

Canadian coach/blogger Steve Boyd has argued that the decline in performances over the past thirty years has been the result of the "de-sportification" of running:

http://physi-kult.blogspot.ca/2012/02/de-sportification-of-running-p-k-poy.html

People no longer view running as a sport; it's now a "lifestyle activity."

His explanation makes a lot of sense to me.

the "old guys" of my club (16 of them did a 5k under 16 mins, 10 performed a marathon sub 2:30 easily) always trained doubles, 200k/week was quite normal for these ambitious hobby/club runners. some sessions were insanely fast, but the main work was quite easy.

I agree completely. I was one of them, we ran a lot of miles in training because we enjoyed it. We did it for fun and to see how fast we could get. There was no money incentive at all. Just run with your friends and enjoy it. I had no talent in HS at all, best time was 10:21 for two miles. I eventually ran a 2:23 Marathon as a result of a number of years of high mileage. People are no longer willing to do the work required to run a decent marathon because it takes years unless you are really gifted.

There is some truth to greater depth back then. The 60s and 70s running boom was fueled by Americans being the best in the world at distance running. Track meets and road races were on those 4 TV channels that were available during prime time, so it was a glamor sport. There were also not a whole lot of other options for competition (soccer, lacrosse, volleyball, etc) so the talent was not diluted like today. More people probably did run high mileage and that translates to being able to sustain a good pace longer, hence good times at 10K+ races.

But you have to deal in reality here. Nearly every runner I know over 50 gives some ungodly time for their PRs at 10mile and Marathon. Most of those were run at some small time race that nobody else has never heard of because it died off 20 years ago. I ask "What did you run in Boston?". The answer is usually "Well, I had a bad day there. I tripped on a train track at 22mi, but it woulda been 2:22." or some crap like that when it was actually 2:42. Their track times do not remotely reflect those road times and usually the road times were once only.

Why is this the case. Short courses, plain and simple. Saying a course was "Certified" holds about as much water as a pasta strainer. Certified by who? With what calibrated equipment?

I have great respect for those runners who put in a ton of work and ran some very good races. But lots of people believe the "good old days" were always better than today and their PRs get faster every year they get older.

Since 2000, the depth coming out of HS is phenomenal.

There certainly were lots and lots of sub-elite runners back then. Easily ten times more than today.

Running was a fad. For a decade or so (possibly launched by Frank Shorter's success) lots of people took it pretty darned seriously.

Today, running is out of 'fashion'. If you are not going to be able to make a living from it then why would anyone run 100 MPW? Basically nobody does. And that's really all there is to that.