Lack of 10k success in the 70's

Folks, the courses were short.

The decline in times coincides exactly with the new course measurement and certification process, which was put in place in 1985-1987 (perhaps later internationally).

It is so painfully obvious.

were? I doubt that many of the courses were so short as to keep the future stars from at least claiming a sub 2:20. How do you explain that there is a complete void in consistant volume of sub 2:20? The 400 mt tracks were they short too? The watches ran slower? The girls were better looking & the beer was colder........whatever.

jozast wrote:

were? I doubt that many of the courses were so short as to keep the future stars from at least claiming a sub 2:20. How do you explain that there is a complete void in consistant volume of sub 2:20? The 400 mt tracks were they short too? The watches ran slower? The girls were better looking & the beer was colder........whatever.

In actual fact, the courses were long. The argument that the courses were short is intellectually vacuous.

Regardless of Bob Rolls dogged determination there was no change in the measurement procedures in 1985 or 1987. The procedure has remained the same since the early 80s:

1 - measure a straight, flat calibration course of a known (steel-taped) distance between 800-meters and on mile.

2 - ride your bicycle with the "Jones Counter" attached to the front hub four times to get the number of "clicks" or counts for the distance of your calibration course. This distance is known as the "constant."

3 - ride the course at least twice. This is tricky unless you know your course already. Doing doglegs, riding tangents on roads which are closed to traffic during your race, but not during your measurement (yikes!), hitting start and/or finish lines exactly where the race director wants, putting kilometer and/or mile marks down, etc. - it's a lot of fun!

jozast, I think you may be on to something. the watches probably were slower.

4 - ride your calibration course again to check to see that the constant hasn't changed.

Steps 2-3-4 must be done in one day for each measurement. You can segment your course and ride portions each day, such as from the finish to a point at the beginning of a dogleg on one day, from the start to that point another, and finishing the dogleg measurement on a third...

That basically is today's method - hasn't changed except for calibrations which counts six digits of clicks versus five.

[quote]malmo wrote:

In the short time since Marc Andreessen invented the web-Browser as we know it, allowing instantaneous communication with other like-minded enthusiasts, who would have thought that distance-running in America would see a revival because of it? You think it's a coincidence that about six years ago the "less is more" mindset went out the window?

___________________________________________________________

You have GOT to be kidding. According to you, the improvement in US running hasn't come from:

-Good college coaches having the attitude that they are but

four years of a good athlete's life and not grinding the

crap out of them.

-Teams like Hanson's, Team USA, etc., and other smaller

groups getting runners to train together again (instead of

avoiding each other so they don't help the next guy

get "their" money--something started in the eighties).

-Good coaches like Wetmore, Lananna, etc., aiming their

people to think beyond the Conference/NCAA meet and make

US World and Olympic teams while still in school.

-People like Salazar, and companies like Nike, spending

money to incorporating modern training methods (like

altitude and high/low/tents) to the US system and schedule.

No, what has turned things around in the US has been A BUNCH OF OLD GUYS AND ARM-CHAIR GENERALS TALKING ON COMPUTERS!!!!

This is exactly what Dirt is talking about. Malmo and Hodge have the attitude that nothing modern needs to be incorporated into US training methods (methods the rest of the world has used for years, thus the gap)...all that is needed is to read what those before you have written on the message boards and then go out and run. Don't worry about recovery, nutrition, weights, pulse monitoring, altitude variance--none of these supplements and training/recovery aids, just run.

I point out once again to the youngsters reading this board, any fool with talent can go out and "just run" and eventually they will run a good time or three. But it takes more than "just running" to be at your best on the key day. And neither Malmo or Hodge have ever made a World or Olympic team.

(Hodge will cry "I did in CC", knowing full well that NO Bjorklund, Meyers, Rodgers (once in the very begining of his career in 75), Durden, Tabb, Sandoval, etc. gave a damn about making the US team in CC in the eighties when there was money to be had at Boston a month later.)

As I pointed out earlier, every single training method/supplement (outside of "just running") that Paula Radcliffe has done to get herself to the highest level in the world, both Malmo and Hodge will tell AND HAVE TOLD you is unnecessary to do.

Pick your Internet heroes carefully, youngsters!

a guest, pull your head out of your ass. The four points you've cited certainly ARE a big factors, and I've never said here nor in private they're not. What I've said is that these training groups are not requisite to a runners success, which is irrefutable fact. In others words, it is, and will always be, up to the individual to make the commitment to aspire to the next level. The real surge will happen when there is a base of hundreds, as opposed to dozens of committed athletes training to the next level. Hopefully the shoe companies get back in it in a big way again. Can the agenda and quit fabricating what my message is, pal. BTW: World Cup 77, World XC 81.

jozast wrote:

Do we need to keep importing better runners like David Kimani, Meb, KK & Abdi so we can fill our teams with a realistic hope for a OGames medal?

Looks like we should import a few more, on the outside chance that the young ones from CU & Stanford might not catch the country back up to the rest of the world in the next 6 years.

1) Ad hominem attacks cloud the real battle of ideas.

2) How many of us would know about Hansen's, or NOP, or WCOP, etc. w/o the internet?

3) People are running more mileage because of the internet. High school kids are discarding traditional limits because of information attainable from a variety of sources on the internet.

4) Knowledge is power. The various logs available on the internet are an inspiration to MANY including myself. (I still have some of my prime years ahead of me and am training differently because of information gathered via the internet. When I not to long ago started running consistently twice a day and my legs got draggy and tired all I needed to do was look at the training logs of Tom McCardle's and others to motivated myself. Seeing IS believing and seeing that other homo sapiens can consistently run over 100 miles a week makes me less afraid of the unkown when I am tired and trying to adapt to consistent 12 mile days! If they can do it, I can--especially now when body is entering its prime years.)

5) One truly interested in improving the running community will look at the successes of any era, identify the reasons for those successes, and unabashedly communicate those principles to others.

Rodgers ran WCC in 1978 & won Boston as well.

"

This is exactly what Dirt is talking about. Malmo and Hodge have the attitude that nothing modern needs to be incorporated into US training methods (methods the rest of the world has used for years, thus the gap)...all that is needed is to read what those before you have written on the message boards and then go out and run. Don't worry about recovery, nutrition, weights, pulse monitoring, altitude variance--none of these supplements and training/recovery aids, just run."

guest,

None of these things are new. We all knew about, nutrition, weights, pulse monitoring, altitude variance, supplements and training/recovery aids.

None of it means anything at all without the right diet of RUNNING. I only offer "suggestions" never told anyone exactly what to do.

Listen to guest, listen me, listen to all read & study all & make up your own mind.

Also, prize money began at Boston in 1986.

Hello all,

some stats from the UK to add a bit of fuel to the fire

Number of runners sub

Year 02:10/:15/:20/:25

1969: 00 02 11 33

1970: 01 04 14 38

1971: 00 03 14 38

1972: 00 01 20 51

1973: 00 02 21 62

1974: 01 04 19 45

1975: 00 01 23 56

1976: 00 02 14 47

1977: 00 02 25 55

1978: 00 08 36 71

1979: 00 06 34 90

1980: 00 07 44 82

1981: 01 17 54 136

1982: 01 15 56 185

1983: 03 25 103 229

1984: 02 19 74 184

1985: 04 14 74 186

1986: 00 10 52 130

1987: 00 12 49 101

1988: 01 15 46 87

1989: 01 13 57 83

1990: 00 08 27 67

1991: 00 14 34 75

1992: 00 10 25 67

1993: 00 10 27 50

1994: 00 09 23 55

1995: 00 06 13 43

1996: 01 07 14 36

1997: 02 07 17 38

1998: 00 04 14 26

1999: 01 01 08 32

2000: 00 04 13 29

2001: 00 03 12 25

Anyone notice a pattern? Regardless of what overs have done, UK marathoners showed a steady improvement followed by a steady decline.

bazza wrote:

Anyone notice a pattern? Regardless of what overs have done, UK marathoners showed a steady improvement followed by a steady decline.

Folks, the courses were long and then they got short and then they got long again.

It is so painfully obvious.

Take Bruce Bickford for example he ran 27:40's and ran what 2:15 or so in Boston take him back to the 70's and he would have run 2:10 in the marathon on the old measuring system. I'm with Bob Roll on this one. It is so painfully obvious.

Ridiculous! Rodgers had a modest(comparitively) PR of 28:04 on the track and ran 2:10 and faster. 2:10:55 in Fukuoka Japan. That course is a basic out and back, which has remained unchanged to this day I believe. Look at recent results from this fall to see 27min guys running 2:18 and slower for the marathon. It's a fickle event; one time doesn't necessarily translate to another. You can't pick out Bickford's 27:40 and 2:15 and draw conclusions about course length....thats painfully obvious.

Finishline man, your contention that course measurement and certification did not change after the early 80s (as opposed to 85-87) contradicts what Scott Hubbard said in this forum last week.

I agree that we can't draw conclusions from the Bickford example alone. But let's take a look at the PRs of a few folks well-known around LetsRun:

PRs are from

www.tilastopaja.net

or Statman Carruthers:

Name followed by 1500m (or mile), 3000m, 5000m, 10000m, 15K, Half-Mar, Marathon

Todd Williams, 3:45, 7:43, 13:19, 27:31, 42:22, 2:11:17

Alan Culpepper, 3:38, 7:47, 13:27, 27:33, 43:30, 2:09:41

Meb Keflez, 3:42,13:11, 27:13, 42:48, 2:12:35

Rod DeHaven, 3:40, 13:40, 28:06, 62:40, 2:11:40

Mark Coogan, 3:58, 13:23, 28:19, 63:02, 2:13:05

Bob Hodge, 4:08, 8:04, 13:54, 28:24, 44:00, 2:10,

George Malley 3:40, 8:21 steeple, 13:53, 28:53, 43:43, 1:01:43, 2:12

Steve Jones, 7:49, 13:18, 27:39, 2:07

Al Salazar, 7:43, 13:11, 27:25, 2:08

Bill Rodgers, 13:42, 28:04, 2:09:27

Greg Meyer, 13:35, 27:53, 2:09

27:13 to 27:30 translates to 2:10-2:12 for New Schoolers and 2:08 for Old Schoolers.

28:00-28:25 translates to 2:12-2:13 for New Schoolers and 2:09-2:10 for Old Schoolers.

The longer the road race the more skewed the Old Schooler's times become.

SI, Could you please answer this for me?If the courses were longer, then shorter, then longer again.What was the story with track times?Did the tracks (440) start out long, get shorter, then get long again?The people who use the short course theory,never seem to have an answer for that question.Bob Roll I would also be interested in your thoughts on this topic.

P.S. Bruce Bickford is not the type tomake excuses.But serious injuries curtailed the career of one of our brightest stars.He is also one of our finest and most helpful human beings.

DL, I think that SI was being facetious.

He still misinterpreted the data however. Bazza?s list shows a normal progression until the mid-80s.

Mr. DL wrote:

SI, Could you please answer this for me?If the courses were longer, then shorter, then longer again.What was the story with track times?Did the tracks (440) start out long, get shorter, then get long again?.

I was making fun of Bob Roll and his ridiculous theories. THAT should have been painfully obvious.