A lot of old guys WERE pretty fast

To: 2SidedToACoin,

You're absolutely right. Since 2000, the depth coming out of HS is phenomenal.

You're wrong. My PR's are the same today as they were 30 years ago.

Also, "Certified courses were accurate." In fact, I believe that there were more courses legitimately certified 30 years ago than there are today.

A lot of people thought that the Anaheim Marathon of the early 1970s was short so because it produced so many personal bests so I contacted Gary Corbitt who researched his fathers files and found that it had been certified in 1968 and every year thereafter.

After more research, I found that the problem seemed to be that the meet promoter did not always run that exact course. One year the race would end by running one way on the track and the next year we would circle the track the other way. In addition it may not have started at the same place every year. Maybe the course was long some years and short others? The course was flat and fast!

I'm guessin my memory is a bit frail. Norm Higgins won in 1965 - I bandit-ed it in 1968 and Scobey won in '71. I do remember following him and driving beside him in a VW bus playing 'Gimme Shelter' as load as we could.

My college room and team mate just terminated his running streak at exactly 45 yrs - longest in US history and 2nd only to a (Questioned) Ron Hill's.

Another crazy 'activity' was the 24 hr relay. We put together a team with the intentions of breaking the WR. We fell short but compiled a respectable 290+. Had we been successful in getting 3 other runners of some repute we would have been very close to 300, and the record. Woulda coulda shoulda. One of the more difficult things I did in those days - and since.

Exceeded the hobby level into the ..... zone

[quote]2SidedToACoin wrote:

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.

Sorry to pop your bubble buddy, but I'm over 50, my first and only marathon was Boston in 1979, ran 2:23, not happy with it, but that is it. Also, ran 48:24 for 10 miles at Cherry Blossom 1980, 29:30 for 10k at Peachtree 1981, ran 45:21 for 15k at Gasparilla 1980, pretty sure all were legit courses.

Higgins and I were training with Coach Igloi in 1965. I do not remember what races he ran that year but I do know that I was 10th in Culver City that year. I also believe that by 1971 we had both left Coach Igloi and we were both 35 years old. We both ran the Culver City Marathon again. Scobey won it in 2:15.XX and Higgins was second also in 2:15.XX. I ran about 1:40 faster than in 1965 and slipped down to 17th place.

It would have been a trolley track rather than a train track that someone tripped on at 22 miles in Boston. The train tracks are much earlier in the race.

It may well be that the person you're talking to never had a good day at Boston. But if you look at results from Boston in those years you see that a load of guys didn't trip over anything and were turning in times that were faster than they are now once you get beyond the top 10.

If you can't believe that someone is as fast as their times indicate and want to "disprove" the time, your best options are to attribute the performance to drugs or a short course. There's really no arguing those points. You'll believe what you believe. But we're not talking about the Middle Ages here. By 1980 we'd put people on the moon, sent satellites to the outer planets, were transplanting organs and so on.

Measuring out a specific distance of road accurately was not a huge project. And naturally times were better on the roads. That's where the best competition. On the other hand, it was hard to find track races for an out of school runner.

Yes but I do recall 1975 a good running friend of mine from BC Canada was having his best running of his life and in Boston, 1975 he was positive he would have been under 2:20 but for a large spectator who got in his way last couple of miles, almost knocked him off his feet - he was still only in the top 20's, nontheless he was happy with his race, not so with the collision and a few weeks later ran Vancouver mar. in close to the same time.

Yes I'm in agreement runners back in the 70's, the 80's did a lot more mileage - however I know we all slow down as we age but - I wonder how many of the 100 - 120 mpw'ers are able to run now? I'm 65 and was averaging 60 plus per week, occasionally spurts up to 75 - 95. Im' now rather feeling the effects of 45 yr. of almost continuous running, never a streaker like someone who a month ago due to an unresolvable injury has stopped, but pretty consistent.

I have to laugh at a road/seawall race in 1979 I ran possibly my best race and the time I did placed me 16th. overall. A few years ago I would have won by quite a gap if I had gone over there to run the same time, 30:34 for 9.5 km.

My friend and I measured the Culver City Marathon one year, 1974, 5 or 6, and it was a quarter mile short.

!975! Now THAT was a year in Boston. 22 runners broke 2:20 and 113 broke 2:30.

There were 3 Canadians in the top 28. I do not think Jerome Drayton finished. Steve Hoag, a poster here was second in 2:11.54 to Bill Rogers' 2:09.55. Tom Fleming, who has also posted, was third, Canadian Tom Howard was 4th and Ron Hill 5th.

coach d wrote:

A 50 minute 10 miler is equivalent to a 14:15 5000. There were about 150 D1 guys who ran faster than that. There may have been more mediocre performances back in the day, but there are a lot more FAST ones now.

The top tier today is faster than ever.

But just below the elite level, Americans were much faster 30 years ago

Americans for the year

1983 -- 23 under 2:13, 32 under 2:14, 44 under 2:15, 193 under 2:20

2009 -- 4 under 2:13, 7 under 2:14, 9 under 2:15

Orville, I think the high mileage we did then allowed us to recover faster and be able to run multiple marathons in a particular time period. Although I was not fast, in 1982, I ran 2:32-July in SF, 2:30-September in Eugene, 2:27-October in NYC, and 2:24-Decemeber in Dallas. I was averaging well over 100mpw during that period and also ran many other races in between. Later on I ran a couple of years where I ran a marathon a month for two years, nothing fast, they were all between 2:32 and 2:50.... I just loved running the marathon for fun. Met a lot of nice people along the way.

Orville Atkins wrote:

!975! Now THAT was a year in Boston. 22 runners broke 2:20 and 113 broke 2:30.

There were 3 Canadians in the top 28. I do not think Jerome Drayton finished. Steve Hoag, a poster here was second in 2:11.54 to Bill Rogers' 2:09.55. Tom Fleming, who has also posted, was third, Canadian Tom Howard was 4th and Ron Hill 5th.

No, Jerome Drayton dropped out, at 23 miles? - so I heard. The Canadian I'm thinking of who collided with a spectator will remain nameless, I doubt he ever posts here, but he was a fine marathoner.

Imanaged to do Boston two times; 1981 & 1982, the last time the famous duel in the sun.

yes races were deeper. I ran 67 mins for a 1/2 marathon in 1984 and was 65th

broken arrow wrote:

Orville, I think the high mileage we did then allowed us to recover faster and be able to run multiple marathons in a particular time period. Although I was not fast, in 1982, I ran 2:32-July in SF, 2:30-September in Eugene, 2:27-October in NYC, and 2:24-Decemeber in Dallas. I was averaging well over 100mpw during that period and also ran many other races in between. Later on I ran a couple of years where I ran a marathon a month for two years, nothing fast, they were all between 2:32 and 2:50.... I just loved running the marathon for fun. Met a lot of nice people along the way.

But 2:32 is fast.....

A

Seeker9 wrote:

coach d wrote:

A 50 minute 10 miler is equivalent to a 14:15 5000. There were about 150 D1 guys who ran faster than that. There may have been more mediocre performances back in the day, but there are a lot more FAST ones now.

The top tier today is faster than ever.

But just below the elite level, Americans were much faster 30 years ago

Americans for the year

1983 -- 23 under 2:13, 32 under 2:14, 44 under 2:15, 193 under 2:20

2009 -- 4 under 2:13, 7 under 2:14, 9 under 2:15

At the college and high school and college levels there is more depth now but fewer pursue the dream. Not nearly as many 2nd to nth tier runners training and working or bumming and training.

culver city marth - '71

scobey - 2:15.21

higgins - 2:15.52

Jacinto Sabinal - 2:17.30

Wayne Badgley - 2:20.25

Cheryl Flanagan - 2:49.40 (fastest female time in world '71)

Sharon O'Halloran - 3:00.19

Ivy Gorman - 3:37:02

From marathon world rankings '71

Obviously there are probably lots of reasons depth was better back then.

But my theory is that it's mainly economics. Kids today graduate with a ton of student debt and it's hard to find jobs. Lots of jobs require many hours/week (the 40-hour work week is dying off, especially for entry-level professionals).

So it's no longer so easy or common to chase the dream, either by doing part-time at a running store or whatever while focusing on running (student debt won't allow it), or by training hard while working full time (work schedules make it more difficult).

To compound the problem it's really hard to find jobs. So putting your professional life on hold for a few years to focus on running is a huge financial risk. Why should somebody hire you, when you've been doing nothing but running for 5 years since you got out of college, over the recent college graduate or guy with work experience? OK, so you made the US Olympic Trials, but most employers won't care.

Lest you think that this is all hypothetical, I'll add that I graduated within the last 10 years as a sub-30, top-half-in-NCAA-cross guy -- one of the many potential 2:15-2:20 Americans that might have been -- and I chose to stop competing because I had debt to pay off and a professional opportunity that would have disappeared if I didn't take it right away. I sometimes think about trying to train at a top level while working, but the pressure and time commitment from my job make it feel like I have to choose between pursuing my running goals and my professional aspirations. (And I'm not even one of the ones with a family!) Maybe this just means I'm a wimp or bad at time management, but I think there are lots of others of my generation in the same boat.

curious - how did you measure?

With all due respect, I don't buy this. We had student loans that we needed to pay off too, I certainly did, and no one gave you a free place to live just because you ran for two hours a day.

If you run for 40 minutes on your lunch hour and an hour after work at 7:00 pace, do the same on Saturday and combine those two runs on Sunday you're over 100 miles a week. I've done it. It's not that hard to do.

I'm not criticizing you for your decision. But very few if us then "chased the dream," as you put it, by working part time in a running store. In fact, there weren't many running stores then. Really, everyone I knew who was doing triple digit miles also had a full time job unless they were still in school. Yes, work schedules make it harder to run a lot but not impossible.