Why were Americans so good in the 60s, 70s and early 80s?

Malmo hit the nail on the head.

Its not about population statistics, its about atitude. The kids in the 70s and early 80s were willing to do whatever it took to get faster. My generation (HS class of '95) was limited by our atitude. Part of it was the quality over quantity training that we were taught. But more importantly, we failed to look at the slow times and challenge those training theories. Todays HS kids are taking up that challenge and turning out faster times than any previous generation.

Every generation loves to talk about what's wrong with the kids today. In this case there's nothing wrong with the kids. We're on here talking about a solution, they're on the trails creating a solution.

Even ultrarunners were faster back in the days.

I think the talent is definitely there with today's preps and up and comers. I do think it comes down to attitude. Lindgren put in insane miles in high school, so did Prefontaine. I read a story on Pre where after an X-C meet in Reedsport, he and a teammate decided to run back to Coos Bay: that was 35 miles.

Pre and the same teammate (a guy named Huggins) also ran from Coos Bay to Roseburg one time for the "heck of it." That's 65 miles.

Kind of crazy? Yeah, but the attitude was there. Also, while I'm as guilty as anyone gushing about Pre and Lindgren's toughness and attitude, they did have some serious talent. Both tested extremely high in lung capacity testing, Pre one of the highest ever.

But a lot of it is attitude. A friend of mine showed me a DVD of the Tokyo Olympics 10K, and though Lindgren twisted his ankle just before the race, he hung in there.

Actually, more than hung in there. From the get-go he went to the front of the pack -- he was 18 at the time. He had a look on his face of no fear and one of, "I belong here in the front."

I know of no 18-year old in the U.S. today who believes he belongs in the front of the pack at the Olympic 10K final.

Nevertheless, I like what Lincoln, Goucher, Ritz, Webb, Acosta, Symmonds, etc., are doing today. Will they medal? I'm not sure, but I like their efforts and how they're trying to raise the bar against some pretty amazing Africans.

I think the talent is definitely there with today's preps Nevertheless, I like what Lincoln, Goucher, Ritz, Webb, Acosta, Symmonds, etc., are doing today. Will they medal? I'm not sure, but I like their efforts and how they're trying to raise the bar against some pretty amazing Africans.[/quote]

All the Americans can do well, yes medal, if you take the "pretty amazing Africans" off drugs....I concede nothing to the Africans, they have been doped up and excused for the last 15 yrs....the party is over. Book em.

How do you explain the discovery races where dozens of Africans are discovered? They are dirt poor and have absolutely no access to drugs.

are u out of your friggin mind?

face reality, spacer...Most Africans who excel in the distances, growing up at high altitude, with no junk food or video games, running and walking everywhere you go.....add to that a life or death struggle to escape a life of poverty and life expectancy of 48 and you too might have the motivation to train your ass off and succeed.

face reality, spacer...Most Africans who excel in the distances, growing up at high altitude, with no junk food or video games, running and walking everywhere you go.....add to that a life or death struggle to escape a life of poverty and life expectancy of 48 and you too might have the motivation to train your ass off and succeed.[/quote]

Sorry, dog, I don't buy the myths...you may be right about our kids doing too much junk food and video, but there is no comarison between an American's will to win and anybody else in the world. We, yes, we, have the greatest athletes in the world....Tiger,Nicklaus, Palmer, Rothleesburger, Joe Montanna, Jordan, Larry Bird, Shak, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Armstrong, now this other kid winning the Tour de France, which would drive the Euros out of their minds.... we have the most incredible athletes. Poverty works in boxing, it does not work in endurance sports. But, even Muhammad Ali was not poor, he was a middle class kid....you are too caught up in the liberal doctrine of how poverty causes soemone to work harder, I say B.S. poverty sets people up for defeat. As a matter of fact, the Kenyans until the epo era had a reputation for being lazy. They may run very hard now, speed work everyday, but any coach would tell you that that is the road to ruination unless.........you're able to do that load because you are juiced on epo.....

Fed on dreams of hope is right -- Americans are running just as fast now as they did in the 1970's and 1980's. Lagat and Webb are a little slower than Scott and Kennedy, but in the same ballpark (i.e. they might not score medals at major championships but they have the same chance Scott or Kennedy would have were they still competing at their peaks). All those old guys like Lindgren and Shorter were great for their time, but their marks might barely get them a contract now and certainly wouldn't win championship medals. With all due respect Mr. Lindgren, I don't think you are qualified to say what it takes to get to the top now. Dudes are running the second 5000m of a 10000m championship faster than your 5000m pr. Fact is the Africans are superior -- whether that comes from hard work or drugs, it makes no difference to this argument. To answer the original question (why Americans used to be so good), I say they weren't. We didn't get worse, others got better. The only event where we seem to have lost some steam may be the 800m. From 1500m-42k we are as good as ever in terms of marks, but records and championships are out of reach.

On a side note, guys on the board frequently comment on the depth of U.S. talent back in the day. Depth doesn't win medals at the Olympics or set records, and our depth back in the day is nothing compared to the depth Kenya has now.

Let's just eliminate the drug issue, because I doubt every good East African (if any) is doing anything illegal. I still must argue that it takes more than desire; talent is a big factor and so is opportunity. I recently took a poll of a couple hundred high school (good) runners. 10% said they took up running because they wanted to be a runner. The rest fell in the category of running because they were cut from another sport, to get in shape for another sport, or because someone else wanted them to run. So this means we have a lot of people running who do not (or at least did not originally) have the intrinsic motivation to be a runner. How many East Africans take up running because they want to be a good runner? My guess is a lot more than 10%. It is hard to produce a lot of great runners when very few people do it because they want to. Gettiing people into running by chance is not a very desirable way to get the job done, because this means you are missing a lot of potential talent, and all the desire and hard work in the world will not make a lesser-talented person a great runner.

jtupper since you coach peter gilmore - would it be possible that you can post his training in this forum?

Other sports are more fun than x-c, marathoning and t & f.

They hurt less, too.

Some of you old farts are a disgrace. Retarded stories about Prefontaine running 65-milers are about as believable as Lingren and his 90-mile long runs he used to do every weekend. Pre wasn't even a high-mileage guy. The only thing you old-timer's were better at is telling stories, and the only thing you're better at now is bragging about how awesome you used to be.

American elite runners today are faster. They just have tougher competition from the rest of the world. If Prefontaine had had to face legions of Moroccans, Ethiopians, Kenyans, Algerians, Tanzanians, Ugandans, and the like, as well as a few Euros, he would have been another Ritzenheim. I.e., everyone would have been all over his jock as he won national titles, then criticizing when he got thrashed overseas and looked like a nobody. Same with Schul, Billy Mills, Lindgren. Prefontaine finished 4th among mostly white guys; Bob Kennedy got 6th against a much more diverse field. Pre did not have to face anyone from Burundi; Kennedy saw a Burundi runner get gold ahead of him.

I like all those old time guys, but don't fall for this crap about how "everything was better when I was a kid". People are people. Kids will run hard and train hard if circumstances are right, no matter what their generation. And anyway, all this generation crap makes no sense. It's not like I'm a better person somehow because Michael Jordan was from my generation. If Pre was great, that doesn't make every other runner from the 70's great.

Jim Ryun, though, I think would have excelled in any era, Africans or not.

AMERICAN'S DIDN'T GET WORSE, THE AFRICANS JUST GOT BETTER!

lars wrote:

\"There\'s a BIG difference between 90-110 mile weeks and 120-140\" Yes, exactly 30 miles/week difference. Not really that much, if doing two a days, but often the difference between being hurt and being healthy. Except for the marathon runners, that mileage is probably unnecessary even at the world class level. Especially someone basically concentrating on the 1500 - 5k range. Most hs coaches now can not run the same mileage that they did 20-25 years ago or their teams will break down.

Any mindset which worries all that much about injury is a bad mindset when it comes to distance running.

No Africans in the 60's, 70's and 80's? Keino was what? Bikila and Wolde were what? Yifter was what? Rono was what?

Oh, they don't count right, because if they did it would negate your argument.

U are the only one that I've ever heard say that Pre ran 65 milers. Don't be an idiot. There is nothing wrong with our, (US) elite runners today. They are doing their best. Unfortunately for us, Africans, (Kenya, Ethiopia, Morroco,etc, etc), dominate these days. Take a look at the very-fast results from the big meet in Rome yesterday. Look at the 1500m, the steeple, the 5k....what do you see? Does that mean we should quit? Hell no! Keep plowing away. Each '5 year group' of Amercians who run fast, pave the way for the next '5 year group'....ie....Kennedy, Williams to Ritz, Webb, etc...keep building, growing and improving.

I stand by the Pre story and have people who can document it if you want. That said, I praised the new group of runners, but you have selective memory.

Also, another knee-jerk response is to just say everyone is on drugs. Rono wasn't and he set four world records. I guess most world records are supposed to stay in the 13:10's for 40 years, huh?

Amazing the lack of logic on this board.

OK, smart guy, the fact that there weren't LITERALLY no Africans negates my argument.

Keino, Bikila, Wolde, and Rono were like the token few Africans on the scene. The point is that there weren't masses of Kenyans and other Africans. If you went to the Boston Marathon in the 70's, you didn't have to worry about Kenyans taking the top 14 places or whatever. There were just a few random guys from Africa. No Moroccans or Algerians that I can recall. What, do you think white guys were just so superior back then that they could count on taking the majority of the top 10 positions in any major distance race, but somehow in the last 30 years white guys got worse? Don't be ridiculous! White guys have improved a good bit time-wise at the top levels, but the fact that African runners have many more opportunities as runners has allowed them to emerge as the dominant force.

Imagine Pre making his statement about how the Olympic 5k final was going to be about pure guts and only he could win, or whatever he said, but making it nowadays against Bekele, el Gherouj, Sihine, Kipchoge, etc. He would have been a laughingstock. Even Mottram would have laughed at him. Or would Bob Schul (2006 version) have been able to raise his game for the upcoming Olympics, and win gold there too? No.

So congrats, old-timers, on running high mileage. You had some tough runners (but no tougher than the guys of today). It was a very successful idea in its time, but times have changed. You can't just go out and slog 180 miles a week and think you're going to run 12:37 or 26:17. In my mind, the current crop of Americans is the best group ever to come out of this country.

OK, smart guy, the fact that there weren't LITERALLY no Africans negates my argument.

Keino, Bikila, Wolde, and Rono were like the token few Africans on the scene. The point is that there weren't masses of Kenyans and other Africans. If you went to the Boston Marathon in the 70's, you didn't have to worry about Kenyans taking the top 14 places or whatever. There were just a few random guys from Africa. No Moroccans or Algerians that I can recall. What, do you think white guys were just so superior back then that they could count on taking the majority of the top 10 positions in any major distance race, but somehow in the last 30 years white guys got worse? Don't be ridiculous! White guys have improved a good bit time-wise at the top levels, but the fact that African runners have many more opportunities as runners has allowed them to emerge as the dominant force.

Imagine Pre making his statement about how the Olympic 5k final was going to be about pure guts and only he could win, or whatever he said, but making it nowadays against Bekele, el Gherouj, Sihine, Kipchoge, etc. He would have been a laughingstock. Even Mottram would have laughed at him. Or would Bob Schul (2006 version) have been able to raise his game for the upcoming Olympics, and win gold there too? No.

So congrats, old-timers, on running high mileage. You had some tough runners (but no tougher than the guys of today). It was a very successful idea in its time, but times have changed. You can't just go out and slog 180 miles a week and think you're going to run 12:37 or 26:17. In my mind, the current crop of Americans is the best group ever to come out of this country.