d2xccoach wrote:
There was a lot of money in this sport in 1983 for the stars? I think there are a lot of sub 2:15 guys from the early-mid 1980's who would disagree with you.
In 1983 there wasn't a lot of money but what money there was went a lot deeper. At least 20 - 25 deep on the US list in every event. If you were the 25th guy, you wouldn't get rich but you could make ends meet with a shoe co. stipend and some appearance/prize money. Not so today.
Need guidance in moving from 50-60 mpw to necessary 100+ to achieve goals of trials ('16). 15:15 5k, 32:02 10k sub 25 8k-xc.
Vancy Pants wrote:
Need guidance in moving from 50-60 mpw to necessary 100+ to achieve goals of trials ('16). 15:15 5k, 32:02 10k sub 25 8k-xc.
AM: 6-8
PM: 10-12
done.
Oh please. The sport at the youth level is just fine without whatever it is you're going on about.
Eric Idol wrote:
Er...hobbyjogger nation is attracting 100,000s of kids to the sport.
Team for Kids alone serves 400 schools and reaches 100,000 kids.
That's where the future of USA running is.
Right, having money to throw at the situation equals having special knowledge and insight. Stay on the sidelines where you belong, sluggish stooge.
Keith Stone wrote:
Work a race to make it better for the competitors. How about cough up some money to help a guy pay his way to the trails? I do that, what the hell are the "insiders" doing except piss and moan? HMMM?
Thank you. How many weeks should I use to build up to that?
I agree with so much Kieth Stone has said here, especially the comments concerning the negativity on the board. I don't care how old I get, but I see a 2:18 guy and as far as I'm concerned I see a glow form around him and begin to hear choir's sing. There is not a real runner on here that can't appreciate the amount of mileage, effort, sacrafice and dedication that went into that effort. 5:16 pace ... wow ... there were times I was pretty happy when I put that effort out for 8k. And the real athletes and coaches understand that anyone who derides that performance should have their IP address banned. A little punishment can go a long way.
Their is a flip side though, and I can understand why the legends on this board can become discouraged with the rather common sentiment that the current crop of athletes "have it harder". I mean, c'mon ... really, are you serious? I'm far from a Pre-lover, but his example is best used because it is best known; he lived out of a trailer (and it wasn't even a double wide ;)). How many of the current crop of athletes would live out of a trailer? Let's even forget that .... how many would give up their cell phone account, or their cable bill? I certainly believe that athletes who lived and trained from 1970-1988 (aka "The Collapse") had a different attitude. In order to chase the dream, they lived Spartan lifestyles so that they could put in the necessary work, which for many of them was volume that exceeded 120 miles/week. You just don't see that kind of mileage any more. I do see sauna's, altitude tents, etc, etc ... all so you can do less mileage? C'mon, read the old logs, sleep in a real bed, and get out an RUN!
Yes, I would say that the one fact that does effect the current group is college cost, but that remains a choice. I teach and coach in New England; local State colleges can still get you out of school for a resonable amount of money, although most still cost relatively more than the 70's. Paying the $50,000+ a year to go to Williams or Amherst may certainly leave you in debt, but that is a choice you make, often times chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. To whine that it leaves you no opportunity to train for the Olympics afterwards rings hollow, and deserves the snide comments from dedicated athletes from the past. And if you paid $50,000+ to go to Western New England ... well then, you're just a moron and you shouldn't have been allowed to go to college in the first place. These low rated but expensive private colleges aren't worth the money, but that's for another discussion.
The whole self-fullfillment thing is key. When Malmo decided to give the Olympics his best shot after he left PSU, did some outside force provide him with a guarantee for success? Certainly not. Hodgie-San? Rodgers? Meyers? And the host of other guys? Did they have great financial backing? They all made sacrafices, many lived in lousy apartments, and did mileage we no longer see. They gave it their best shot, and a very high percentage fell short but at least know they came close to giving it their best effort. When they finally find a thread that isn't on the edge of stupidity or thoroughly immature, they certainly don't want click on it and find from some potential talent whining about how easy it was for them "back in the day." Would anyone?
Oops ... paragraph two should start with "There"
That was very well said. Nice job Coach
Keith Stone wrote:
hardset nipples wrote:Personal excellence is its own reward, should I be surprised that this wouldn't occur to you? What compelled "the 85 fastest guy at New York" [sic] 27 years ago that is so irrelevant today?
Yes it does occur to me, and if you don't understand the differences between now and 27 years ago I certainly don't have the time to explain it to you.
Personal excellence can get obtained through many avenues besides running. Look at the typical comments here on Letrun. The 85th fastest guy is the 84th loser. How much satisfaction do you get from an accomplishment that most of your acquaintances don't understand enough to appreciate, and even those inside the sport deride as something you should have worked harder at?
Getting a 2:20 isn't something you just walk out the door and do, it's not a 16 week training plan. Today people have the choice of putting in an extra couple hours at work, spending that extra couple hours with their family, or maybe honing that golf game.
They could also choose to go run in "booty shorts" or "fag tights" for a couple hours a day for a few years just to have anonymous jerk-wads call them a slacker for not beating the Africans. They could turn down those late afternoon meetings and working breakfasts. I'm sure their bosses will understand how important running is and not place them at the top of the lay-off list. They can explain to their girlfriends how they can't go out clubbing tonight because they have to get in 8 before work, or they explain to their wives how they're too tired after the long run to clean out the garage, and of course explain to everyone why you don't have kids yet.
So explain to me again exactly why you don't think the general population doesn't look at a sub 2:20 as the ultimate means of obtaining personal excellence.
So the culture, conditioning and expectations changed and
there's no point to running 140 a week in this day and age?
fred wrote:So the culture, conditioning and expectations changed and
there's no point to running 140 a week in this day and age?
Training and racing to find your absolute limits is no longer a 'dream' that a lot of people have. It's that simple. The dream has been snuffed out at a lot of different levels, many of which have been discussed here. Some of you have gone on at length about runners of the 70s and 80s not needing support, and doing so much more with so much less. That's bullshit. On an inflation adjusted basis, they were able to get by better than someone in the same position today. More support, both financial and material, existed back then for a larger number of runners.
More importantly, the dream existed back then. I've got one name for you: Ron Daws. He qualified for the 1968 Olympic Marathon with a 2:33. You may scoff and say, "well, it was at altitude", and "well, it was 1968, times were slow back then!". It was at altitude, so I'll give you that. But, Mexico City was at altitude, too. All three of our marathoners ran within a minute of their trials times, and still got beat by ten minutes by an Ethiopian at the Olympics. Sound familiar? As far as times, the world record in 1968 was 2:09. Not slow. Yet a guy, Ron Daws, with a lifetime marathon PR of 2:23 was able to qualify for our Olympic team and get 22nd in the Olympics. That's a dream, and I don't think you could fault anyone for thinking they had a chance with those kind of opportunities. It looks like it took about three Olympic cycles for those opportunities to fade away.
The dream is dead.
common wrote:The dream is dead.
I'm expecting this response any time now: "Common, you're an idiot. The dream is not dead. I have a name for you: Brian Sell. He was slower than Ron Daws (at least in high school) and turned himself into an Olympian by running big mileage just like the guys back in the 70s and 80s. The dream is still there, but no one has the work ethic to go after it."
This is true, and a good example. But, what had to happen to keep Brain Sell in the game long enough for him to qualify for the Olympics? Someone, or in his case, a pair of someones, had to come out of the woodwork, invest two million dollars of their own money, and pay Mr. Sell better than a living wage to keep him on the roads. Otherwise there is no question Brian Sell finds other opportunities that don't include running 160 miles a week for a low percentage chance at fleeting glory in a sport that Americans largely don't care about.
To increase the number of people qualifying for the trials and improve the times those people are running, those people need to be motivated. Two ways you can do that: with security (money) or respect (ego, prestige). Find a way to add a lot of one or both to running, and we'll have the depth of Kenya in ten years. One Ron Daws or Brian Sell a decade is all we can expect otherwise.
Go back to RW wrote:
Right, having money to throw at the situation equals having special knowledge and insight. Stay on the sidelines where you belong, sluggish stooge.
If you think it's about having money to throw at something you clearly don't have a grasp of the situation, so it's pretty hard to consider that your comments are based on any special knowledge or insight.
Keep up your petty whining and insults if you want, but don't kid yourself you're doing a damn thing positive for the sport or that I give a damn about what some whiner has to say about my health or abilities anyway.
As Brian Sell once said "if I want to know what some 18 minute 5Ker has to say I'll ask my wife". I'd paraphrase for you, but if you don't get the point already there's no purpose.
One of my sister's old high school teammates got her OT cut a few weeks ago. Katie was a D1 All-American who decided she wanted to 'have a life' and gave up trying to be an elite runner after college. Got a job teaching full time and then coaching the high school cross country team after school. 8+ years after her 'I want a life' moment and shortly after giving birth to her second child, she decided it was time to try to get back in shape. Got up at o'dark hundred to hit the treadmill and work her training around school, coaching and family life, (including said baby now just past one now and an additional toddler) and got her Trials cut in her first serious marathon attempt even though she screwed up her pacing and died the last six miles.
If you've got the natural talent, it's still possible to make it all work if the will is strong enough.
Don't take the bait, Keith Stone. I agree with a lot of what you've added to this thread. Speaking of money, I've recently found myself in a position to influence the mission of a new marathon, and I am getting a good response to the idea of creating a developmental aspect to the race. My feeling is, there is no reason that the total prize purse of the race should sit at less than 10K for top three men, women, and masters when we've got 150K of major sponsor dollars and 300K in race fees coming in. I would argue for most races of this size across the country, it's not that they couldn't increase prize/developmental funding by a factor of two or three, it's that they don't want to. Why split up an extra 20K among the racers when you can split it up among five or six charities and get sponsor's names in the newspaper? You'll never get the priority over charity, but if the balance can be changed to highlight performance over participation, it will go a long way toward supporting athlete development.
Eight years and two kids after college is when I started back up doing exactly the same thing (100+mpw, up at 3am, etc.). I know others who followed a very similar pattern as well. Interesting coincidences? Or is there something there that could be tapped into to turn these kinds of people earlier, when they are fresh from college?
For me, the reason I couldn't do it straight out of college is that I lacked knowledge, maturity, and motivation. Having some financial security, getting married, having kids, and reading a shelf full of books and journal articles is what got me back on the roads.
One other motivational point. Back in the 70's, there was a lot more spectator as opposed to participant interest in the sport. To take just a couple of examples, in the SF Bay area, the Examiner Indoor Games was a 14,000 person sell-out with headline coverage in one of the two major daily newspapers, and top Olympic performers showed up. The annual double dual meet between Cal-Stanford, USC and UCLA would draw 20,000, and this was considered a problem because attendence had already dropped from its highs in the preceding decade. Neither of these events even exist anymore.
The point is that even if you weren't a Ritz, Rupp or Solinsky, you weren't toiling away in total anonymity, and sub-2:20 marathons or sub-29 minute 10ks got mad respect and a bit of notariety even if that landed you out of the money in races like New York or Boston.
common wrote:
Speaking of money, I've recently found myself in a position to influence the mission of a new marathon, and I am getting a good response to the idea of creating a developmental aspect to the race.
How would you create a "development" aspect to the race? Would you add more prize money (which would then go to the five more B and C level Kenayans who would show up), make American-only prize money (a weak and dishonest move), or simply reward mediocrity by giving money to everyone who hits a time rather than actually competing for the win?
THANK YOU, Common and Recovery, for getting it.I do agree with other posters that runners need to be primarily motivated internally because that's what gets you out the door everyday. However, there are few people who can operate solely on internal motivation when (1) there is NO external reinforcement, and (2) there is external pressure that actually DETERS you from continuing. Nowadays if you live in a trailer and subsist on PB&J so you can chase your running dreams, someone in your family will probably have you committed for being delusional. So where is the security???Back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, running WAS a sport. Performing at a high level in running was understood and appreciated. Not so today. This messageboard is a prime example. I couldn't believe how many people were bashing Ritz after NY. If he's wasting his time, then what are the guys who are trying to break 2:20 doing? Where is the support??? Where is the respect???The other point I'd like to make is that people keep citing examples of themselves and others working fulltime, having a family, paying a mortgage, etc, still running 100+ miles a week, and qualifying with a 2:18:xx marathon. My response is that if you lived the life of a pro or African who trains for a living, you might be trying to break 2:10 instead of 2:19. Brian Sell is an example of this. If he had trained through dental school instead of with the Hansens, I bet he would've run 2:18:xx. And then he could've bragged about it on this messageboard . . .
common wrote:
common wrote:The dream is dead.To increase the number of people qualifying for the trials and improve the times those people are running, those people need to be motivated. Two ways you can do that: with security (money) or respect (ego, prestige). Find a way to add a lot of one or both to running, and we'll have the depth of Kenya in ten years. One Ron Daws or Brian Sell a decade is all we can expect otherwise.
SomeCoach wrote: These low rated but expensive private colleges aren't worth the money, but that's for another discussion.
Just FYI if you are smart enough to get into Williams or Amherst, you don't have to pay full price if you can't afford it. I went to one of these schools with financial aid and came out with no debt at all. And the degree has been SO WORTH it in terms of the job possibilities. Not to mention the experience was great.
Oh yeah, I was a medium level DIII runner and now I'm currently one of those no name 2:30 something marathoners doing it for the love and the community. Not the trials standard. Not the money.
The way in which some older runners look down on today's generation of runners is disappointing. The conditions today are YOUR legacy, and your disrespect for the folks out there carrying on that legacy, though yes there are fewer of us, is sad.