A lot of old guys WERE pretty fast

seventies wrote:

Consider that the median of the population, i.e. the baby boomers was 20-30 years old. Then Frank Shorter won the gold medal in a race that had the nation's attention.

Boomers wanted to run like Frank. A lot of the boomers tried to get as fast as they could and a lot of runners trained to run 60 minutes or better for 10 miles and then, they could run no faster. Injuries followed; other time commitments. When most runners figured out they couldn't get faster (and even if he/she could, so what? No big reward for all that time spent) they moved on to other things.

If there was a similar boom today, or an incentive to run six minute pace or faster, you'd see the same numbers as the 70s-80s.

This is the closest to why depth was greater back then.

I raced both in UK and US in the mid/late 70's and it was amazing how many obsessive 29-32min 10k runners there were in so many races. It was basically a fad that lasted about 10yrs or so, to be replaced by a shorter lived Marathon version. Those same 30min guys got to maybe 2:18 or something and realized what's the point? Up-and-comers got the message and shifted the focus to a more 'balanced' approach (a good thing IMO). So now Mr 31min trained less and became Mr. 34min and didn't care because no-one else did.

no one wrote:

curious - how did you measure?

The calibrated bicycle method, tape measured calibration course, jones counters on bicycles.

1978 NYC M

Bill R won in 2:12:11

Grete W was 102 place overall in 2:32:29

NYAC had 5 under 2:28:10 7 in by 2:31

top 100 about 2:32:20

200 2:41:25

300 2:46

400 2:50

787 under 3:00

920 3:05 (Boston Q?)

50%ers

almost 9000 started in 1978 half finished by 3:58

almost 48000 started in 2005 half finished by 4:58

first year out of the park 1976 2090 started half finished by 3:47:15

I was by far the worst "serious" runner that I knew. *Every* man in my club was faster than I was, most by a lot--even the old guys (some of whom were aged 40+!). I absolutely stunk, to the point that I was an annoyance to the people I carpooled to races with: they couldn't leave to go back home until I had finally dragged my ass through the finish.

For my first marathon, over a very hilly course, I had put in less than 500 miles' training in ten weeks--maybe less than 400, even--and pretty predictably had to start walking before the 20-mile mark. After an hour of mixed walking and jogging, I realized that the car slowly keeping pace with me was the sweep car, and that I was the last person on the course. I only avoided being DFL by passing some old guy (not a clubmate) on the last long straightaway to the finish. It was very difficult to imagine that anyone could go slower than we had.

He and I were both under four hours. The officials hadn't expected to have to stick around for longer than four; a majority of finishers were actually under three. And this was just a rinky-dink local marathon with a few dozen participants. Entry fee might have been a dollar--certainly not more.

In the years that followed, on several occasions I *walked* the marathon distance under five hours (and I was no better a walker than I'd been a runner). Getting used to the current situation, where a person who "runs" a marathon in five and a half hours is deemed a great athlete, has been really difficult for me.

I could be wrong and the economy might not be a big deal.

But you have to remember that college is three times as expensive today as it was in 1980, after you adjust for inflation. Also, college grads face a tougher job market. So a lot of them are less financially stable compared to the early 80s. I wonder if recent college grads work more hours, or maybe that is just my impression because many of my friends went into areas (med school, big law, consulting) where they don't have 100 minutes/day to run (except by sleeping < 5).

too bad on being short ... the way the course is configured (as I recall - essentially out and back) that could have been adjusted easily - no?

15 min also ran wrote:

A

Seeker9 wrote:

[quote]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.

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.

I don't know if that's true. I am surprised at some of the runners competing in Div I now -- slower than good Div 3 runners from the 70s and 80s

Could it be that those guys who were so fast then didn't have kids? They didn't pass on their genes to the next generation.

Like this dialogue!!!!

Now I wasn't a great runner---but like many in the 70's, did the 100 + miles working a full time job with a family--

I recently looked at the 1979 Boston Marathon results booklet---500th place was 2:36 while 1000th place was 2:43. Then we all went over to the Eliot Lounge to talk about it-----Unfortunately--the runners on my college team--have never heard of Bill Rodgers, Frank Shorter, or Joan Benoit. To be able to turn the clock back 30 some years!!!!

Oh, the irony.

no one wrote:

too bad on being short ... the way the course is configured (as I recall - essentially out and back) that could have been adjusted easily - no?

As I recall it was a loop and out and back. As the course had been certified, the shortness must have been due to the setup and possibly a change in the turnaround.

The Cal 10 was a part of the PAUSATF series until the the late 2000s, but all the years that you site (2010-2012)are after the race was part of the PA. As soon as the race was off the PA calendar the fast guys stopped showing up. The race is now basically a local race for the greater Stockton area and Sacramento.

When I was racing it in the early 2000s, there were lots of fast people running it.

In short, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Oh, the stup[i/]idity.

Original Message

Author: ssm

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

Message:

The Cal 10 was a part of the PAUSATF series until the the late 2000s, but all the years that you site (2010-2012)are after the race was part of the PA. As soon as the race was off the PA calendar the fast guys stopped showing up. The race is now basically a local race for the greater Stockton area and Sacramento.

When I was racing it in the early 2000s, there were lots of fast people running it.

In short, you are comparing apples and oranges.

------------------------------------------------------------

Could you find your results and let me know how many runners broke 60 min in one of those early 2000 races? I think 341 of 800+ did it in 1983.

I suspected that the Cal 10 had changed their course and/or become a local race. Thanks.

PS: I don't believe I'm comparing apples and oranges however. I was pointing out the high percentage of runners breaking an hour for ten miles (42-43% in a field of over 800) I don't think you could find a race today with those numbers. If you could then you would be comparing apples to apples.

College is more expensive now but salaries are much higher for grads. I made less than $9000 in my first job.

There was a Runner's World article in the 70s about a 2:31 marathoner who taught school in the day, went to law school at night and still ran 100 mpw.

There was a running boom in those days and it followed the general trend of the 80s of faster, higher , stronger. Running fast fed into this culture. I think running at that time had a slightly naive attitude that somehow everybody could be a great runner if they worked harder than everyone else.

I think society in general has become more specialised and has moved more towards using sport as a recreational activity which focuses on overall mental health as a way of offsetting the stress of modern life. Also there are also a lot more sports with large followings that have diverted interest away from running e.g. - mountain biking

What people are not mentioning is that at the elite level we are seeing previous records being broken by the new generation of specialised runners.

Japan today sees a depth of running that compare to the US nd UK in the 80s

In Boston 1981 (Seko won in 2:09:26, Virgin and Rodgers 2:10) it took 2:27 to place 200th!!! Meyer ran 8th or 9th in 2:13:07. Benoit ran 2:30 for 3rd. For sub-2:30 depth this has to be one of the best.

In Boston 1983 (Meyer ran 2:09:00, Durden and Mendoza 2:09) it took 2:15 to get 55th!!! 85 runners under 2:20.

I had two friends (Mark Mesler and Jed Hopfensberger) who qualified for the 5k/10k and marathon for the 84 Trials in ~13:40/~28:45/ and 2:15 and 2:17 at Boston that year.

HRE

Some of this may answer some of your earlier statements. I ran/raced marathons all through the 60s and 70s beginning with Labour Day 1961. Until I left Coach Mihaly Igloi in the early fall of 1966, My training was all intervals. Except for the 20 months I was doing Coach Igloi's workouts I ran 50 to 70 miles a week with the long run of 20 to 28 miles being the basic workout many weeks. I often took a day or two off a week but I also ran doubles now and then. I just ran as I felt each day. I was a hobby racer/jogger and sometimes ran in marathon races for a workout. It was all great fun and I am still enjoying the personal successes and the friendship of many from those days. I was lucky to have raced and run in the days of the amateur.