You confirm what most of us old guys are saying. There ARE people who are out there working hard. Just nowhere NEAR as many. I notice, and my wife notices, when we see someone actually running. It's maybe once every 6 weeks or so, which is weird. Because we're out there running. And riding bikes. We get around, yet we only see someone running 7 minute pace or better BARELY ever.
And other than Rupp, the US doesn't have anyone. Everyone else is slow. Close thread.
Health first, save money later wrote:
Kennekuk Jack wrote:
I agree 100% with this. I'd say I do 90% of the work, only hiring out for something that needs an expert or is too big a task for me to do myself (new siding, new roof, major plumbing, anything electrical, etc). Just doing those tasks will keep you in decent shape. You wouldn't be ready to race off of it, but it beats drinking beer and playing fantasy football or the other nonsense the other dads in my neighborhood do.
Agree to an extent, but some stuff it's best to contract out. Like changing your own oil. It's impossible to do it without getting it on your garage floor, hands, etc.. Then you have to take the oil in and even some Autozones won't take it. Not to mention, getting that stuff on your hands is potentially carcinogenic. Pay the $35.00 and be done with it.
Another thing is working with solvents like painting or dust. Sanding stuff, sawing boards, or cutting tile? No way. It's not worth the health risks of breathing that crap in. I've done it in the past, but now I'll contract it out.
Agree with mowing your own lawn or landscaping.
Agree on the oil. I'll change a battery, headlights, tail lights, some fluids, but that's it. The oil is a hassle and, like you said, I'll pay to take it to a garage and hope they won't screw me when it's time for something major.
I'll saw and sand all day. Ventilation helps a lot. Painting is ok as long as it's the premium No-VOC stuff from Sherwin-Williams. (I'm a huge snob about paint.)
FFF wrote:
You confirm what most of us old guys are saying. There ARE people who are out there working hard. Just nowhere NEAR as many. I notice, and my wife notices, when we see someone actually running. It's maybe once every 6 weeks or so, which is weird. Because we're out there running. And riding bikes. We get around, yet we only see someone running 7 minute pace or better BARELY ever.
And other than Rupp, the US doesn't have anyone. Everyone else is slow. Close thread.
Yep, I agree with that. I've seen it happen with my own club. In 2003, I was 23, and it was hard to get in the top 5 or 10 of some of the races. Now I'm slower, and I'll often win by several minutes. Finishing in the top 5 or 10 isn't even a consideration. That's sad to me. I spent 15 years training in the hopes that there'd eventually be a wave of faster younger runners who'd come in and take my place, but it just hasn't happened yet.
If the RD’s could figure out a way to chop the entry fees in exchange for no t-shirt and no stupid finisher’s medal, then I think the real runners would race more often.
Collectively guys trained harder and ran more miles consistently. Sorry, but it's true. And most courses were certified. As someone wrote earlier... there were no GPS watches... you just pounded out the mileage based on time. I used an average per mile split which I knew to be much slower than I ran to make sure I got enough mileage... had to run for 1 hour 45 mins to say you ran 15... and 2:20 to say you ran 20 ... that was it even though you never ran 7 min pace on your runs...sometimes you'd measure your runs in with your car after to confirm if you could...
People thought you were nuts if you ran 110-120 miles per week but many did that anyway... now, very few people are willing to do that (and maybe they shouldn't be).
There were fewer things to distract people in life. We didn't all get medals just for finishing. At the time, there were more people that thought it was important to try to be fast... this goes back to there are more distractions now.
Also, I think the Olympics were a bigger thing back then... there were less sports available to watch live and so the Olympics were a bigger/more important thing and thus inspirational... now, sports can be viewed almost any time of the day... and there is way more money and exposure in the major sports (not track or distance running)
My general gist from this thread.
Run a minimum of 100 miles a week.
Train hard, no excuses.
Don't make it complicated.
I'm going stop lolly gagging and stop my 80 miles a week bs. And start putting in at a minimum of 100 miles a week.
Thoughts?
People trained harder back then , it seems from reading all these posts. But a lot of those runners have chronic injuries and can't run anymore past 50, due to their reckless training and running through injuries in the pursuit to reach their potential. Now with all information on injury prevention, strength and condition and cross training etc on the internet, hobbyjoggers can now have longer running career.
Thanks
RunnersWorld PA
correct answer wrote:
People trained harder back then , it seems from reading all these posts. But a lot of those runners have chronic injuries and can't run anymore past 50, due to their reckless training and running through injuries in the pursuit to reach their potential. Now with all information on injury prevention, strength and condition and cross training etc on the internet, hobbyjoggers can now have longer running career.
Thanks
RunnersWorld PA
Perhaps other issues, like being treated for follicular lymphoma 3a (me). Of course that could be related to use of oil based paints and lacquers (refinishing furniture, etc.). But that could all be genetic as well. In regards to chronic injuries, I don’t see it really. I ran 8 miles yesterday with 3 miles of intervals. Rick Becker was from that era and recently ran a 4:51 1500m at age 63.
Igy
bump
Banner. wrote:
Moo Goo wrote:
90% of the new addition to marathon running are people who have no business running one. In the old days, slow people didn't run it. You earn running it by training for shorter races first. And only when you run decent times in 5/10K, you run the marathon. Now days, run marathons first and post selfies of it before, during and after it. The priorities have changed. And RW is even pushing harder for fatties to run it so they have more subscribers.
I think the above post nailed it. 80s runners were mostly actual runners, not charity face book walkers with cell phones and wearing tutus. You did a marathon back then because you loved running not for a charity or for Facebook likes.
Very true... you get the cognoscenti and the clueless.. you are now a warrior if you can keep your eyes open long enough to slog your ass over a hyped up ultra at 9 min mile pace.... whereas a sub 15 5km gets a eyebrow raise if you are lucky... as long as we are slaves to the posturing that goes on in social media, this view of running will continue to go on.
Time needed wrote:
The middle class used to have more free time. Now a 9-5 job is really 7:00-5:30 + every other weekend + being on call.
One of the things that you had to figure out in those days if you wanted to keep running seriously was whether or not a job you were considering would allow you to run as much as you needed to. A lot of guys simply would not have taken a job like the one you're describing.
I don't feel like wading through every response so here's my take: the runners of the Running Boom got swept into a SPORT that'd been a matter of training & performance orientation. Of course, not all of that first wave were swept up but a very sizable % were and they produced fast times. Plus, those already around & running well were swept along and showed up @ the few (very, very few by comparison) races available. By the late 80s, fast times for place had started to decline in many races and there are very few, if any races that mirror times for place w/30-35 years ago (more like up to 40 years ago).
Boomers=THE problem wrote:
oldfartfrom60's wrote:
Lack of chip timing, lack of certified measured courses and a lot course cutting and cheating.
BINGO! This is the answer to the question as to why times in the 70s and 80s were so fast. If you need proof of Boomers lack of attention to detail just, look at the OPs initial post (was about times in the 1990s) vs what all the sad old Boomers are posting (about times in the 1980s and 1970s). Details and facts are not strengths of the Boomer generation.
2018 - 35 = 1983
I don't think people trained harder back in those years, just differently.
Another factor might be there was better identification or aerobic talent.
At my high school in the 70's we had PE every day and the entire class had to run 1-2 miles on the roads before getting into regular PE stuff. I am sure it was similar in high schools in the rest of Canada and the U.S.
That's how I realized I was good at long running and the teacher suggested that the kids who did well at these daily runs should run cross country.
I think in later decades, there was less running in PE and less PE in general and less opportunity to identify talent.
I have read about The Daily Mile they are starting in on at British schools. Who knows, but in 10-15 years we might see a new wave of great British distance runners.
Hate the finishers medals wrote:
If the RD’s could figure out a way to chop the entry fees in exchange for no t-shirt and no stupid finisher’s medal, then I think the real runners would race more often.
Back in the early 80s, it was pretty common to get a t-shirt in the races that the NYRRC put on. But that's all you got! Just a t-shirt. No goodie bag. No nipple-goo. Enduro-Bar. No stupid finisher's medal. No nothing. Just a shirt. I can't remember what the marathons gave out, but it wasn't much.
Finisher's medal! I've gotten them. They mean nothing.
"Hey, you DID it! You actually finished the race. More than three miles! Wow! And here's your treat!"
Shoot me now.
Boomers=THE Problem wrote:
This thread is full of a bunch of Boomer BS propaganda. If Boomers had actually been paying attention to running the country, instead of running 100 miles per week to get 30th in some meaningless, no-name road race then we wouldn't be in the mess we now are as a country. They also wouldn't all be on their 3rd and 4th marriages if they had a little less running and a little more balance in their lives.
Boomers are a worthless generation that has done nothing but destroy this country and continually take credit for things they did not do. They have run BOTH political parties into the ground and are responsible for running the economy into the ground and creating a mountain of debt by consistently voting for generous entitlements for themselves while simultaneously refusing to pay (i.e. Raise taxes) for those entitlements.
They claim they have benefited us all by giving us cultural gifts--by starting movements that gave us fast running times, equal rights for blacks, women, gay folks, by giving us modern music (like rock & roll) through their pioneering efforts, by giving us modern computer science, and through things like iconic movies.
But a closer look at these claims reveals their lies. As a starting point, please take note that it is widely agreed that Boomers were born 1946-1964. This means that the oldest members of this generation turned 30 in 1976 and, thus, they have been running the show (...or they should've been instead of running 100 miles per week) in the US since the mid to late 1970s.
The major civil rights leaders for black equal rights in the 60s (Martin Luther King, Jr., Medger Evers, Rosa Parks, Ceaser Chavez, Fred Shuttlesworth, Jon Lewis, Malcom X, and many more) were all born in the 20s to early 40s. But you know who is a boomer? Al Sharpton.
The major players in the second wave feminist movement (Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Mary King, Alice Rossi) of the 60s were all born in 20s - early 40s as well. Of course, this means the women who fought for basic equal rights (like the right to vote) were even older. These brave women were not boomers. But Boomers are the leaders of the disgusting mess that is third wave feminism...
The folks that were the pioneers in equal rights for gay people (Harvey Milk, Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon) also not Boomers.
Who is widely acknowledged to be the father of modern computer science? Alan Turing. A gay non-Boomer.
Let's examine the music claims...Jimmi Hendrix? Jim Morrison? The Beatles? The Rolling Stones? Bob Dylan? Yup, all non-Boomers.
How about movies, directors, actors, etc?... Stanley Kubrick? Harrison Ford? George Lucas? Robert De Niro? Al Pacino? Robert Duval? Martin Scorsese? Clint Eastwood? George Romero? Francis Ford Coppala? Chevy Chase? Steve Martin? J.J. Abrams? The entire Monty Python crew? Yup, all non-boomers.
To summarize, Boomers frequently claim that their generation was responsible for major cultural and art movements but it's totally not true. Boomers are parasites and leeches....and I am assume some are good people. We should build a wall on our southern boarder, strip the boomers of their ill-gotten entitlements, and ship them down to old Mexico. All of our problems would be solved. Let's make America great again!
Garbage analysis. My parents worked full-time jobs into their mid-70s while also being totally engaged in their community, in politics, and in personal projects, such as running. The problems you cite are much more complicated. Are their narcissistic baby boomers? Yes. Many are not however. The troubles in the nation that you cite have more to do with the destruction of Democracy by corporate power, quite frankly.
YUKI MF KAWUACHI FTW!!!!! wrote:
PopeFrancis wrote:
Great thread. Brings to mind Greg Meyer and Bill Rodgers having lives outside of running, maybe Shorter and Jack Bachelor, too, but still putting in 100-plus miles week after week, year after year and getting results and inspiring others.
Probably the main reason why Yuki Kawuachi gets so much love. Trains hard, works hard and races like a animal.
You mean, that low mileage guy who does not run doubles? LOL!
The answer is easy.
In the 80ies these runners focused on running and not uploading stuff to Strava and talking about it for hours.
They trained efficient and they were fast. There was no need for a water bottle when they went out for a 2 hour long run.
It was the good old days when men where men.
Today, DNF record holders like Jim Walmsley get admired. What possibly could go wrong?
Someone above nailed it "being faster(training your a$$ off ) meant a lot during that time frame." It did to me also, but I was just a kid during this time frame. My dad trained and raced as hard as he could and so I wanted to also. There is a lot more emphasis on "just finishing. I don't know many people who want to train their a$$ off for any hobby sport.
Times and people have changed. Doesn't mean you can't train yours off. Heck some of you may actually have a chance at an OA at your local race. Many local races raise money for various "charities " so the more participants , the merrier. If all of these pathetic hobby joggers and walkers didn't show up, your local races(most) would dry up. Them showing up doesn't hurt you nor your sport. Them not showing up does.
Amongst many other factors discussed corporate culture matters.
My dad was an AT&T employee in the 70s and 80s. He said it was normal for folks to be at the office for 10-12 hours, but also normal for folks to take 2 hour punches. Gave him plenty of time to train.
I dare say that any employee in a large corporation would not be allowed to vanish for 2 hours a day, regardless of their overall productivity. Exceptions to this rule, I suspect, are as rare as hens teeth.