Why did American distance running suck in the 90's?

There was can't compete with Africans mentality. But many of the Africans and even Europeans were dopers. I suspect were never popped.

Low mileage quality over quantity.

Seb Coe only ran 40mpw and is the GOAT anything more is uncivilized and unnecessary.

Daniels helped get us out of the low mileage trend.

The Internet and message boards like this and tnfmedia helped us connect with high mileage runners who were able post their high mileage training and racing results.

My fault.

I wasn’t talented enough.

Have you heard of Benji Durden?

Low Mileage JV Scrub wrote:

Low mileage quality over quantity.

definitely a big part. the 90s also coincided with a baby bust so there were less runners. And with all the african doping, you went from being competive to an also ran.

if you look at the training of the top guys like kennedy(well eventually), williams, holman, holman, goucher and the rest and it wouldnt look too out of place today. they were all doing 80-120mpw with a bunch of quality. Now maybe not as many people did that but I dont recall many top guys doing low mileage post HS.

American runners have finally “caught on.” That’s it. Does anyone really think that Kincaid or Fisher is any more talented than Todd W. or that their training is really any better? Lol - Todd actually placed better in ‘92 than 2 of the 3 this year and with way better competition. Put Skah in this year’s final and he wins it hands down. Seriously, can you imagine if KB, Geb, Tergat, Hissou, Sihine, and Tadese were in it!? Fisher wouldn’t have cracked the top 12.

For me, there is nothing remotely interesting about the current crop of distance talent, American or otherwise.

bcun g wrote:

American runners have finally “caught on.” That’s it. Does anyone really think that Kincaid or Fisher is any more talented than Todd W. or that their training is really any better? Lol - Todd actually placed better in ‘92 than 2 of the 3 this year and with way better competition. Put Skah in this year’s final and he wins it hands down. Seriously, can you imagine if KB, Geb, Tergat, Hissou, Sihine, and Tadese were in it!? Fisher wouldn’t have cracked the top 12.

For me, there is nothing remotely interesting about the current crop of distance talent, American or otherwise.

After two laps, I commented that Tadese would wither this field. I'm no where close to being elite, but the race tactics were mind boggling. Even the last lap wasn't a burner. Such a bizarre race.

The quality over quantity stuff was real and strong runners didn't put in much volume.

Cross fit came on the scene. Triathlon too. Cycling got more popular because of lemond and lance. All these things probably diverted talent.

vaccinated wrote:

The quality over quantity stuff was real and strong runners didn't put in much volume.

Cross fit came on the scene. Triathlon too. Cycling got more popular because of lemond and lance. All these things probably diverted talent.

CrossFit wasn't around in the 90s.

Low mileage combined with a more interval-based approach. Then add in Cross training.

It was a great decade, but not for distance running.

Now Cross Training, that was a thing. If I recall correctly, there appeared a large selection of "cross training" shoes at stores like Kohls, etc.--right next to the Nike "running" shoes with the detached heels/shox design.

CKidd wrote:

vaccinated wrote:

The quality over quantity stuff was real and strong runners didn't put in much volume.

Cross fit came on the scene. Triathlon too. Cycling got more popular because of lemond and lance. All these things probably diverted talent.

CrossFit wasn't around in the 90s.

Cross whatever it was called. Cross training they called it then, something like that, but it was the same stuff.

Low Mileage JV Scrub wrote:

Low mileage quality over quantity.

Seb Coe only ran 40mpw and is the GOAT anything more is uncivilized and unnecessary.

Daniels helped get us out of the low mileage trend.

The Internet and message boards like this and tnfmedia helped us connect with high mileage runners who were able post their high mileage training and racing results.

IIRC, Coe ran more mileage but did not log or count "easy" miles so it was thought that he was running less than he really was.

Texas HS Coach wrote:

Low mileage combined with a more interval-based approach. Then add in Cross training.

It was a great decade, but not for distance running.

This is interesting. I suppose I knew a little bit about the interval-based approach, but not about the cross training thing.

It seems like there was an effort to remove extraneous "wear and tear" by reducing volume and instead focusing more on the ancillary stuff as well as "maximizing" the running that you did end up doing.

Not too different from approaches we see today, although it seems to be more like doing the absolute most miles you can handle and replacing what you can't with more ancillary work. And of course the workouts basically look like a more structured version of 70's and 80's training of one tempo/one interval sesh a week. That's a reductionistic look at it of course but you get the idea.

I ran at a top D3 distance school in the early 90s. I was a walk on with no experience and a penchant for injury, so I was mostly peaking in the ‘low to mid 50s, but that was because I was in an unusual place. Most of my teammates were running low 70s, some running more. We were considered a low volume training group compared to peer schools.

We were also very Daniels driven (as I still am today).

I’ll say that Daniels would say to run as many miles as you can without it otherwise tiring you out so much that you couldn’t be ready to perform for a workout. So I think the low volume thing, while true (especially compared to today), is a little overstated.

Smoove wrote:

I ran at a top D3 distance school in the early 90s. I was a walk on with no experience and a penchant for injury, so I was mostly peaking in the ‘low to mid 50s, but that was because I was in an unusual place. Most of my teammates were running low 70s, some running more. We were considered a low volume training group compared to peer schools.

We were also very Daniels driven (as I still am today).

I’ll say that Daniels would say to run as many miles as you can without it otherwise tiring you out so much that you couldn’t be ready to perform for a workout. So I think the low volume thing, while true (especially compared to today), is a little overstated.

Yes, I also find it hard to believe that the collegiate ranks also followed this philosophy and threw away two to three good decades of training logs and historical workouts from previous coaches. In my head I imagine more of the club/sub-elite/elite runners having more exposure to the "science" approach.

I disagree that the 90s were weak.

At the beginning of the 90s, the 5000m world record was 12:58, and by the end of the decade, the American record was 12:58.

By the end of the 90s, the world record was 12:39. 20+ years later and we still consider 12:55-13:00 great, when in reality we’re losing by over 100m.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

I disagree that the 90s were weak.

At the beginning of the 90s, the 5000m world record was 12:58, and by the end of the decade, the American record was 12:58.

By the end of the 90s, the world record was 12:39. 20+ years later and we still consider 12:55-13:00 great, when in reality we’re losing by over 100m.

EPO is a hell of a drug.

Real reason the 90s sucked in the US? Lack of organized doping groups like thr 00s?

Lenny Leonard wrote:

I disagree that the 90s were weak.

At the beginning of the 90s, the 5000m world record was 12:58, and by the end of the decade, the American record was 12:58.

By the end of the 90s, the world record was 12:39. 20+ years later and we still consider 12:55-13:00 great, when in reality we’re losing by over 100m.

i respect that. Should have put "suck" in quotes to reflect my own perspective.