Running craze of the 70's ; what caused it? can it be re done?

It was a combination of factors that merged by chance. I was a schoolboy runner then, but here goes"

1. People were a bit exhausted with politics, war, and social upheavel after the late 60s. Doing something with inward meaning that didn't require arguing with anyone (or even talking to anyone) was a plus.

2. It was new and different; and for a while that's always a plus (see: skateboarding, X-games, a host of other things).

3. Aesthetically, it seemed beautiful. This is the part of Rodgers and Shorter that I think is underrated. It wasn't merely that they were champion runners, they were beautiful runners. Watching them run it seemed like doing a 5-minute mile or a marathon was the most natural thing in the world. I'm not sure we'd get the same feeling watching, say, Salazar and de Castella duke it out.

4. The economy of the 70s was in the tank. From roughly '73 to '81 became one rolling recession with inflation thrown in for fun. Oddly, I think this made it easier for folks to take up running. A lot of young folks didn't have any other particularly lucrative career as an alternative. Also, with the economy down, housing prices didn't soar (cities were grimy and crime-infested, but cheaper: try watching the NYC scenes in The French Connection, you'll see what I mean). But a broke running-bum living in a flea-trap apartment wasn't much worse off than the working stiff next door. When the go-go 80's hit, at least some young people felt the pull to take the opportunities, Wall Street and otherwise.

5. The records were a bit more attainable. Back then there might be no one running sub-2:10 for a whole given year. And if you could break 28:15 in 10k, you could reasonably think you had a chance for the Olympics. And a sub-2:12 marathoner was one of the best in the world. Now Kenya and Ethopia alone have, what, 40 guys a year under 2:10. Some 22 year old who works hard for 2 years and runs 28:15 or 2:13 at age 24 doesn't feel like he's accomplishing as much today.

I agree with this thought. The movies and music from the era are fantastic.

Spider,

Pretty good analysis. Puts me in mind of a story.

When I ran in college, we raced tons, especially in xc. We'd have somewhere on the order of 12-17 meets a year. Usually we had one, or even two, in the middle of the week and one on Saturday. We loved the mid-week meets, not just because they got us out of a couple days of getting hammered with intervals at practice, but because they were often away meets and gave us a legitimate reason not to be in class. One of the highlights of every early September was cross referencing our meet schedule with our class schedules to see what classes we'd get to miss.

Not all thst many years later, after graduating, I went to watch one of my old school's xc meets. I'd noticed that they'd been running maybe 7-8 meets a year, roughly half of what we'd done. I asked the coach why the big reduction and he told me that one of the main reasons was that "these kids just don't like missing classes."

There was once a great article in the old "Runner" magazine about "running bums," people whose running ability was anywhere from somewhat above average to considerably less than average who had chucked careers and scraped to get by so that they could concentrate completely on their running.

All of that said, it's worth noting that there were also many, many, runners from that era who held down full time jobs and even supported families and who still trained seriously. My best running came when I worked full time as a high school teacher.

I like what you wrote, and these points may belong in a larger anaylysis, but 3, 4, and 5 are especially weak as general causes of the running boom. For #3, Rodgers was admittedly an awkward runner with one leg shorter than the other, this appears more pronounced in his older years; besides where were all these people watching and evaluating Rodgers and Shorters. Watching people's stride is heavy anyalysis...can you tell the difference between race horses?. In #4 I lose you completely, other than it was truly weak economy. I think #5 is only true in retrospect.

I was also a Middle School (Junior High?!) runner when the boom hit. I started in 71, Shorter won in 72 and then the boom.

We, as teenagers, and the adults, lived a running life and loved it. Many of the adults had full time jobs, but their serious "hobby" was running.

When I see (on this board) people saying that young people want a life and will not dedicate themselves to running in order to be great, I wonder why this "running life" isn't good enough.

Those were very fun times for me and all the people- young, old, and in between, that I hung out with.

We took our running seriously at our own level. I had friends who would be making some money today (running) who were true running bums. They survived as they could and broke 30 minutes (in the 70's). No one talked about burn out, over racing, over training. How could you over do something you truly love to do?

I think a lot of people make very good points about why the boom years were what they were.

Could it come back? I don't know. People in general seem to have this belief that if something is hard work and time consuming and it doesn't add to your income, retirement, or lead to a college scholarship, then it isn't worth doing. So, play xbox and play station (they're easy). Watch TV. Oh, I guess if you want to get in shape pay for a gym membership and use expensive equipment. Does corporate America want us to realize that the simplest, quickest way to get in shape is to lace up a pair of shoes and go out running? Probably not.

Runners were also non judgemental about slower runners- it was great to run a 10K with 500 instead of 50. More races popped up because ofthe masses.

OK, I am rambling. But I really want the young people to feel what we felt in the boom years.

Earlier posters hit it square on:

-Baby Boomers who watched Frank Shorter then Bill Rodgers;

-Jim Fixx (who was a baby boomer) who wrote about running as if it were the foutain of youth along with George Sheehan's writings;

It (if "it" is the rise of sub 2:30 marathoners) won't happen again, at least in the near term, because after 4 or 5 years the boomers figured out that "it" is pointless: training hard enough to run sub 2:30 yields little in benefits. No money; little praise; no significant long term health benefits.

runn,

Great post. Exactly.

In the last, or possibly next to last Running Times, Mike Tymn had a column about a discussion he'd had with a coach in Hawaii as to why people ran less and raced slower. The coach told Mike that runners today "want to have a life."

Mike essentially wrote that when he was doing his 90-100 mile weeks he thought that he had a pretty good life and in trying to imagine what he'd have done to have a life if he ahdn't run so much, all he could really come up with was doing household chores or watching TV.

For it to come back, I think people will have to figure out that the journey itself is the payoff and not where the journey leads.

HRE, thank you. So basically, people are different than they (we) were back then. We have to change back. I forgot about the Mike Tymn column, but I did read it and loved it.

The running lifestyle is/was great.

We drank a lot (a lot- too much), met girls (many girls- never too much of that), had fun and ran. The work part was fun, the play part was even more fun.

I think we all wanted to get laid by Mary Decker Tabb Quax Slaney, so if we couild run fast she might do it with us at a big meet.

I know that kept me running until those bastards kicked me out of Van Halen.

A lot of things lead to the 70's running craze. But it died away with the death of Jim Fixx iin 1984. It was felt that if this guy could still die with all his running it was seen as futile.

I have been here for a while, and I think this is the most impressive Rip Van Wrinkle thread yet. Almost ten years since the last post and someone resurrected it.

luv2run wrote:

I have been here for a while, and I think this is the most impressive Rip Van Wrinkle thread yet. Almost ten years since the last post and someone resurrected it.

And we've seen road races sell out faster and faster in yet another boom period for distance running.

Wow 10 years later. Sort of remember this thread, or similar ones from back then.

Today's running boom is 80 to 90 percent different from the 70s. Back then you had your Olympic heroes and a few writers and gurus (Kenny Moore, George Sheehan, and Jim Fixx). The corporate influence was just taking root and professionalism didn't start until the early 80s (more like under the table semi-pros before that). It was more about love of the sport and competition.

As far as top level competition goes at the high school, college and pro level goes, these are the best of days (except for road racing which for US and Euros, has really dropped off). High school running is mainstream and deep now. Back then many if most high schools did not even field girls XC teams. Now it's one of the most popular sports. But if anything it's harder to compete at college, or at least to get a D1 scholarship. And the drop off rate following college is 10 to 20X more than back then. A 28:30 to 32 min 10K is no man's land now, whereas back then it was enough to give some hope for an OT qualifier.

Post college it's elite professional (lucrative for just a few), color runs, mass marathons or ultras. Race times and improvement are secondary to having fun and a social occasion. At the race end, it's now about making money not putting on a race to see who is the fastest and maybe top 10. Goody bags and finisher medals have become the expectation. On the good side you can still find a niche, and while it will never be the same there are so many choices now.

And as seen every day on letsrun, we're all more bitter now. Don't know what we can do about that.

sam w- you make a lot of good points and I often think about just what you're saying.

I started running in 1971 (pre-boom) Shorter brought it on and Rogers extended it.

People started running to:

a. get in shape

b. be competitive

The difference now is most people are not competitive.

10:00 per milers look at the sub 7:00 guys like we're freaks.

When I lament (at 56 years old) ONLY being able to run 7:30 per mile for my 6 mile easy runs they act like I'm bragging.

It's two different worlds.

One analogy:

My daughter was a competitive figure skater. I brought her to the public session and as I watched all these non-skaters barely make my way around the rink I thought what it would be like if a road race had non-runners signing up to just run.

That's where we are now.

Spider nailed it pretty well. Just to reiterate some of what he said...

There were a lot of factors contributing to the "boom".

People really were exhausted by the social upheaval of the 60's & early 70's. But running, or working out of any type was something the Boomers jumped on. They saw their parents the WWII generations pay off for living through a depression, fighting (and winning) a world war, then coming home to work hard and die. They wanted more. They were more about the individual and what's in it for them.

Distance running is a very egalitarian sport so it fit well into the 70's milieu. All you need is shorts, shoes, and a T-shirt and you can have it. No gym, no exclusivity, no class barriers..

Those 60's hippies were now getting into their 30's and getting pauchy, this was a chance to shake off the decade old hangover of sex, drugs, and RnR.

The USA could still compete on the world stage. So we did have role models winning and competing at the highest level.

Welcome to Boston and Boulder wrote:

Frank Shorter and Bill Rodger dominating on the world stage.

Yep. The U.S. was in an economic position for individuals to devote massive amounts of time to a sport before many of the better running nations, so we "excelled" at running for a while.

What has to happen for us to get back to that point? Well, if we find a way to take most of the money out of running so that only first world white guys can afford to compete, the U.S. will surely become a major distance running power again, bringing the average joe's interest back.

Arbusto wrote:

You have to look at the running boom in the context of the times...the late 1960's and early 1970's were a time of counter-culture, introspection, etc. A young man taking time out to train full time and work a part time job would not have been unusual. As the "me" and "consumerism" of the 1980's exploded to the forefront, the running boom died off. It's not likely to happen again, at least the way it did then.

This. People had much more time to train, and running was not commercialized.

More people run now, but nobody wants to work for it anymore. People want to do a marathon, but they want to run no more than 15 minutes a day in training. Your run(s) were once the focus of the day, and your work day and family life could be altered to accommodate each run. Nowadays, in the midst of corporate culture, materialism, narcissism, and the child sports/activities complex, running is a square peg jammed into a round hole whenever your schedule permits.

Timothy Roberts wrote:

A lot of things lead to the 70's running craze. But it died away with the death of Jim Fixx iin 1984. It was felt that if this guy could still die with all his running it was seen as futile.

How did you find a 10 year old thread to bump

Too many fat people and posers. Let's do a color run. The fields were smaller in the 70s but the quality up front was higher as a percentage.