Read the books, these boys were doing 100 mile weeks (except Coe I suppose) and then racing 1500-5000m. Also, they did a full xc season and the relays every autumn/spring. These they don't bother with this essential background.
Read the books, these boys were doing 100 mile weeks (except Coe I suppose) and then racing 1500-5000m. Also, they did a full xc season and the relays every autumn/spring. These they don't bother with this essential background.
Chrissakes mate I'm the last one to get drawn into nationalistic point-scoring. The point I was making - and I don't think it's that obscure in my post - is that if a national scheme/system in a country where the culture is not too massively different from UK, is shown to be having some success, it's poss worth finding out whether there's any elements that might work in the UK.
National population size is a factor but if you lob China, Russia, Ukraine, Kenya, Ethiopia, Brazil, Japan, Uganda into the mix it's not necessarily a huge issue.
Cram rarely ran 80+, raced very sparingly in the winter, maybe ran counties every 2/3 years, likewise national/Northern. Ran relays sporadically. Cram only ran 1x 5k, 13.28 I think.
Slimboy Fat wrote:
Why did there used to be loads of British Middle distance runners who were, or close to being, the best in the world (e.g. Ovett, Coe, Cram)? Where did they all disappear to? Did everyone stop trying or have we just started breeding a load of wimps who don't try hard enough? What’s the deal with this? I’m sure we were once the top of the world in this area.
It'd be nice to be able to answer the question definitively but people have been trying to do that for years. I think it's a combination of factors.
Talent - it's a rare thing to be a world-beater so people physiologically capable of it won't always be around.
Choice - talented sporty kids have a lot more choice nowadays about other sports to do, so fewer come into running.
Culture - sport in school has been reduced, there is more sedentary entertainment available (playstations, satelite TV etc). The materialistic, immediate gratification culture in the UK ("celebrity culture") does not encourage kids to work hard for a distant reward.
The funding argument is difficult. Do atheltes actually need funding? And if so, how long do you fund an athlete for before expecting significant results. Most runners will not train more than twice a day - this can fit round a full-time job (I do this) relatively easily. The advantage of not working is that you get more recovery time, disadvantage is that all you think about is running. I find it helpful to have something else to distract me during the day from my running.
However, I wouldn't say that the top UK runners now are at all lazy or uncommitted to the sport - I know a few of them and they all train very hard and well. Best of luck to them.
E.
You can't be serious. The US set a track and field medal record total in 2004!
In the UK they are afraid to criticize their track officials in fear of retribution. Spivey has blast the USATF for not sponsoring US distance runners. I think the problems in UK athletics are political in nature. There are too many people scratching each others back.
Well, at least Webb has become a millionaire for his efforts. Is there any UK 3:50 miler who is a millionaire? The answer is no because the UK probably still wants to keep athletics the province of the amateur athlete. In today's world that is naive at best.
It all goes back to the current lack of depth in Britain in athletics. Ovett had to break the World 1500m/mile record just to be number one in Britain in the early 1980's. Cram faced the same thing as did Elliott. The reason we had these stars is because SO many people were training hard. At my club Phoenix there were 15 blokes under 3:50 in 1984. All were under the age of 30 and all trained together at least 5 times a week. There is not this depth any more therefore it is easier to be British Number one, or the Southern Champion or the county champion, thus people aren't trying as hard at each of the levels in our sport.
One of the reason for the lack of depth I feel is because we're a very rich nation these days compared to the 1980's. It is so much easier to be earning 25k a year in your 20's, thus living out of the family home, owning a car, going on a few holidays a year and being able to get shitfaced a few times a week.
In the 70's and 80's only the rich or really motivated/academic went to university. Most people had a simple 9 to 5 and got on with their lives. This meant that people found other things in their lives to keep themselves occupied and fitness was one of the things to be doing.
Nowadays anyone can go to University and the numbers going are much much higher. Whilst they're ay uni students get themselves in big debt whilst pissing three years of their lives against a wall and then HAVE to go out to work to pay their debts off.
The scholarship system in the US is far more effective at getting young talented 18 year olds to reach their premium. You are basically paid to train your tits off - no choice in the matter. If you don't run well, end of scholarship and go out to work.
If you rounded up the top 50 at the U20 Inter-counties cross and said to them, we'll pay for you to run all day and you've got to study for a few hours you just see how many sub 13:40 5km runners we'd have and very very quickly!
Why doesn't somebody in the UK correct the system now.
What system is used in the UK to create the world's best stage actors. Surely a similar system can be found for UK distance runners. I am sure aspiring UK stage actor are short of funds like their athletic counterparts.
Maybe they should start paying distance runners in the UK. How about 1 million pounds for the any UK runners that breaks 3:50 for the mile. They could call it the millionaire sub 3:50 club. Webb has become a millionaire for running a sub 3:50 so why can't a comparable UK runner do the same.
Throwing money at the problem won't solve everything.
The reason Steve Scott run 136 sub four miles was due to lack of funds. By doing this he became a better runner.
He is currently the only US distance runner in the Guinness world record books for running the most sub 4 minutes miles.
If you take into account his 1500 meter equivalent times he has about 200 sub 4 minute miles.
Hey, Noddles the reason Scott never beat Coe and Cram when it counted was probably because he was burned out by those 200 sub 4 minute miles. With a six figure salary Scott would have been better off.
Still Scott had an impressive career for longevity. I read he ran 10 consecutive sub 3:55 mile races.
Doesn't Scott have the US master record for the 1500? I think he ran a 3:35 1500 at 35. If he didn't get cancer I think he could have broken 4 at 40.
Both Scott and Walker have been more critical about their current nations distance running fortunes than either Coe or Cram. Walkers has been the most brutal in saying his young country men are more interest in "bloody video games" than running. Scott has said the increasing interest in sports like soccer has contributed to a distance running decline in the US.
Paula Racliffe is UK runner.She is well discipline successull person from Uk.She lives with current events.The young men in Uk needs to put away the culture shock and attitude because they don't want to be defeated by other cultures from other countries.How can they be athletes.
henry
Paula Racliffe is Uk running successfully.I don't buy Culture shock.The young men in UK have attitude toward running,when other runners from other countries beat them.That is why.
Henry
What does Cram have to say. He does visit this forum?
In 1970s/80s both UK/US were encouraging me to run very fast,but soft with their own native English/American runners.Coach and manager, John Chaplin and Andy Norman in my days.That is why I broke four world records in 80days.When I asked how come you don't encourage Americans and British runners as you do to me?The excuse were, there busy with their families,they didn't want even to answer or they panic unable to answer the question.The times Steve Ovett,and Stevet Scott,Coe and even American marathon runners time are not too far off as of today winning times in major games and Olympics games.This is a very good topic. I do coach High school runners occassionally and meet American college coaches. I listen their point of views and find they still have the same mind set.So, I was manage by UK manager and coach by American coach.Why can they not help their runners as they did to me?This should resolve the topic of running culture shock in UK and US.
henry
Some other possible reasons for the decline are; the selling off of school playing fields. Competitive sport in school became non PC, everybody has now to conform to the lowest common denominator, being an elite is frowned upon. Everybody drives, footpaths are for parking on. Britain is a nation of American wannabees, i.e. lazy bastards. Would you want to run in the dark through piles of dog mess, being attacked by dogs, people, cars, the UK is just not runner friendly territory. Running shoes are for posing in not for sweating in. Sport is something fit people do, "you are so lucky to be fit".
Why should the elite answer any topic on Letsrun.com? Where's the incentive i.e. cash, cough it up and they'll talk.
Adi
Not sure I agree with that. When I was a kid, my dad came home from (Brampton), the Brampton-Carlisle 10 mile race and told me that Steve Cram had won it. I didn't believe him, but it was true. Now this was pre-internet days so currently I can't find this info, but I am 100% certain Crammy won the B-to-G a while back. And also, in the winter, he did put the miles in.
AC Muir
The British aren't lazy at everything. As mentioned before they have great stage actors. This is one the remaining area where the UK still rules the world.
I don't know why they gave up their auto and aviation industry. Did you know the British aerospace industry has an edict against sending people into space.
Do UK distance runner have sex.
DR. LOOPY FROG wrote:
Do UK distance runner have sex.
Who knows? These middle distance runners are a bit thin and girly looking.
Cram did run some competitive 10 milers and 10k's , Heaton Road Races, Jarrow Road Races, Boundary 10 North Shields etc... and was very very competitive (48 - 10 milers) (28-10k's) but I'm pretty positive he didn't run 100 mile weeks like Ovett, Sunday runs were usually 10 miles. Ran pretty infrequently on the rad/xc though.
I think that our (UK) younger female distance runners have great potential though.
Think Steph Twell, Emily Pidegon, Sian Edwards, Non Stanford.