Why were Americans so good in the 60s, 70s and early 80s?

high mileage

no fear

yeah, something I noticed about different elites is that they say they run 80-100mpw. Take Tegenkamp for instance. He said he runs about 90mpw and trained at 70mpw for a year. I find that astonishing because I've trained at 70mpw in high school without any problems at all. I can't believe that someone can be as good as him off of so little volume. Imagine what people like Teg would do if they ran 120mpw (assuming they could handle it).

Teg's average pace is probably around 6:00, the difference is in the intensity, not the mileage.

People now are to scared to run a lot. They think if they run over 40 miles per week they might get injuired. But I am sure there are other reasons out there as well.

I guess you're asking why didn't guys like Steve Scott, Jim Spivey, Joe Falcon, Steve Holman and David Krummenacker run sub 4 in high school since they all ran faster than those guys by the end of their careers.

Johnny Gray was pretty good.

Bob Kennedy faced a much higher level of competition.

The world caught up. The Americans are still more competetive in distances than most countries.

I don't know the reality of the training situation, as I wasn't around, but I do notice one thing. The USA hasn't consistently produced top male runners in events longer than 1 mile at any time in our history except from 1964 to somewhere around 1988. This is the Baby Boomers. Whether it was some part of that generation, or whether it was a cosmic accident that simultaneously brought together Ryun, Lindgren, Schul and Mills, I don't know. All I know is that 1964 started it with a bang.

The Cosmic event was the Kenyan Eclipse that didn't occur until after 1964-1988. Idolizing the Baby-boomer era heroes of track is on par with pining away for Ty Cobb and longing for the pre-Jackie Robinson days of baseball.

jsquire wrote:

I don't know the reality of the training situation, as I wasn't around, but I do notice one thing. The USA hasn't consistently produced top male runners in events longer than 1 mile at any time in our history except from 1964 to somewhere around 1988. This is the Baby Boomers. Whether it was some part of that generation, or whether it was a cosmic accident that simultaneously brought together Ryun, Lindgren, Schul and Mills, I don't know. All I know is that 1964 started it with a bang.

WTF?!It is so presumptious and uninformed to speak on behalf of an entire running generation as if you have seen everyone's log book first hand. I am a 90's has been. Sure, I'm fat and finished now, but I was reared on 120 mile weeks and a reverence for the 70's guys all through the decade. Not everyone abandoned high mileage after the late 80's: especially if you are an alumnus of a certain oft-bashed high altitude school like me.And there were scores of Americans who put in lethal 90-110 mile weeks all over the country in the 90's. I can't tolerate the attitude that, "If you aren't running 140 miles per week you are scared and only running 40 per week." You omit a lot of middle ground here. People need to abandone this false piety towards "worshiping the number."If you can't beat the Kenyans on 140 miles per week the answer isn't always: "Well run 141 @ss-hole!"

dipper wrote:

People now are to scared to run a lot. They think if they run over 40 miles per week they might get injuired. But I am sure there are other reasons out there as well.

Guppy wrote:

I haven't been around that long, so I was wondering if some of you guys that were around back then could tell me. I know Track and Field was way popular in the 70s especially, but could that be it? I mean, how did Jim, Tim and Marty all run under 4:00 but then no one did till Webb? Why did we have guys like Dave Wottle, Shorter, Rodgers, etc, but haven't had hardly any guys like them since? I don't think drugs were even around back then, and now we know so much more about training. What's the deal?

Most of the African governments were in political turmoil.

3 letters - ROI

back then, train like those guys and be among the best in the world. now, put in all that work, and be among the best in the non-african world.

back then, the pot o' gold was at the end of the rainbow. now, it's in the middle, and you can make a modest living without sacrificing everything to get to the end of the rainbow.

I think you might have took my post the wrong way.

I am not speaking for a generation as a whole. I know there are a lot of guys out there that are running 100,110 mile weeks and so on. No one is worshiping a number, nor do I think "If you aren't running 140 miles per week you are scared and only running 40 per week."

Basically what I was trying to say is that it seems like most kids arn't running as much as they used too (yes there are exceptions). Maybe its due to quite a few coaches not encouraging high mileage, I dunno...

Bullshit

Runners today have to sacrifice twice as much

Everything $costs$ 200% more

Including my basement apartment

There's a BIG difference between 90-110 mile weeks and 120-140.

THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE ORICULO-VENTRICULAR APPERATURE. In the 60's runners ran with a lot more heart than runners run with today. We chased records. We did not WAIT until the final lap and then unlease a kick. I think when America went metric it hurt us a lot. The records, the how-to was all in miles. Switching to metric created a whole new set of records to run but no history to go with it. We lost our role models in the process.

There was a big feeling in the 60 of running for a cause greater than self. We ran to create greatness in other people. We role modeled the 70s & 80s. Now runners are more concerned with getting hurt than getting worthy of being the kind of person that could lead others. We are a nation of sheep!

Most of the great runners who came out of that era were actually wimpy. They were LESS than other people and through track found a way to try and become normal. In the process of becoming as good as others they excelled past everyone. Less is actually more.

Finally, we KNOW too much now days. We have books and sports reporters to tell us what can not be done. We have training methods to follow that will guarantee our mediocracy. We KNOW too much. If we could go back to the 50s and 60s and still have to chop wood every morning and feed the livestock maybe someone would come up mentally tough enough to get to the top. But so far few have shown any true courage. The books don't teach that.

Try go

www.gerrylindgren.com

and read that book. You will get a clear idea of what we lack now-a-days.

Retro wrote: "Teg's average pace is probably around 6:00, the difference is in the intensity, not the mileage."It's both Retro... 20 mi a week at 6m pace is nooooo good.Do the mileage first. Then gradually work on the speed. It takes 3 years minimum to get regional class. 5+ yr for national, etc... Start today, time's a wastin'.

Courage.... Gerry is right. The man is in the Distance Running Hall of Fame.

ef em wrote:

Bullshit

Runners today have to sacrifice twice as much

Everything $costs$ 200% more

Including my basement apartment

And we earned 300% less.

Gerry, you're right on the money. So much good information is availble nowadays, but some people use it to limit performance.Years ago, when Carl Schranz (sp?) the great skier was asked why, after so many years at the top, were some younger skiers beating him in races, he said that he had learned just how fast you could ski downhill without crashing. The newer skiers didn't know where that edge was, and would sometimes ski faster. Derek Clayton, when asked why his marathon record stood so long, replied, to break this time, you must be willing to run to the edge of death (as he did). That is heart speaking over body and mind. The men and women at the top want it more.

"The prevailing training philosophy in 1977 was 'more is better', and weekly mileage was the stuff of competition. If Derek Clayton was quoted as running 160 miles per week, then someone else would try 175 miles per week... This approach to training may sound harsh - and it was - but it reaped rewards. Distance running in the U.S. improved markedly, and although there were a few casualties along the way, pure hard work generally paid dividends." - Pete Pfitzinger

Yes indeed. And hard work will still pay dividends for Americans or anyone else. The invincibility of the Africans is a myth. They work very, very hard. They have their casualties as well, but we don't hear much about them. We do hear about every new American HS or college star who pushes the edge and fails, however. This doesn't imply that pushing the edge workwise should not be attempted, but rather that if one is willing to take the risk of failing or becoming injured, the rewards will be there. This is what was done here earlier.