Best USA Men's Cross Country Team Ever To Be Assembled...

In the 80's our nutrition was pizza and beer. There were no sponsorship dollars and if there were it pales in comparison to today. Our coaches ran us ragged and if we survived we got pretty fast if not we got injured.

We accept the pizza and beer defense. But if dozens of runners begin to compete with the 70's and 80's times, we will not tolerate the Twinkie Defense. You can compare apples with apples here and see that the apples are equally good. Wouldn't you want to see the apples get better?

malmo wrote:

Yes. Craig Virgin's 27:39 at the 1979 AAU meet is the most amazing 10k by any American to this day. It was so hot that day they had water tables set up on the track. It's scary to imagine what Craig could have done at a Palo Alto time trial in perfect conditions.

F: 10,000 meters; S/F: 30/20; D: 17 JUN

1. Craig Virgin 27:39.4 MRm,ARm

2. Ric Rojas 28:24.2

3. Frank Shorter 28:26.6

4. Robbie Perkins 28:26.8

5. Marc Hunter 28:40.8

6. Tom Wysocki 28:43.8

Hard to argue that Virgin wasn't the most talented American runner ever, what with efforts like these and a world cross title to boot.

I think this thread shows us who posts on letsrun.com.

The older crowd: (people talking about the 70's and 80's US cross teams)

Kids: People talking about cross runners of the last 3 or 4 years.

I remember when Todd Williams was a Top 10 finisher at World Cross when there was only 1 race. I also remember the US team for that race. Bob Kennedy was just outside the Top 10 and they ran very well as a team. I think the other scorers were Barquist, Coogan and Rob Cook. Brantly and Kempanian were also on the squad I believe.

Don't quote me though. We used to send our best to Worlds. These past few years, shoe companies and coaches have put so much stock on time performances and set up time trial races that world cross does not fit our top runners schedule anymore. That is a shame. You think people thoughts that someone was Eritrea was going to be world cross country champion in a race hosted by Kenya with Bekele racing for ethiopia? that is why they run the race.

Racing. Not time trials. Races.

Ronald Mexico, Esq.

It wouldn't be possible to argue that point, but I would love to next year.

very observant: old people and young people post here. THAT explains it all.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

turn right wrote:

in order to keep pace, we have to get more guys on the dope. those who don't believe the group at the very top of competitive running aren't on the shit are nuts.

you didn't believe the cyclists were on it a year or two ago either, did you???? poor suckers.

That may be a big part of the reason we're not as competitive. My heart hopes not but my head thinks it's so...

then your "head" should tell you that your argument has no footing. guys today in the U.S. are faster. Records are still being broken.

doesn't matter who you think had/has more "heart." If your basis for comparison is how we compete against the top of world class running, then you are talking about people making thorough use of PEDs...which is not fair.

At the root of the issue here is how people define greatness - is it how dominant one was in their era, or how their times compare. It's kind of like arguing about who's better: the 60's Packers or the 06 Colts? The 06 Colts team would probably win head to head, but I doubt anyone would consider them the better team.

The same goes for '81/'85 vs. '07 USA cross. Better team? '81/'85.

Does anyone else think its easier to run fast in college today with the set-up Stanford races, not to mention there is currently an overall rejuvination in american distance running?

In 1990-98 28:30 and 13:38 would crack the top-ten lists nationally and sub 13:40 would be top 3-5 collegiately.

I just saw a race where Wisconsin had a kid run 28:04 and get 19th place!

Are people training that much harder, smarter, or is there much more talent being brought in the smart?

I'm 40 and probably biased like a lot of old guys but I still look at a race like John Treacy ran at Penn Relays in college leading the whole way and running 27:58 as more impressive than someone running 27:40 and getting beat out at Stanford today.

Running 27:58 as more impressive is subjective.

Running 27:56 and placing 16th is objective.

To me, the latter is more impressive.

29yearold wrote:

Running 27:58 as more impressive is subjective.

Running 27:56 and placing 16th is objective.

To me, the latter is more impressive.

I couldn't disagree more.

Think of it this way: You're a college coach. Would you rather land a recruit who runs 9:30 and places 12th in their state meet, or one who runs 9:32 and wins going away in a smaller division. I'll take the "subjectively" more impressive small division state champ. I'd rather have a winner than a good time trialer.

29yearold wrote:

Running 27:58 as more impressive is subjective.

Running 27:56 and placing 16th is objective.

To me, the latter is more impressive.

Either way, Virgin's 27:39 at the 1979 is both subjectively and objectively the best 10k by an American in any National Championships.

Not a good analogy. This one would be more accurate.

Say you're a college coach. Would you rather land a recruit who ran 8:45 2 mile placing 12th or a recruit who ran 9:15 and wins.

Would you still rather have the winner? or the 8:45 guy who is "a good time trialer".

I'll take the 8:45 guy, develp him into a good racer. That's what coaches do.

Rob Roy wrote:

Either way, Virgin's 27:39 at the 1979 is both subjectively and objectively the best 10k by an American in any National Championships.

It was windy too, in addition to being hot, wasn't it? I'd say Virgin's effort was the best ever, let alone at a national championship. It's akin to Ron Clarke's solo 27:39 in blustery conditions way back in 69? Was the effort worth one second per lap in good conditions with a good field?

Does anyone else find this discussion to be depressing? We've had a great resurgence in running in the USA recently, yet here we are debating whether we are as good today as we were 25 years ago.

OED wrote:

Does anyone else find this discussion to be depressing? We've had a great resurgence in running in the USA recently, yet here we are debating whether we are as good today as we were 25 years ago.

Acutally quite the opposite. I find it to be uplifting. We haven't had cause to compare the generations until the recent resurgence because, as opposed to the past 20 years, there would be no bebate...

This thread is a validation of how good distance running in America has become. If they can stand up to the runners of 25 years ago they are doing something right...