The year: 1984 & the USA had 165 Sub-2:20 performances

191 Americans with 267 sub-2:20 performances in 1983.

Number of sub 2:20 American Performers (* adjusted for NYC and Oakland courses being short)

1972 = 12

1973 = 12

1974 = 22

1975 = 40

1976 = 35

1977 = 46

1978 = 95

1979 = 165

1980 = 187

1981 = 218*

1982 = 191

1983 = 267

1984 = 165

1985 = 99

1986 = 115

1987 = 96

1988 = 65

1989 = 63

1990 = 75

1991 = 93

1992 = 64

1993 = 58

1994 = 54

1995 = 59

1996 = 40

1997 = 27

1998 = 36

1999 = 47

2000 = 27

2001 = 20

More stats:

Year 2:14 2:20

1979 13

1980 21

1981 26

1982 21

1983 32 193 (267)

1984 15 123 (165)

1985 13 70 (99)

1986 17 79 (116)

1987 9 75 (96)

1988 8 54 (66)

1989 8 44 (64)

1990 8 53 (73)

1991 3 74 (92)

1992 6 45 (64)

1993 5 45 (58)

1994 10 41 (53)

1995 1 56 (59)

1996 5 35 (41)

1997 5

1998 2

1999 2

Holy shit we have become some pussy ass runners. Yea yea save your bullshit "well you're not logging the miles cries" because if you have time to piss and moan right back at me you probably aren't getting it done either. Cheers!

Wussy HSer wrote:

Holy shit we have become some pussy ass runners. Yea yea save your bullshit "well you're not logging the miles cries" because if you have time to piss and moan right back at me you probably aren't getting it done either. Cheers!

what?

malmo thanks for the info. Where did you grab this from, url? Do you have the last two years? Also interested in the numbers of Marathon qualifiers this year's Marathon Trials 2004. I do know that in 1980 the standard was 2:21:54 & we had 225 qualifiers. In 1984 we had 201 qualifiers from a standard of 2:19:04!

The decline is dramatic to say the least. The runners today are so slow. The decline is evident in every distance event.

It is now even worse in the UK. England did not have one male runner under 2:18 last year. In fact the fastest marathoner in the UK in 2003 was a women.

Look how much faster US milers were 20 years ago.

Mile

3:47.69 Steve Scott 1982

3:48.83 Sydney Maree 1981

3:49.31 Joe Falcon 1990

3:49.80 Jim Spivey 1986

3:50.34 Todd Harbour 1981

3:50.60 Steve Holman 1996

3:50.84 Tom Byers 1982

3:51.1 Jim Ryan 1967

3:51.34 John Gregorek 1982

3:51.39 Richie Harris 1984

What is the Nike farm team doing today. The Farm team has yet to produce a 3:50 miler or a 3:15 5000 meter runner.

One can see a similar pattern in collegiate distance times. If you look at school records (and arena records), the records that are the oldest are all distance running events, with many of them set in the period 1979-1986.

In an effort to stem the tide of "what a bunch of wussies" we are now posts, how about a decent conversation of why that period was so rich with quality performances. This can be a broad conversation. For example, for most of the country this is pre-cable TV, pre-personal computer, pre-gamebox, pre-MTV! There was also a cold war to get riled up about. Then there is the fact that Moscow and LA were consecutive hosts of the olympics, thus adding more competetive fuel to the fire. Plus there were runners with guts and patience and...

Yeah, but the minutes were longer back then.

Not quite correct. Mark Steinle ran 2:15:41 at Chicago - still slower than Paula though. As can be seen from the list below the UK and US have suffered a similar fate in marathon running, though it is healthier at the elite and sub-elite level in the US. A small caveat is that I think the stats for UK times will be better in 2004 than they were for the past 2 or 3 years.

Amazing that way back in 1969 there were 11 Brits under 2:20 compared to only 8 this year and 1983 was certainly a fantastic year with a staggering 103 guys under 2:20 and 25 under 2:15 - the standard for next year's Olympics Games! How things have changed.

Year 10th 20th 50th 02:10 02:15 02:20 02:25

1969 02:19:15 02:28:31 02:36:43 0 2 11 33

1970 02:18:59 02:26:51 02:36:01 1 4 14 38

1971 02:16:24 02:23:59 02:29:32 0 3 14 38

1972 02:17:18 02:24:50 02:32:10 0 1 20 51

1973 02:17:18 02:23:39 02:29:19 0 2 21 62

1974 02:17:23 02:25:28 02:32:41 1 4 19 45

1975 02:17:14 02:24:20 02:29:56 0 1 23 56

1976 02:19:02 02:25:31 02:30:25 0 2 14 47

1977 02:17:16 02:24:18 02:29:04 0 2 25 55

1978 02:15:47 02:22:37 02:26:48 0 8 36 71

1979 02:15:46 02:21:40 02:25:50 0 6 34 90

1980 02:16:04 02:21:05 02:26:28 0 7 44 82

1981 02:13:50 02:19:24 02:23:13 1 17 54 136

1982 02:13:51 02:19:39 02:22:00 1 15 56 185

1983 02:12:51 02:17:33 02:19:52 3 25 103 229

1984 02:13:49 02:17:42 02:21:32 2 19 74 184

1985 02:14:20 02:18:34 02:21:27 4 14 74 186

1986 02:14:54 02:19:47 02:23:39 0 10 52 130

1987 02:14:03 02:20:10 02:24:57 0 12 49 101

1988 02:13:32 02:21:15 02:25:50 1 15 46 87

1989 02:13:34 02:21:21 02:26:05 1 13 57 83

1990 02:16:00 02:23:01 02:27:40 0 8 27 67

1991 02:14:13 02:22:24 02:27:34 0 14 34 75

1992 02:14:27 02:23:36 02:27:27 0 10 25 67

1993 02:14:36 02:24:51 02:28:54 0 10 27 50

1994 02:15:41 02:24:25 02:28:21 0 9 23 55

1995 02:18:40 02:25:47 02:30:30 0 6 13 43

1996 02:18:55 02:28:17 02:33:17 1 7 14 36

1997 02:16:23 02:26:30 02:31:00 2 7 17 38

1998 02:17:16 02:29:04 02:33:46 0 4 14 26

1999 02:20:23 02:27:46 02:31:12 1 1 8 32

2000 02:18:49 02:28:48 02:34:11 0 4 13 29

2001 02:19:26 02:30:41 02:36:03 0 3 12 25

2002 02:21:01 n/a n/a 1 0 7 n/a

2003 02:20:25 n/a n/a 0 0 8 n/a

Ooops! That's not very easy to read. Should have put some spaces between the columns. Anyway, you get my drift.

No answers here, but some ideas...

* Dilution of talent - at the entry level, a higher percentage of talented athletes in the U.S. never even get to the sport as they are playing soccer. Reasons? Who knows for sure, but in the early 80's running/racing was a "popular" sport among the masses. I think some kids ran then that wouldn't run now just because of image issues.

* Focus on longevity versus achievement - Could it be when you know you can't support yourself as a professional runner that you "burn bright" for a short time rather than "bright enough" for years when money is more available. I might be willing to push the injury envelope if I know I'm only going to do this for a couple years rather than attempt to sustain it over a decade or more.

the problem with our sport and lack of performances can slightly be blamed on the glorification of the big three; football, basketball, and baseball, and the multi-million dollar contracts those jokers get. besides who wants to go through the pain and suffering of putting together back to back 100+ mile weeks, when they can be sitting in an outfield catching fly balls? especially when you can play double or triple a ball and get paid more than 99% of the professional runners in the world. just my take, and don't get me started on the fact that around 50% of the childern in the u.s. are overweight.

Film critics have also complained that MTV has destroyed movies. Pacing and story telling have been replaced by quick MTV- style editing. MTV has saturated our culture with an instant gratification mentality.

Still it does not explain why the US has gotton better at sports like Cycling and Soccer.

Maybe it is just there is little interest in long distance running today. It just is not a glamour sport.

Jim Spivey(3:49.88 mile) on the Track and Field message boards said that the lack of top African competition in the NCAA today is also a contributing factor. Spivey said that the African competition pushed Americans to faster times in the early 80's. Today US college runners are satisfied with running a either a 3:42 1500 meters or 13:50 5000 meters. You almost never see the NCAA 1500 championship won in 3:36 or under anymore.

More mile stats:

1) 3:47.69 Steve Scott 1982

2) 3:48.83 Sydney Maree 1981

3) 3:49.31 Joe Falcon 1990

4) 3:49.80 Jim Spivey 1986

5) 3:50.34 Todd Harbour 1981

6) 3:50.60 Steve Holman 1996

7) 3:50.84 Tom Byers 1982

8) 3:51.1 Jim Ryan 1967

9) 3:51.34 John Gregorek 1982

10) 3:51.39 Richie Harris 1984

11) 3:51.62 Chuck Aragon 1984

12) 3:52.02 Craig Masback 1979

13) 3:52.2 Marty Liquori 1975

14) 3:52.80 Jeff Atkinson 1988

15) 3:53.2 Tony Waldrop 1974

16) 3:53.25 Richie Boulet 1998

17) 3:53.3 Dave Wottle 1973

18) 3:53.3 Rick Wohlhuter 1975

19) 3:53.43 Alan Webb 2001

20) 3:53.64 Terrence Herrington 1995

21) 3:54.06 Kevin Johnson 1984

22) 3:54.17 Adam Goucher 1999

23) 3:54.19 Don Paige 1982

1967 1 (8)

1973 1 (17)

1974 1 (15)

1975 2 (13, 18)

1979 1 (12)

1981 2 (2, 5)

1982 4 (1, 7, 9, 23)

1984 3 (10, 11, 21)

1986 1 (4)

1988 1 (14)

1990 1 (3)

1995 1 (20)

1996 1 (6)

1998 1 (16)

1999 1 (22)

2001 1 (19)

So what?

Should these statistics inspire college runners of today to forgo job opportunities, family time and money to train to their ultimate and run a 2:15 so they can get dusted by the Africans?

The 70s & 80s were an aberation. Guys trained hard aspiring to be number 1, unaware that large numbers East Africans could run rings around them. Guys of today recognize this and don't bother.

I also blame "Runner's World" for the decline. They have convinced most American runners that injuries are inevetable and the equivalent of terminal disease. They have advocated walking and cross training rather than Lydiardan base work, they have glorified "fun" over work, and have created heroes out of people like John "The Penguin" Bingham rather than actively promoting (beyond a single feature article) folks like Bob Kennedy, Suzy Favor-Hamilton, etc. As a result, kids have no homegrown role models to look up to.

Since RW has also brainwashed adult runners into the lazy recreational approach, this is passed on to the kids. If a kid shows talent or drive, the worried RW parent armed with their magazine cautions their offspring that too much training and racing (over 20 miles a week!) will burn them out or worse. With no heroes and full of fear, large numbers of youngsters opt for other activities or set incredibly low goals for themselves and never progress beyond high school.

Honestly, look at a copy of a soccer, golf, tennis, or football magazine and you will see articles about inprovement and technique not cautionary tales about burnout and sore muscles.

Anyone have similar stats to the mile for the 1500m?

PortlandRunner:

I have to disagree with you there -- slamming RW has become as fashionable on this board as blaming George W. for everything from the San Andreaus fault to the fall of Rome.

I don't think that any coach with access to an athlete with national or international-class potential is going to use RW philosophies or methods in his/her training regime.

RW doesn't speak to the track athlete -- nor, in my mind, does it pretend to. RW speaks to weekend warriors who might be encouraged or motivated by occasional references to "big time" athletes or major races/meetings.

To pretend that RW's pro-recreational slant has seeped down into the NCAA - which, in America, is the de-facto training academy of the Olympic movement - is just plain folly. (In fact, it?s my belief that the US relies too heavily on the collegiate system, which burns out talented distance runners with meaningless indoor meets and relay carnivals. See Gabe Jennings, et. al.)

Even if a well-meaning high school PE teacher were to use some (or all) of RW's techniques in developing a young athlete, those methods would be bleached out within a week of that athlete attending any one of the hundreds of Division I, II or III schools he or she is almost 100% likely to attend.

And I can't imagine you believe that any top or medium-level NCAA coaches rely on RW for training advice.

Most of the reasons for the decline have already been noted: intense competition for young athletes from other sports, a disinclination to participate in sports that require such a long gestation period and the lack of televised meetings and races that would serve to raise the profile of the sport in the eyes of the up-and-coming.

To pin the blame on RW - or any of its sister publications - is to miss the forest through the trees.

Martin

Yawn,

I can see your point but, that does not explain the guys with shoe deals, free room and board, free coaching, massage, sports med, etc. that still cannot consistently beat what runners were doing two decades ago.

We are putting the cart in front of the horse. Young runners expect payments in advance for performances yet to be run. Back during "shamatuerism", guys had to bust their ass first in order to attract a little $pon$or help. That's why they were better. If you wanted to train without holding a full time job or defrauding the welfare system (Malmo probably has some good stories about folks in Eugene), then you ran fast and earned a stipend. That's no different than an African busting tail in order to escape poverty.