1983 New York Results (83 guys sub 2:22) What were they doing differently?

Squires trained his guys to race, not to train better. They also raced frequently not once every six months.

Racing is an art, learn how to do it well.

The training wasn't that much different. In the 70s and 80s those guys just raced a WHOLE LOT more on the roads. 3 milers, 5Ks, 4 milers, 5 milers, 8Ks, 10Ks, 10 Milers 15ks, half marathons, you name it! they were there competing almost weekly and having fun..... Today's americans are either scared to race or their coaches are insisting that they need to train for months on end with only 1 or 2 races leading up to their marathons. That doesn't make sense to me.

The question is: did runners from the 70s and 80s era do these long 18-20 mile tempo runs that we've been reading about??

There was nothing fancy about what Billy had people do. A lot of miles were run. There were some very straightforward sorts of interval sessions, usually longer reps for marathoners, and that was about all.

If you go to Hodgie-san's website and look at what he did, what Rodgers did, what malmo, did, it's impressive but it's simple. Years ago I was talking to Bob and he said that running is an incredibly simple sport and that people have a hard time believing it's as simple as it is.

In my opinion people today have lost that simplicity. Where you'd once get together with a few guys and do a 20 miler going hard if you felt like it for a while, now it's all pre-planned and analyzed. I don't know if it's better or worse, I have my ideas, but it is a difference.

When Ryan Hall decided not to run in Chicago didn't he say a reason was that his workouts weren't going well? I'm not going to criticize his decision but thirty years ago no one would have done that. If your workouts were going poorly you went to the race and hoped it went better than your workouts. Again, I'm not criticizing Hall but there's another difference.

People raced more thirty years ago as a rule. That's another difference and here I think clearly the old way was better. You cannot get racing experience any way other than racing. It's one thing to get very fit. But it doesn't follow that just because you're really fit you're going to race well. You need to practice racing and really the only way to do that is to race.

In my limited time talking to Coach Squires he commented that racing was very important as it a) provided the funds to keep training b) was a mental test to hone strategy and c) took one's body physically to a place different than workouts or tempos.

Looking at Greg Meyer's log, in 1983 when he won the much talked about "high water mark of American marathoning" he raced 22 times, including notable races such as Gasparilla, Crim, Cherry Blossom and New Haven but also had a track 5000 PR (13:35). That being said, he has alluded to physical burnout.

I think Conto's post, perhaps unintentionally, sums up the problem: runners today are weak. Cost-benefit analysis when determining mileage? No desire to be the best you can be? Why even run? I mean, what's the point of racing when you're on the line knowing you didn't train your best?

Want to run your best? You're going to have to sacrifice. Want to be the best 2:30 marathoner in the country? Then you can continue half-assing it knowing you're leaving your best races on the table.

I can remember a few occasions when a group of us would do a long run and it would turn into a race. We'd just hammer each other. Then I think we'd all shy away from doing a long run with that group again for a good while. But generally you'd just do a long run each weekend and let the pace find you.

A lot of guys would be hungover at the start and not too keen on pushing the pace at first. Or you'd have raced the day before and weren't going to hammer.

I think it chases people out of the sport that in past, may have stuck it out and tried to make it. The times are so rediculous now that even if you are a very talented runner coming out of college you need to start using that degree and get on with life.

Hey Malmo, that's one mother f**king long post! How long would that have taken you to pull together? You obviously have nothing better to do? Here's a though, try getting a life - start by moving out of mommy's basement?

Busted wrote:

Hey Malmo, that's one mother f**king long post! How long would that have taken you to pull together? You obviously have nothing better to do? Here's a though, try getting a life - start by moving out of mommy's basement?

you do realize malmo is a former American record holder right? His life most likely eclipses anything you have even dreamed of doing.

adsljkasd wrote:

makes sense...but what was so different about Squires' training?

What is so different about Bill Squires training is that it's undifferent.

The most successful marathon coach in a America, and he didn't do it by inheriting talent, he did it by developing and nurturing talent.

Same thing with Bob Sevene. Sevene is not particularly known as a marathon coach, but he has successfully coached more marathoners than any five of today's marathon coaches put together (Americans that it).

Neither of those guys had a "Crying Sauna" gimmick in their hands.

staten to manhattan wrote:

I think Conto's post, perhaps unintentionally, sums up the problem: runners today are weak. Cost-benefit analysis when determining mileage? No desire to be the best you can be? Why even run? I mean, what's the point of racing when you're on the line knowing you didn't train your best?

Want to run your best? You're going to have to sacrifice. Want to be the best 2:30 marathoner in the country? Then you can continue half-assing it knowing you're leaving your best races on the table.

Wow, talk about romanticizing the hell out of running. Let's be clear - it's a hobby. Unless you're Lagat or Hall or Webb or Rupp, running is not paying the bills so it's just a hobby, like playing in a band or restoring old cars. Is there something noble about trying to be the best in whatever it is you do? Sure. But let's not lose sight of the fact that running is just running. I have a hard time criticizing anyone who chooses to run less to spend time with their family or work at their job.

Were runners back in the day more dedicated to this fine hobby we all love? Yeah maybe. Does that make them "stronger"? No, of course not. Being more excited or into something doesn't make everyone else weak.

staten to manhattan wrote:

Want to run your best? You're going to have to sacrifice.

I disagree. If you think that your need to sacrifice in order to train properly you'd already talked yourself out of it.

The day you go out and train consistently and dispassionately without thinking that you are doing something special is 90 percent of it.

If you need to be carted to the track on top of a gilded litter, you have nowhere to go but down.

Busted wrote:

Hey Malmo, that's one mother f**king long post! How long would that have taken you to pull together? You obviously have nothing better to do? Here's a though, try getting a life - start by moving out of mommy's basement?

How many hours did it take for you to come up with something so witty?

Even morons can learn how to do this. Hold down the left-click on your mouse and highlight. Then right-click and copy. Then left-click somewhere else and right-click and paste.

In a few years you'll be able to contribute content to these threads, if you're lucky.

Oh, it was absolutely intentional... but I don't chastise the choices you may or may not have made, why are you chastising mine or my teammates?

I never said my goal was to see how fast I could get, but rather how fast I could get given the amount of time I am willing to invest in my training. I acknowledge there is a big difference, and I do not disagree with what you said... you're right, I am not trying to run to my physical potential... I am trying to run my best given a wide breadth of responsibilities, desires and passions, and given an allocated time I have set aside to running on a daily basis.

Yes, I am leaving my best races on the table. But I do not think sleepwalking my way through my kids swim lessons, or family outings, or my marriage, at this stage in my life, is worth the time investment to race at my best. 95% there is pretty darn close... and is good enough for me at this point.

Running, as many before me have noted, is a very selfish lifestyle and endeavor. It takes a toll on your work and family life. I have seen many top runners from the 70s and 80s who made the sacrifice you speak of and today live very lonely lives. Many don't have thriving career, many haven't held onto solid relationships or marriages because of the sacrifices they made. Was it worth those extra 2, 3, 10 minutes? Not to me.

Every decision I make is a cost-benefit analysis. I am constantly trying to get the best out of myself in as many areas of my life as is possible, and sometimes, 95% of the way there with 25% less work is "good enough". There are areas not worth compromising... being a husband and father are, imho 2 of those areas. I often run when my kids nap. If they decide one day to skip said nap, I don't run that day. I would rather play blocks, ride bikes, build a pillow fort then leave them for 2 hours on a Sunday. I would rather be at my desk for an important impromptu meeting then skip it for a run. I would rather take my wife to dinner rather then get that double in... because SHE deserves it and chances are, I've already run a ton that week relatively speaking.

I often wish, especially the young guys I coach who don't have the same commitments and are so talented, did NOT feel that way. I want the young guys I coach to have the laser-focus... to want it more then I do/did... because they have real talent, and, well, I have minimal talent. I wish I had that laser focus before I had other, more important things to distract me. But, I can't blame them for simply not wanting to sacrifice.

Simply put, if someone said, "I 100% guarantee that you run 2:30:00, which is your max potential, if you run 100-120 miles per week for the next 3 years" or "I 100% guarantee that you run 2:33-35 if you run 80-100 miles a week for the next 3 years" I would take #2. That second run, day in and day out for 3 years, isn't worth the 3-5 minutes to me.

I'm not sure why that is either good or bad. It just is what it is.

I assume many who are 10 minutes faster then me face the same questions and come to the same conclusion.

I'm not convinced that's a "problem"... it just is what it is.

BTW, just because I acknowledge that I am not trying to maximize my physical potential, and instead, think of it as trying to maximize my potential given a certain amount of time I am willing to dedicate to running, I don't necessarily think the 2 need to be mutually exclusive. I'm not convinced running more would make me faster... especially after taking 6 of 10 years off. I would probably get hurt, or train just to pad the logs. Instead, I do what I think I need to do, and do it within a certain amount of time I have in a day.

The time to have the laser focus was during that time I took off from running... but that was then and now is now.

Just thought I should clear that up.

I think a lot of it is the way people are raised in the developed world these days.

They are not on their feet all the time, running/walking around as kids...the lifestyles are sedentary, and less people have a huge aerobic base from young ages. They are not eating simple diets of unprocessed foods from young ages. They are not unplugged and content (or even allowed) to just roam around for fun.

Look at someone like Ingrid Kristiansen...she grew up XC skiing, then ran for years, then ran some great times as a mature adult. How many young people in the western countries are brought up like this anymore?

How many kids these days do aerobic stuff on their feet constantly from early ages, eat great diets, and live the simple life?

My contention is that we just don't have enough candidates to be elite. The few we get actually do okay in international competition.

What were they doing differently back then?

I would say that it was 90% a matter of running being popular back then. If you could go under 2:22 or 2:25 in 1980 you could dream of going under 2:20 or 2:15, make it to the olympic trials... Back then lots of people cared about this.

Now, unless you are going to make the Olympic team I think in general people think you are just wasting your time and you should get on with your life.

afljieag wrote:

What were they doing differently back then?

I would say that it was 90% a matter of running being popular back then.

I agree. On another thread malmo posted NYCM finishing lists that included ages. A lot of those guys in the 1983 NYCM must have started running seriously much earlier, probably during the 1970s "running boom".

Maybe they are playing soccer