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

garage wrote:

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.

There's a lot of truth to this, but it's really interesting when you think about it. Most of us are in the "sub elite" category (which I agree is hobby running) but still put in 7-10+ hours of training a week. Even more time when you figure traveling to races on weekends and ancillary activities. We're exponentially more dedicated than your normal hobby jogger, and yet that extra 10% is just too much for us. Too many of us post collegiates put limits on our potential.

adsljkasd wrote:

http://www.athlinks.com/time.aspx?eventid=60270

What were they doing differently? Don't just say running more mileage as a number of guys are out there running high mileage and not running well...

Thoughts? Firsthand knowledge?

Not more mileage. More guys running more mileage.

Yeah we have "a number of guys" running high mileage now. A much smaller number than we had back then.

A lot of people are pointing to the fact that runners back then raced more often than today's runners. There's probably some truth to that. If you looked at how guys like Rodgers and Beardsley developed they raced A LOT. And they ran a lot of marathons.

Same with the other GBTC runners, there were races every week. And then you had indoor 2 miles and 5000's. But you always had your big focus race of the year-could be Boston or the Olympic Trials.

BUT doesn't everyone remember what everyone was saying after the 1984 Olympic Marathon? Americans race too much, they run too many road races, all they care about is making prize money, they don't focus enough.

Lopes, Treacy, and Spedding were the medalists and had like a combined 3 or 4 marathons between the three of them.

So its the same old story. We can never get it right no matter what.

Kids stopped running when network TV dropped track and field. Running became unfashionable while Football, Basketball etc became more popular and their top athletes became national celebrities.

Salazar and Beardsley couldn't compete for public attention against the likes of was Bird and OJ.

What kid would be attracted to a sport where wiry little men ran in string vests with wet handkerchiefs on their heads to keep cool.

A lot of today's runners only got in to running because they were told they weren't good enough to participate in other sports. Running just isn't as popular as baseball, soccer or football.

Additionally, although more kids are actively participating in sports than ever before, they tend to be involved in organised sports.

They are probably spending less time being active than we used to in the 60s and 70s, when we would walk to school and play in the street in the evening and weekends. Steve Jones credited walking to school with building his aerobic capacity.

In short, we have fewer elite marathoners because we have had fewer kids running.

Thanks for putting put up the data.

I think the question isn't what are they doing differently. The fast guys today - sub 2:20 - are training well, doing the tried and true things. Rather, the question why did so many get so serious about marathon racing. That's it. It was just more guys participating in the sport at a high level. Potentially fast people are doing other things with their free time today.

This is a question best answered by the Baby Boomers out there. For some reason, they were drawn to competitive running and all that went with it. Social freedoms movement? Post Watergate/Vietnam disillusionment and escape? Something was in the air? Zeitgeist thing?

This is a question best answered by the Baby Boomers out there. For some reason, they were drawn to competitive running and all that went with it. Social freedoms movement? Post Watergate/Vietnam disillusionment and escape? Something was in the air? Zeitgeist thing?[/quote]

Fascinating questions. I have thought a lot about this and the answers are not simple. My quick and joking answer is that it was all because of me. I qualified for the OT marathon in 1972 when I got back to Boston Rodgers, Hodge, Thomas, Salazar, Bickford, and all the other guys figured, "If he can do that, I can do that." Of course they all did. Why do something? Because someone else did it and you think you can do it better. (like James Bond)

I did wear a shirt at the 1972 trials that read D U M P N I X O N. So politics were in the air. Vietnam was visceral. Everyone new someone who died there. I had long hair, a big black beard, but I didn't smoke weed, so I had to run.

Tom

1983 was the year before the LA Olympics.

Figure it out.

track is more popular than both soccer and baseball in HS.

I think a reason that was touched on before is that back in those times a lot of younger people ran the marathon. I remember finding some Maryland Marathon results from the late 70s(when it was Bigger than New York) and being shocked at the large percentage of people who were 18!-23 or so.

Btw Garry Bjorkland running 213 on that course has got to be one of the best marathons that noone has ever heard of. That course is brutal and i mean legit brutal not Central Park hilly and Baltimore Marathon too hilly for joggers inclines. I only ran in the relay cuz i was 14 the last time they had it but Satyr Hill is absolutely ridiculous- especially at the 18-19 mile mark of a marathon. heartbreak hill lol.

Some of these years are really impressive.

Thanks for that Maryland memory. I was 6th in that first one in 1973 in 2:30 and two weeks later I ran another marathon in the same time pacing Bill Rodgers so he would start slowly and actually finish a marathon. No one thought it was a big deal to run two marathons in the same month.

With five miles to go in that second marathon Rodgers said to me that he felt good and wanted to pick it up.I was game. I picked it up to 5:20s and he picked it up to 5:00! That was the day I knew he would be great.

Two years later Bill went on to run a whole marathon in 5:00 and I in 5:20.

Yes, racing is the best training. All the factors are there so none need to be simulated as in regular training.

Tom

Derderian wrote:

I did wear a shirt at the 1972 trials that read D U M P N I X O N. So politics were in the air. Vietnam was visceral. Everyone new someone who died there. I had long hair, a big black beard, but I didn't smoke weed, so I had to run.

Tom

Derderian, you are just the person I hoped might read and respond to my post. Perhaps Hodgie-San and others from your coterie can add. For me, hints to the question of the Baby Boomer fascination with competitive distance running are a combination of:

-the popularity of track and field in the 60s (which could be a by product of the Cold War and synergy with Jim Ryun's performances and media fascination)

-"tune in, turn on, drop out" generational rage/disillusionment social change (Civil Rights, The Draft, Feminism, etc.)

Because of their popularity and therefore well-known biographies, Bill Rodgers and Frank Shorter are sort of emblematic. Both smart, well educated, from good/well educated families but both taking less expected life choices.

Rodgers: graduates from elite liberal arts college, avoids draft, drops out (menial jobs, rides motorcyle, drinks), rediscovers freedom running and finds purpose and social outlet).

Shorter: graduates from elite university, drops out of medical school, lives in shed/eats off hot plate in Florida, trains like a mad man, sort of goes to Law School (I'm guessing, partly to avoid the draft or parental questions (or guilt over lifestyle)).

hannsen wrote:

http://www.wmtiming.com/MdMarathon/maryland_marathon_archive.htm

Some of these years are really impressive.

A bunch of Maryland Marathon photos here:

!/group.php?gid=81890088371&v=photos

There was a similar thread about the 1983 Boston marathon. LR baby boomers may have had a 'senior moment' and forgot about that thread.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3626242&page=1

Part of the answer might be demographics. In 1983, baby boomers were in their 20s and 30s. For that thread I looked up the census stats for 1983 vs. 2000. Answer was not conclusive but further research might be.

"in 1983 the age range of baby boomers would have been 19-37 yrs-old, if you use the census bureau's def of baby boom as 1946-1964.

About 75 million babies were born in the US during this time. It has been described as a pig moving thru a snake. I would further guess that this generation had exceptional economic stability & familiy support & thus more time & energy to devote to a demanding avocation.

In 2000 there were about 68 million in the US 20-37 yrs old, but I suspect the demographics are a lot different now. For example, almost double the number of foreign-born Americans now vs. then"

"Derderian, you are just the person I hoped might read and respond to my post. Perhaps Hodgie-San and others from your coterie can add. For me, hints to the question of the Baby Boomer fascination with competitive distance running are a combination of:

quote]

Well, I created my website especially to answer your question:

http://www.bunnhill.com/bobhodge/

My oldest brother died in Vietnam when I was just a pin-headed soph in HS.

It took me an entire year of soul searching before I decided to commit X amount of time to running as a priority. (of course I ran twice every day while making up my mind)

Mostly I just didn't understand how it was done.

Coach Squires and the GBTC helped me find my way. The commitment has to be personal and nothing to do with the inscrutable future, money security etc.

The Boston Marathon and the Olympics were everything. Strive for that, reckless and all out. Each attempt might be your last.

For most of us, we had big dreams and a modicum of success but we left it all out there, lived large and have no regrets.

I think mostly the young crowd today might feel the same, not sure about the do or die reckless commitment though, haha.

"Youth is wasted on the young".

Another vote for guys racing more. I remember old "The Runner" mags and Runner's World where there were some sort of road racing Grand Prix and monthly rankings. Plus back then road racing was the only domestic way to make money as a runner and the IAAF/TAC was still not allowing US athletes to get paid legitimately on the track.

Unfortunately, the less frequent racing also raises suspicion of current athletes "cycling" their PEDs.

Back then guys would jump in a race almost regardless of their training phases to pick up some grand prix points here and there, they didn't worry so much about having to pop a PR every race. Frank Shorter and Bill Rodgers were "kings of the roads" and seemed to be in a race every 2 weeks.

IMO, the racing built mental toughness to allow these guys to race better than they trained. Whereas today's US elites have all sorts of gadgets and medical advances to help them essentially train better, but don't run up to their training potential.

There's just something about being able to respond and dig deep when someone wants to kick your ass in a race that you don't get in training. The guys in the 70's and 80's were exposed to this type of "mental training" 10 to 20 times a year.

Kinda funny, Ritz finished 8th in 2010, the same time would have put him 14th in 1983. I also believe that Rudy Chapa's 2:11 that year was his only post collegiate race. Heck, in the San Diego area we had college guys running 2:13 - 2:15.

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?

Busted and idiots like him have become common place this is why we fail today. So many would rather attack others for no reason but to try and make themselves feel better about their own pathetic lives in which they have accomplished nothing of note, are unhappy, unfulfilled and uninteresting. You'll claim otherwise on here or to yourself but the reality is why are you attacking malmo? You don't have an answer- the reason is simply- and is above.

We have heard from the old guys who did it back in the day and as a new guy who has run ok I have to agree with them the number one problem is that my generation doesn't want to do the work. They aren't trying in big enough numbers. The very top guys are dealing with much tougher surges and race tactics that a man like Gebre, sub 13, sub 27 can put down which has a cost. But for depth the answer is simple, we quit, we half ass. We waste our time posting on letsrun and don't do the work. Now individuals are doing the work, just not nearly as many. Also people are satisfied to run 2;25 and say I'm as good as I can be. Bullshit. I've run 2:15 and I'm trying to do more. We can always do more. Also the few who are doing the work suffer because of the lack of others to train with, others to race against. I have been very lucky and run in marathons with a big group of guys going for it, but this has become increasingly rare because so few guys are trying to find out what they can do.

Now I'm not saying everyone is a failure or loser if they don't spend ten years trying to run a 2:12 marathon. I am saying if all they do instead is waste an hour a day on letsrun telling other people that they suck, telling the world that our elites suck that they are probably unhappy and wasting their fleeting time on earth.

I am a runner in my early 40s and have not done nearly the races many of you have on this site, nor have I the ability many of you have, but this discussion is interesting. I think we (as a running community) are often looking for the next best thing to make us better/faster/less injury prone. On the contrary, it's all about work, just like anything you want to excel in. You hear stories of Kenya and Ethiopia and they have these camps/clinics/workouts, and loads of runners show up. In their world, the ones who succeed, are the ones who can tolerate high volume and racing; if you cannot handle it, you do something else. Here, not so much. We have guys who get hurt and then cannot race that much. In a book about Dick Beardsley, once he started racing marathons, he was doing them alomst every other month, it seemed. I'm in the military and while stationed in the DC area from 2000-2004, I used to read the results of the local road races. Nearly every weekend, there was a guy's name (40-45 years age group) always showing up, sometimes twice a weekend (for Saturday and Sunday). He was always racing 5k/10k distance, and doing it well. Don't think that is the case with our "elite" guys here now.

If you look at the workouts Squires had Rodgers and Meyers doing, they are laughable compared to the workouts you hear tossed around these days.

Rodgers has stuff like 10x800 in 2:30! Yet he was a monster in races, because races =/= training!

Maybe American marathoners don't need to be racing 30 times a year with like 5 marathons, but I mean, would racing 15 times a year with two or three marathoners really ruin them? It seems like there's this movement now for workouts to be at least as hard if not harder than races. Look at some logs from those guys "back in the day." A tiny amount of the workouts are "eyebrow raising" yet when you combine this with the frequent racing and consistency, oh, how amazing, the results are good!

The hardest things I see in Meyers' log are a handful of 20+ mile fartleks averaging between 5:20-5:40 pace including rest, which are definitely no joke-- but nothing compared to Ritz 21 mile runs at 4:51/mile. Likewise, I see a lot of mile repeat sessions in Malmo's log that wouldn't indicate anything "special" if some young buck posted them on letsrun, and yet wasn't Malmo's SLOWEST marathon something in the 2:13 range? Despite having a 5000 PR something like a minute slower than Ritz's?

I don't get how Salazar could have been coached by Squires and apparently rejected the method that got such great results.