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

Too many people run junk mileage. They train to get in miles. It's quantity over quality. And the people that "hammer" daily runs are chastised too much.

Jeff Albertson wrote:

The biggest difference I see in the training of guys in the 80s to now (including 800-marathon), is that back then people were training to run their best possible come race day. Nowadays, guys train to get better at training. They want their training to look so impressive that even if their races are sub-par, they can say "well I ran 140 miles per week just like Geb." 2:15 guys should not train like 2:04 guys. They should train to be 2:13 guys. Ignorant, overtraining. That's the reason. Running an extra 20-40 miles a week won't make a 2:20 guy into 2:10. That's foolish.

+1

Runners (across the spectrum of runners with performance aims) are more about compiling an impressive training log than they are focused race preparation and smart execution. They fail in races often because they do not properly prepare for the specific demands of the competition/race.

By Frank Shorter

For Active.com

I have run for 48 years and covered somewhere around 140,000 miles. From the time I graduated from college, I have coached myself. This may sound unusual--some might even consider it a glaring exception to the rule. After all, we have long been in an age of agents, personal trainers and health clubs.

However, I do not think of myself as that unusual. To me, it shows how we have lost sight of just how individual and independent athletic success can be with just a little self-motivated focus. In a way, relying on yourself is a lost art. I competed in two Olympic Marathons, trained with no coach, and continued moving on in the sport with an entourage of zero.

My simple, basic theory involves running very easily--at what I call conversational pace--75-90 percent of the time. Integrate short, fast interval training at 5k race pace if you want to run faster. If you want to run a marathon, add a long run once a week working up to at least two hours (20 miles if you're very serious). A clear outline of these training theories can be found in my book, Running for Peak Performance.

jkalsdfja wrote:

Too many people run junk mileage. They train to get in miles. It's quantity over quality. And the people that "hammer" daily runs are chastised too much.

I think this is precisely the type of thinking that causes America to ave no depth in distance running, and very few quality marathon times being posted. It is not just quality that matters. How well would a marathoner do if he or she were only running 50 miles a week consistently but ripping all their workouts at fast paces? I dont think they would fare well at the national level let alone the international level.

In the U.S. were probably have 20 or so guys consistently running around 100 miles a week or more and training/focusing for the marathon. In several places in africa they have over 50 guys in a single training session focusing on the marathon and running over 120 miles per week consistently, and that is only one training group. There are many others just like it in different parts of each country.

Graeme McDowell wrote:

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.

If Ritz ran in 1983 he wouldn't have been 14th. It was cold and rainy. Ritz wouldn't have showed up to the starting line.

malmo wrote:

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.

+1 - this is Truth

There are many reasons for the trend:

1) The distance boom ruined distance running in the US

Too many races with diluted talent

If I went to a race in New England in the 70's or early 80's, I saw the same guys there. I'd always try to do my best, but was resigned to forever being an also ran. Great money to be had under the table for a top ten place or even for just showing up. Shoe contracts or at least some incentives from a number of shoe companies were fairly easy to come by. If you worked hard you could eck out a living on the roads.

2) Today's kids are video game freaks who are into one thing ...instant gratification. If it takes work it ain't worth doing. Believe me, I've taught enough of them and coached enough of them to make this generalization. Yes, there are exceptions, but far fewer than a generation ago.

3) I'm sure the same thing is happening in several overseas countries, but I don't believe the general attitude has invaded the African continent. In 1978, I taught in a high school of 300 kids in Australia. Only grades 7-10. There were at least 15 sub 6 minute girls and 10 at sub 5:20. They were active kids who swam, walked to school, played a variety of sports on a daily basis, rode their bikes, etc. Just not happening today. Kids in a hurry to check facebook, e mails, play video games etc. tune into one of 150+ channels on teir cable or just surf the web.

4) I am shocked at the number of people who know little if anything about their training. Most of what they know is made either overly complex, or in the other extreme they read about it in runners world.

Julie Christie wrote:

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

So high school cc and track are in fact not as popular as ever, in terms of participant numbers?

Great thoughts

To be a marathoner back when meant 'becoming' a marathoner after working your way up by first being a runner, then a trainer then getting faster at shorter distances and finally(and it was often a big decision) making the big leap to the marathon.

There was something almost mystical about running a marathon, especially to the casual observor and being able to run one well was recognized as being a mark of supreme athleticism. Bill Rodgers was as celebrated as an all pro football player or an NBA allstar.

Teenagers had role models and feed back on which to build the dreams that fuel the high miles and long, lonely efforts.

Today, anyone's overweight neighbor or relative is a 'marathoner.' The cache is gone. The mystique is lost.

gallagher wrote:

.........

Today, anyone's overweight neighbor or relative is a 'marathoner.' The cache is gone. The mystique is lost.

Agree, part of my thoughts on the running boom killing distance running

malmo wrote:

It used to be that people trained to race. Now it seems that training is an end in itself.

I have no idea what was going on in Albertos mind when he and Ritz kept boasting about workouts, nor why they would want to leave their races on the training track. My first thought when I heard that Ritzenhein ran 10x 1 mile at altitude was "what the hell does that have to do with running a marathon at sea level?"

Albert was once coached by one of the best marathoning coaches ever - Bill Squires. Why he thinks he needs to reinvent the wheel is baffling to me.

This and the 20 mile "tempo" run done at 4:51 pace. Whenever I read stuff like this I think the athlete won't have a good race. Tbh, considering the crazy shit he did in practice, Dathan's 2:12 is impressive.

Thanks.

(feel free to scroll to the bottom of this post for the Clif's Notes version)

Not trying to mix apples and oranges, but I think if we broaden the scope to the number of sub-3 finishers we'll start to see what's going on.

The number of "citizen runners" that still ran relatively fast marathons (at least by 2010 standards) was exponentially from ~1975-1985 (all but 4 years of this span was before my time, so pardon any inaccuracy as I don't feel like sifting through a ton of data).

From then on, western culture has become tragically sedentary. Even if kids get into the sport in HS, they're still weak as hell....essentially trying to put a Ferrari engine on a Pinto frame and expecting it to hold up. LACK OF DURABILITY.

"Citizen Runners" just can't handle as much volume these days, and won't run fast at the marathon distance until this changes. Unfortunately, the youth at large of 2010 are overspecialized, over-convenienced, and devalue the idea of hard work.

The Clif's Notes Version: The general population has gotten fat and lazy.

gallagher wrote:

To be a marathoner back when meant 'becoming' a marathoner after working your way up by first being a runner, then a trainer then getting faster at shorter distances and finally(and it was often a big decision) making the big leap to the marathon.

There was something almost mystical about running a marathon, especially to the casual observor and being able to run one well was recognized as being a mark of supreme athleticism. Bill Rodgers was as celebrated as an all pro football player or an NBA allstar.

Teenagers had role models and feed back on which to build the dreams that fuel the high miles and long, lonely efforts.

Today, anyone's overweight neighbor or relative is a 'marathoner.' The cache is gone. The mystique is lost.

It wasn't about just being a marathoner, it was about being a runner, guys in the late 70's and early 80's ran any distance and did so often, it wasn't so specailized. These days the "marathoners" in this country only run marathons and maybe one half per year, little racing experience and little versatility. Racing a variety of distances will allow you to handle a variety of paces.

Today, anyone's overweight neighbor or relative is a 'marathoner.' The cache is gone. The mystique is lost.[/quote]

This is a good point. In the 60-70s people saw me out training to win something. The regard was something between nuts and heroic. Now a young guy out running is merely regarded as performing a(n) hygienic routine.

Tom

At least for guys around 3 hours, I think a factor is the increase in the hours worked for most people. Longer work day for most and often a longer commute. I don't have empirical evidence but it seems in the 70s/early 80s you could work a full time job in 35/40 hours - now practically everyone is working 45-50-55 hours a week, plus a commute. If you've got a family there's not a lot of time or energy left over to take the 3:20 guy to 3 or the 3 hour guy to 2:40. I think these guys put some pressure on the guys faster than them and then you have more guys running 2:20 or 2:30. Maybe not much effect on the world class but in turns of numbers for everyone else it seems like a factor.

Interesting thread. I was running in college in 1983 and still race these days. Three differences I see (mostly agreeing with points already made by others):

1. People used to race a lot. Seems like Bill Rodgers raced constantly. This might make you better at racing, in some cases. It might reduce the pressure, in some cases.

2. Loads of people running high miles. I ran over 100 mpw a few times during the summer in high school, and we routinely ran 7-10 mile morning runs in the winter in college.

3. Different attitude about being pretty good. No one considered 2:20 to indicate that you were Olympic material. You might win a local marathon, but you were going to get your ass kicked the next time you ran Brian Diemer or Tim Hacker in XC, or Earl Jones on the track.

Good times. On the other hand, my daughters are headed to Nike Regionals this weekend, and that is going to be pretty cool too.

Derderian wrote:

Today, anyone's overweight neighbor or relative is a 'marathoner.' The cache is gone. The mystique is lost.

This is a good point. In the 60-70s people saw me out training to win something. The regard was something between nuts and heroic. Now a young guy out running is merely regarded as performing a(n) hygienic routine.

Tom[/quote]

Go out running on a bone chilling day in January or in a cold fall rain and people will still think you're nuts. The trails around here are just about empty between November and May.

Your larger point is interesting though. Why do we run, run meaning train seriously? Is it really to impress other people?

And is the number of sub-three hour marathoners really linked to the fortunes of Western Civilization? Some people attribute this "decline" to the actions of "society" in some vague abstract way (or in a crotchy, old man sort of way...Kids today! Bah!). But the most compelling comments suggest that there have been changes in training and racing...much less predictive of the Apocalypse, but something that an individual runner can do something about, rather than complaining that people aren't awed sufficiently by how cool your marathoning adventures are.