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

I don't know the answer, but for those who mention differences in training, you might like to look at the Australians. Their marathon performances have waned in a manner similar to Americans, peaking in the 80s. Yet the training of the current runners is nearly identical to that of Deek/Moneghetti.

The courses were not measured they way they are today. To be USATF certified the courses are overly measured and in most cases slightly long (read the regulations). Back in the 70's and 80's courses were way off. None of those times can be recognized as records (Greg M would have the 25K if it was the case). Boston Marathon has been short before by close to a mile. The Manchester Road Race was once called an 8K. If the runners today got to run the old marathon courses Ritz wouldn't be complaining about breaking 2:10 because he would be at 2:05 already.

This idea that the guys in the 70s and 80s wanted it more and trained harder is stupid. The only place where you can compare times is on the track and the guys today blow the 70s-80s guys out of the water.

Global Warming

jsquire wrote:

]And I don't think it's (entirely) the kids' fault. The number of parents who let their children have large amounts of unsupervised play time is miniscule, especially in the suburbs. They're terrified that something bad is going to happen to their kids. It's no less safe out there than it used to be, we just hear about every single bad thing that happens now.

.

Thank You ! I have been a voice in the wilderness on this one with all of my friends about their kids. Kids aren't allowed to play and explore any more. We are turning into those fat, doughy, and utterly helpless characters you seen in the movie "Wall-E."

Athletes compete. They look ahead to who is in front either by place, or by PR, and aim for that - during the race, and during training. Comparing times from different generations is without meaning if the question is competitiveness. The problem with U.S. performance in elite and international competition is one of numbers of top level (within striking distance of the best of the world) Americans.

Dathan Ritzenhein's situation is illustrative. He comes to the NYC marathon because he is offered good money. Hard to down, as previous pointed out. He is offered this money because he is one of the best and seemingly most promising (5000m and 1/2 Marathon times) of American distance runners. If there were a relatively large group of American runners with his PRs, or seeming talent, then he would not have been offered that money. He would therefore be competing, with this domestic peers, for the appearance and sponsorship money, as well as the prestige, accolades recognition. This need to make a living and be the best among very stiff competition, for he really doesn't have much competition at his level domestically, would be a tremendous driver of improved times. So, yeah, he's got it pretty good now in this day and age of American distance running.

Simple wrote:

The courses were not measured they way they are today. To be USATF certified the courses are overly measured and in most cases slightly long (read the regulations). Back in the 70's and 80's courses were way off. None of those times can be recognized as records (Greg M would have the 25K if it was the case). Boston Marathon has been short before by close to a mile. The Manchester Road Race was once called an 8K. If the runners today got to run the old marathon courses Ritz wouldn't be complaining about breaking 2:10 because he would be at 2:05 already.

This idea that the guys in the 70s and 80s wanted it more and trained harder is stupid. The only place where you can compare times is on the track and the guys today blow the 70s-80s guys out of the water.

I agree with your last paragraph, but the rest of this is nothing short of pure bullshit. You're trying to tell me the Boston course was a mile short in the 80's???!!!!!! Ritz would never have run 2:05 on boston at any time. In addition, if he came close he never would have run another race.

As far as other races being short.....they were road races. Historically road races were bar bets. Start at this fire hydrant in front of this bar and finish at this telephone pole in front of this bar and the first guy wins. The assholes who decided they had to be certified are the same dicks who insist that we compare times on xc courses. Don't they realize they're contributing to the death of this sport?

This sort of thing goes on across the board.

A 27 minute five mile would get you 35th place out of 100 runners in a local race in the mid 70s to early 80s.

A 27 minute five mile in a local race nowadays will get you 3rd out of 400 runners.

There are a lot more runners now -- and a lot fewer serious ones

Big K wrote:

Global Warming

El Nino.

Running used to be the cheapest sport you could find. Now, it costs a small fortune to run a race. When you consider the astronomical increases in entry fees, travel, hotel, etc., its just crazy to want to enter any major race unless you have a realistic shot at prize money. In addition to all of the factors noted above, I think this has killed the incentive to train hard and race fast. Its just a major expense which one can eliminate by simply staying at home or doing some other more reasonably inexpensive sport. Marketing propaganda has drawn in the masses who are paying plenty but serious runners have faded out as costs of excelling have risen sharply.

Most sports now are pretty costly if you're involved with any sort of organized version. My wife belongs to a tennis club and spends piles of money playing there on court time, instructions, fees for a league she plays in, etc. And high school sports in many places now have user fees. We'll probably spend nearly $700 this year if our youngest makes the basketball and baseball teams.

But I think you're onto something anyway. Most middle aged, middle class types can afford those sorts of things as well as the cost of going to and running New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. But someone who's recently out of college and is working part time or even full time but at an entry level salary may not be able to afford to run such races. I'd have had trouble with the costs when I was 20-25 if they were what they are now.

The old timer guys listed in this thread ran really fast back in the day and are now paying the price. They went balls to the wall 24/7 and now they have shot to Sh!t adrenal glands, kidney failure, decimated immune system etc...

That's really interesting. Do you have references? I don't doubt you, but if I'm going to repeat this stat, I'd like to have some data. Thanks.

Simple wrote:

The courses were not measured they way they are today. To be USATF certified the courses are overly measured and in most cases slightly long (read the regulations). Back in the 70's and 80's courses were way off. None of those times can be recognized as records (Greg M would have the 25K if it was the case). Boston Marathon has been short before by close to a mile. The Manchester Road Race was once called an 8K. If the runners today got to run the old marathon courses Ritz wouldn't be complaining about breaking 2:10 because he would be at 2:05 already.

This idea that the guys in the 70s and 80s wanted it more and trained harder is stupid. The only place where you can compare times is on the track and the guys today blow the 70s-80s guys out of the water.

Total BS, you know why guys have faster track times, because they all go to Stanford and run a time trial, no racing , just get in line and go with it. Meaningless, most of those guys don't even know or care what place they got becuase it is not a race, just a time.

This sort of thing goes on across the board.

A 27 minute five mile would get you 35th place out of 100 runners in a local race in the mid 70s to early 80s.

A 27 minute five mile in a local race nowadays will get you 3rd out of 400 runners.

There are a lot more runners now -- and a lot fewer serious ones

___

Looking through logs from 82-87, looking at a few hundred races, I see times that would would have won probably 90 percent of races in the same town today, and I was lucky to be top 10 back then.

I mean, 53 minute 10 milers as a high school kid, and I was 17th. Other than the fact that there are no more ten mile races where I live, a 26:30 5 miler or equivalent 10K would see me winning everything.

Running is not dying. It is booming. But as many people have said the masses are slower. The front is faster, but the people between 3rd place and the masses is thin. Why?

IMHO - In the 60s and 70s how many other sports were available at the HS level? There were not that many - football, basketball, baseball (all limited participation) and track (a lot did not even have CC). Soccer, lacrosse, volleyball, tennis, water polo were not available sports. The diversity is watering down the talent pool. The best are still there, but the kids who are 2nd, 3rd tier don't usually keep plugging away and get better. They move on to some other sport where they can be a star or have more fun. The 1st tier often remains. Track was once the catch all. This is no longer true.

Without a foundation of solid training in the teens, people will never run a 2:19 marathon or at least it would be extremely rare.

Running was also one of the few sports you could continue as an adult. Now there are local leagues for any sport you could want. Many people would rather be social in a league than run 70mi/week mostly alone. Running is also a little more physically demanding than playing in the local baseball league and the league doesn't require 6-7 days a week to be good.

I know I'll sound like a typical LR Egotist, but basically anyone can train to run 8+min miles. Getting beyond that takes real commitment. For those that do decide to run, but not make it the focus of their lives, they can go out to a local road race and have some fun and feel like they accomplished something. Often they decide to check off "Marathon" on their life list. The time is not that important to them, though many have a time goal. They may never run another marathon or even another race. I am not knocking this, but most of these people did not "train" at a younger age and learn to squeeze everything out of their body.

All this adds up to = Very fast times up front, and a huge gap to the masses running 8+min miles.

In some ways it is good for the sport and good for the masses. The masses do some exercise, the sport gets participation. The bad is that it does not produce stars and it does not produce fans. Only love of a sport produces those things, and that usually starts at a young age.

Julie Christie wrote:

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.

I do think this is a factor, maybe even a big one. Seeing the cars lined up down the street in front our schools every morning as fearful parents unload their kids, you can't help but be sad.

I just got back from two weeks in Japan. Kids there still walk to and ride their bikes to school. Or if they take the train, they walk to and from the station. It all adds up to a lot of physical activity -- activity that American kids don't get anymore.

I grew up in the US in the 70s. I walked to and from school and delivered papers every day on foot or by bicycle. I now realize how lucky I was.

With the advent of more major marathons, the talent that used to focus on just NYC and Boston is now dispersed to multiple marathons around the world.

In 1983, the Berlin marathon had 5,000 people and was won in 2:13.

Clearly, fast Germans are now staying at home and not coming to NYC. Europeans and Japanese have several marathons they can choose from with top level competition and logistics.

So to see what is really happening, you would have to look at top 1000 performances in global marathons or something like that.

And then you have course measurement issues...

I noticed that we are discussing this topic in terms of others. Yet we are the people whom if we were born in the 50s/60s would've been those 2:15 guys. I guess a few of you have been or are those guys. But for the rest of us, why didn't you run 2:15 last week? I didn't for many reasons. I didn't train much when I was at HS because I was lazy. I didn't train much during the next 15 years because I lost interest in the sport. I overtrain now because I'm mad at myself for wasting my youth. Anyone else?

A bmup for a classic thread.

smart shorts wrote:

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?

A lot of runners today place personal health over running fast times. The old timer guys listed in this thread ran really fast back in the day and are now paying the price. They went balls to the wall 24/7 and now they have shot to Sh!t adrenal glands, kidney failure, decimated immune system etc...

I think people woke up to the fact that it just isn't worth it.

What?!