Decline of Distance running 1990s

Overthinking it.

Decline in distance standards in UK is down to fewer competitive distance runners. Sure, we have the odd good runner these days, but the depth is weaker at every level - apart from perhaps entry level joggers.

Lars Bohinen wrote:

Overthinking it.

Decline in distance standards in UK is down to fewer competitive distance runners. Sure, we have the odd good runner these days, but the depth is weaker at every level - apart from perhaps entry level joggers.

This is the reason for the decline in most European countries.

The decline was due to the explosion of African runners. It's easier to win gold medals and win big city marathons if you take (most) of them out of the picture.

The absolute incrediable depth of the East African countries obliterated European and American runners, and it still is to this day.

The decline was due to the explosion of African runners. The absolute incrediable depth of the East African countries obliterated European and American runners, and it still is to this day.

Good heavens! I wonder, how many people still believe this garbage? In reality, the performances in the 800/1500 m declined in late 80's and early 90's. It was the sudden disappearance of white runners from track in mid 80's that made Africans look seemingly "superior". They were simply left on track alone. The onset of EPO around 1995 is another thing.

Actually not that great of a quote since Barnicle is completely wrong. You repeat a lie enough, someone is bound to believe it.

Here are the not so shabby US bests by runners training 80 or less miles/week:

800 1:42.6

1000m 2:13.9

1500m 3:29.3

2000m 4:52.4

3000m 7:29

Steeple 8:09

5000m 12:54.1

10000m 27:10.7

And our brightest hopes in the marathon?

Hall severely overtrained and has now cut back to < 100/week.

Ritz got injured again and has cut back to < 90.

And Gotcher ran mega-miles one more year and went from 2:10 back to 2:20.

Its a combo. The was a big demographic drop in the late 80s and early 90s. If there are 25% less people in the age range of 18-35, you are going to have less runners. Drug testing probably played a role in slower times. And yeas the african dominance also changed things. It went from being if you were a 13:10 guy that you could dream about a medal in a major championship to the odds are you wouldn't make the final in about a 3 year period.

Sports physiologist wrote:

The decline was due to the explosion of African runners. The absolute incrediable depth of the East African countries obliterated European and American runners, and it still is to this day.

Good heavens! I wonder, how many people still believe this garbage? In reality, the performances in the 800/1500 m declined in late 80's and early 90's. It was the sudden disappearance of white runners from track in mid 80's that made Africans look seemingly "superior". They were simply left on track alone. The onset of EPO around 1995 is another thing.

I've had a similar thought about Coe's effect on western running but Ovett was there running as well and acknowledging that he did a good volume. It was interesting that so many people were aping Coe but few did the same to Ovett. I think that's because there are so many people who want to believe that you can run really well without running a lot.

two brief points:

1) for the UKers: Remember when Paula Radcliffe was the best marathoner (of any gender) in the United Kingdom? Wasn't that long ago.

2) For those on the other side of the pond:

http://img842.imageshack.us/f/hstimes.png/

Sprintphone wrote:

The decline was due to the explosion of African runners. It's easier to win gold medals and win big city marathons if you take (most) of them out of the picture.

The absolute incrediable depth of the East African countries obliterated European and American runners, and it still is to this day.

This is the correct answer. All the great non-African runners from the 70's and 80's wouldn't be competitive in the slightest given today's competition.

lksjadflkj wrote:

Sprintphone wrote:

The decline was due to the explosion of African runners. It's easier to win gold medals and win big city marathons if you take (most) of them out of the picture.

The absolute incrediable depth of the East African countries obliterated European and American runners, and it still is to this day.

This is the correct answer. All the great non-African runners from the 70's and 80's wouldn't be competitive in the slightest given today's competition.

Yep. In the early 1990's the Mexicans were a big force on the roads in the U.S. winning many big races and usually placing 2-4 in the top 10. The Kenyans didn't come over until 1992 en masse. The ones that ran before were U.S. based former NCAA runners. Musyioki, Shahanga, they were great runners but what started in 1992 was a whole new ball of wax. Runners you had never heard of winning under 28:00 or 46 for 10 miles, Kenyans taking all spots in the top 10. And every year there was a new one you never heard of, going straight to the top.

Psychologically it took a big toll on the rest of the world. Shellshock. The big Mexican groups disappeared over night.

The Kenyans were running races before, but they were beatable and you knew who they were: Steve Kogo, William Musyioki, Mike Musiyoki, Joeseph Kipsang.

Well Ovett did high miles and I'm sure others followed that as well

Runners talking about training is like kids at school claiming not to revise. Eveyone know they are doing twice as much as they claim

The EA's don't do huge mileage (although not low by any means) and also do a lot of faster workouts, although more tempos and stuff

In recent years in the UK nobody has anywhere near the talent of Coe or Ovett (or Cram). At least nobody who has given running a proper go. Most of them are playing football although they are also rubbish!

lksjadflkj wrote:

Sprintphone wrote:

The decline was due to the explosion of African runners. It's easier to win gold medals and win big city marathons if you take (most) of them out of the picture.

The absolute incrediable depth of the East African countries obliterated European and American runners, and it still is to this day.

This is the correct answer. All the great non-African runners from the 70's and 80's wouldn't be competitive in the slightest given today's competition.

A few brits beg to differ

You can't blame the BMC. They have encouraged all the top coaches to write articles in BMC news. Go read them. They weren't advocating one way of training, they were organising races to get people faster.

Crammy did 2 steadies a day, October to February. No intervals at all. The article is in BMC news.

Ovett did similarly in winter but with a reps session on Tuesday nights. National XC medals over 9 miles.

Coe's training (assuming Peter's books are broadly true) has a bit more reps but still a big winter base. Frank Horwill's 5 pace system was intended to be applied in pre- and early season.

"Free Beer" has it right. I grew up during this era in high school and college and you could name the top guys. They were like stars on the ESPN Running & Racing show.

A lot changed from about 92-96. Look up the qualifying standards for the 1991 IAAF World Championships (the year Spence won the bronze in the marathon). Morceli (1500m) and Kiptanui (Steeple/5k) were about the most dominant guys in their events, but guys could still dream about making national teams and competing well internationally.

The world records in the 3k/5k/10k were still mortal and Bob Kennedy would've been a world record-holder in the 5000m only a couple seasons earlier. People like Solinsky, Tegankamp, Ritz, Hall, Mottram, etc. would have been rock stars with their PR's. Then somewhere around 94-96 EPO hit the scene big-time mixed with the huge influx of East Africans and almost overnight a lot of individuals were gone that had been well-known identities in the sport. The identity of the sport changed rapidly and the gap between the competitive runners and hobby joggers became as wide as the ocean.

Sure you had more and more people participating in road races, but you almost completely lost the second tier development guys in the 90's. In the 2000's that depth started to come back due to the efforts of personal coaches to make it happen (people like Hanson's and the clubs, etc.).

Right now the US has about as much depth as ever on the track when you look at the top 10-20 lists yearly over the past decade, but the African countries have flooded the entire sport and not just from Kenya and Ethiopia, but most of Africa and many become citizens of other countries as well.

I remember an interesting conversation in 2008 when Nick Willis medaled in the 1500m in Beijing when someone pointed out that John Walker won the gold in 1976. But there was nowhere near the world-wide depth of guys racing at that level then and Walker held the world record in the mile. Willis broke Walker's national record for 1500m and in 2008 Willis's best time for the season only placed him 19th on the world list. That shows how many guys in just that one event had a shot at an Olympic medal from that year alone.

There have always been great runners in different eras, but the depth is now beyond any other time in the sport. Even in the US college system at all NCAA I, II and III divisions there is more depth then ever with more countries represented. Heck, a 13:37 5k didn't even score a point at the DI Indoor Nationals last weekend.

...and the sport rolls on.

Low mileage in the western world was the biggest factor - everyones back on it and running well!

'Coe's training (assuming Peter's books are broadly true) has a bit more reps but still a big winter base. Frank Horwill's 5 pace system was intended to be applied in pre- and early season'

Horwill also had a lot of success with other athletes. He got Tim Hutchings to 13.11, 4th in the Olympics and twice Silver in the World xc

The EA's actually do medium mileage and they do a lot of faster pace stuff either reps, hills or intervals

An athletes saying they don't do much mileage is like a college kid tsaying they don't do much revision. Everyone knpows if they are getting results its BS

Where Coe's training was actually different is the gym and weights work to improve strength and thus speed

There is an element of truth in the low mileage claim when it come to juniors in the UK. You see a lot of good juniors profiled in AW. They are 16 or 17 male and training singles 6 x wk. That's ok for a club runner. For anyone with international aspirations that is nowhere near enough. As Brother Colm commented on this subject - we have 13 yr old girls training twice a day! From what I've seen here the US juniors do a lot more

The main reason though we have not had another Coe, Ovett or Cram is that nobody has had anywhere close to their talent. They don't come around too often

As someone once said the one thing that makes a great coach is a great runner! A few like George Gandy have shown that not always true

Runners World (which is why "real" runners don't like it- they touted doing less and just finishing and cross training INSTEAD of running.

Too many people believed it.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Where Coe's training was actually different is the gym and weights work to improve strength and thus speed

...

As someone once said the one thing that makes a great coach is a great runner! A few like George Gandy have shown that not always true

I am in awe of Gandy. Apart from the Coe books I didn't know much about his training, but I've been getting clues from a few Loughborough blogs. e.g. a bunch of skinny 1500/5000 types on an Easter training break all doing 100kg front squats in their weights sessions - in addition to 80+mpw, two good sessions and a tempo.

Anyone from Loughborough here who could outline a typical year? If no one chimes in I'll ask on eightlane.

Huh ? That's not applicable since you are not Americans.