Just 6 Of The Reasons Why The U.S. System Doesn’t Produce More World Class Marathoners

Mark Hadley wrote:

Look back at the great runner marathoners we produced in the 1970's and early 80's and look at their mileage levels. Most were in the 120-140 mile range week in and week out for most of the year, year after year. And they did that while getting in a good mixture of workouts - speed work, tempos, long runs, "to the barn" runs, and racing To do this took many years of build-up. You don't see that much anymore.

I made the addition in bold.

The ones I know and have talked to were. Your logs you have shared show us many 120-140 mile weeks. Although you were not a marathoner (my focus at least).

Maybe we simply know different people. Any input on the rest of what I have said?

We would appreciate you sharing with us what you know different guys to be doing during that time.

I've trained with many of the top marathoners from the era you describe. None match your assessment. Additionally none of the others that I haven't personally trained with do not match your assessment either.

Where are you getting your "facts"? Name the ones that you talked to then?

Old US marathon list

1 2:05:38 Khalid Khannouchi

2 2:08:47a Bob Kempainen

3 2:08:52a Alberto Salazar

4 2:08:54a Dick Beardsley

5 2:09:00a Greg Meyer

6 2:09:28a Bill Rodgers

7 2:09:32 David Morris

7 2:09:32a Ron Tabb

9 2:09:35 Jerry Lawson

10 2:09:38a Ken Martin

11 2:09:41 Alan Culpepper

12 2:09:53 Meb Keflezighi

13 2:09:58a Benji Durden

14 2:10:04 Pat Petersen

15 2:10:05a Phil Coppess

16 2:10:07a Ed Mendoza

17 2:10:16a Jeff Wells

18 2:10:19a Tony Sandoval

19 2:10:20a Garry Bjorklund

20 2:10:27a Craig Virgin

21 2:10:29 Kirk Pfeffer

21 2:10:29 Mark Plaatjes

23 2:10:30 Frank Shorter

24 2:10:41a Bill Donakowski

25 2:10:51a John Tuttle

26 2:10:54 John Lodwick

27 2:10:55a Kyle Heffner

28 2:10:55 Brian Sell

28 2:10:59 Robert Hodge

28 2:10:59 Ed Eyestone

30 2:10:59a Marty Froelick

31 2:11:09 Dave Smith

31 2:11:09a Don Norman

34 2:11:13 Paul Pilkington

34 2:11:13a Eamon O’Reilly

34 2:11:13a Rudy Chapa

36 2:11:16 Don Kardong

36 2:11:16 Don Janicki

38 2:11:17 Todd Williams

39 2:11:18a Jack Fultz

40 2:11:22a Rick Callison

41 2:11:24 Abdihakim Abirahman

42 2:11:25a Michael Layman

43 2:11:26a Randy Thomas

44 2:11:32 Paul Cummings

45 2:11:35 Dan Browne

45 2:11:35a Fred Torneden

47 2:11:36 Ken Moore

48 2:11:37a Dan Schlesinger

49 2:11:39a Paul Gompers

50 2:11:40 Rod DeHaven

51 2:11:41a David Gordon

52 2:11:43a Peter Pfitzinger

52 2:11:43a Arturo Barrios

54 2:11:45a Mark Curp

55 2.11.48 Dean Matthews

56 2.11.52 Herman Atkins

57 2.11.53 John Dimick

58 2.11.55a Steve Hoag

58 2.11.55 Mark Finucane

60 2.12.02a Dennis Rinde

61 2.12.03 Jon Anderson

62 2.12.06dh Tom Fleming

62 2.12.06dh David Hinz

62 2.12.06 Jim Wellerding

65 2.12.09 Bill Reifsnyder

66 2.12.14 Thom Hunt

67 2.12.17 Steve Spence

68 2.12.23 George Malley

69 2.12.26 Mark Conover

70 2.12.31 Keith Brantly

71 2.12.32 Gary Siriano

72 2.12.34 Gordon Minty

73 2.12.37 Frank Plasso

74 2.12.38 Mike Buhmann

75 2.12.42 Eric Mack

76 2.12.45 Richard McCandless

78 2:12:45 Peter Gilmore

77 2.12.50a Duncan MacDonald

77 2.12.50 John Moreno

79 2.12.51 Steve Plasencia

79 2.12.51 Jimmy Hearld

81 2.12.55 Thomas Raunig

82 2.12.56 Ivan Huff

83 2.12.57 Matthew Wilson

84 2.12.59 Richard Sayre

85 2.13.02 Terrence Mahon

86 2.13.03a Bud Coates

87 2.13.05 Mark Coogan

88 2.13.11 Daniel Grimes

89 2.13.16 Kevin McCarey

90 2.13.18 Herb Wills

91 2.13.20 Danny Gonzalez

92 2.13.21 Steve Ortiz

93 2:13:22 Brian Sell

94 2.13.24 Brad Hudson

95 2.13.29 Jon Sinclair

96 2.13.30a Walter Saeger

96 2.13.30 Marco Ochoa

98 2.13.33 Greg Leroy

101 2.13.34 Doug Kurtis

Again Malmo I understand you disagree and but please tell me specificly what part you disagree with.

I and many other posters on this board have a great respect for your athletic achievements and would love your input rather than you tearing down what we say but offering no useful input.

I have talked with Frank Shorter and Bill Rodgers and Tony Sandavol and Dick Beardsley for starters and they all indicated to me their ran 120-140 miles per week pretty much year round. They also talked about getting in a good variety of workouts while doing so.

What exactly in what I said do you think (or know) to be wrong. If you would specially point out what part I got wrong in your eyes, maybe we can move forward with a good discussion.

HRE wrote: Correctly or not, westerners have decided that they cannot compete with East Africans in distance running so relatively few of them try.

Respectfully, I don't think they came to this conclusion out of weakness or lack of will. They came to this conclusion because they raced against them and got beat.

The simple reason that the U.S. doesn't produce more world-class marathoners is the strength and depth of the world field, which has increased tremendously since the influx of Africans into the sport. When the world field was weaker, 2:15 guys saw that if they could get to 2:12, they'd be in the mix. Now, what's a 2:15 guy to think when he's choosing what to do with the next few years of his life. He can struggle to get to 2:11, which leaves him just as far from winning a major championships as he was at 2:15.

Many on this thread seem to think that we are suffering from a mindset problem, but I think that we are suffering from a reality problem. Look at the list that malmo just posted. Those are the best marathoners we've ever seen in America, and as it stands no one except for Ryan Hall is within 3 minutes of the kinds of times that it takes to win a major marathon.

Um... except Lydiard was wrong. He wrote that 2:12 was about as fast as a runner could go on a flat course. That's true if you are a 29 10000m guy, not if you run 27. Faster people run the marathon now, and we see faster marathons as a result.

Second thing is the evolution of training is much more towards added intensity in marathon training, not any more volume than back in Shorter's day. Hall ran less volume than Rodgers or Salazar to go a much faster AR on the Boston course. The last American to win Boston was running close to 100 miles/week but not nearly as much volume as Lydiard advocated, and a much reduced buildup which was really based off of quality running for 10000m and somewhat longer road races. Mosop had 2 month break from full training this spring and won Chicago in record time.

All of this evidence is in direct conflict with what Lydiard advocated as optimal training.

Kenyans race much more frequently and train with much more intensity than Lydiard suggested was best. Wanjiru took regular rest days, which Lydiard believed to be counterproductive unless overtrained.

Lydiard also wrote that more running, supplemental running at easy paces was also helpful. Salazar derailed Ritz's running career adding pointless miles.

Fundamentally Hansons, Salazar, McMillan, Hudson and Mahon are just as famous for adding miles until the athlete is broken.

Ritz said he realized he was overtraining for years.

Hall said he realized he needed more recovery/less volume --and now says he realizes he need more sea level training for speed. He's right.

And Gotcher has basically been coached into a corner, getting less result for more running.

Flanagan has increased training volume substantially and is now slower in 3000, 5000 and 10000m, running fairly well but disappointing in her half marathons and marathons.

US prospects Goucher and Koll have tried higher volume and spent more time injured this past year than healthy.

If anything, the Lydiard influence is holding American marathoning back.

Mental note: dsrunner thinks he knows more than Arthur Lydiard (hmmmm)

Mosop took a 2 month break from full training and that is why Canova said he was at 80-85%. Doesn't mistake the trend towards more intensity in marathon training among the highest end elites as a trend towards lower volumes, it is not. Their volumes are still high but now their total work capapcity is increasing by increasing the intensity at which it is done. A top marathoner may find 200k per week is ideal for them distance wise and so improvements are made by increasing the intensity fo that 220k.

I suggest that you and I do not really know what Wanjuri did in training, as he wanted it. He gave out lots of misinformation and contradictory information.

The coaches you mentioned largely had injuried runners because they were trying to increase the capacity too quickly to make up for lost time.

Hall had/has a base of mileage and work capacity to work with now, he can get by with a day off (at least for a while). That is the beauty of capacity, once it has been built up it allows you to do mnay different things, including coming down off it for a while to work in other areas.

Flanagan has been right on taregt in her hafl marathons to date and has finished where she expected in her 1 marathon (top 3 in a marathon major).

Not everyone can handle high capacity - but more people can it if it started early and very gradually achieved over many many years.

Mark Hadley wrote:

Again Malmo I understand you disagree and but please tell me specificly what part you disagree with.

I did tell you.

Mark Hadley wrote:

I have talked with Frank Shorter and Bill Rodgers and Tony Sandavol and Dick Beardsley for starters and they all indicated to me their ran 120-140 miles per week pretty much year round. They also talked about getting in a good variety of workouts while doing so.

What you actually said was: Most were in the 120-140 mile range week in and week out for most of the year, year after year. That is, in fact, not true.

Shorter, Rodgers and Beardsley might have been the rare exceptions, but Tony Sandoval certainly did not run anywhere near 120-140 "week after week, year round." Perhaps one week, in one or two years might be the case in Sandovals training.

My advice to you, when talking about training there's no need for embellishment and exaggeration. It does nothing to further the discussion, and only serves to confuse the impressionable and uninitiated minds. The facts are sufficient.

Mark Hadley wrote:

Mental note: dsrunner thinks he knows more than Arthur Lydiard (hmmmm)

Hate to break it to you but Arthur Lydiard is not God. Neither is Malmo or Renato or... For you to put such a snide remark in your post trying to imply that dsrunner cannot possibly be correct in disagreeing with Lydiard is moronic at best.

I never said anything about weakness or lack of will.

Now to your point about marathon strength and depth increasing in the WORLD. The US is part of that world. At one time in the world's history, 2:12-2:15 put you at the top, not just here, but everywhere, including Africa. Africans won medals at every Olympics from 1956 to 1972 until the boycott in 1976 derailed them a bit. Into the 1080s western runners were competitive with Africans at the marathon. Then the Africans moved on and westerners for the most part either stayed put or regressed with an occasional exception.

Turdneck wrote:

]

Plus, we have transportation to bring us to school and back. HG ran 10k to school carrying his books. Uphill. Both ways.

at altitude.[/quote]

Through 3 foot high snow drifts, in 112 degree temperatures and against the wind. Both ways.[/quote]

Running back to his house for lunch.[/quote]

in trainers[/quote]

while carrying a Kenyan on his back[/quote]

While be chased by a pack of Ethiopians.

slowathon wrote:

Turdneck wrote:

]

Plus, we have transportation to bring us to school and back. HG ran 10k to school carrying his books. Uphill. Both ways.

at altitude.

Through 3 foot high snow drifts, in 112 degree temperatures and against the wind. Both ways.[/quote]

Running back to his house for lunch.[/quote]

in trainers[/quote]

while carrying a Kenyan on his back[/quote]

While be chased by a pack of Ethiopians.[/quote]

That are being chased by a pack of Kenyans.

HRE wrote:

I never said anything about weakness or lack of will.

Now to your point about marathon strength and depth increasing in the WORLD. The US is part of that world. At one time in the world's history, 2:12-2:15 put you at the top, not just here, but everywhere, including Africa. Africans won medals at every Olympics from 1956 to 1972 until the boycott in 1976 derailed them a bit. Into the 1080s western runners were competitive with Africans at the marathon. Then the Africans moved on and westerners for the most part either stayed put or regressed with an occasional exception.

If it wasn't out of weakness or lack of will, what was it that made Americans decide that they couldn't compete with the Africans, in your opinion?

Surely the story is more complex than "the Africans moved on." Didn't they begin to train in large numbers once they saw that they were especially gifted for distance running? Hasn't social development in that part of the world been a primary reason why they have begun to fulfill their potential?

I can not carry all my school materials in one arm and go running. I once tried running home with my backpack on- it's not pretty.

Beaver Retriever wrote:

slowathon wrote:

at altitude.

Through 3 foot high snow drifts, in 112 degree temperatures and against the wind. Both ways.

Running back to his house for lunch.[/quote]

in trainers[/quote]

while carrying a Kenyan on his back[/quote]

While be chased by a pack of Ethiopians.[/quote]

That are being chased by a pack of Kenyans.[/quote]

While dodging obstacles such as this:

What in the world wrote:

Hate to break it to you but Arthur Lydiard is not God. Neither is Malmo or Renato or... For you to put such a snide remark in your post trying to imply that dsrunner cannot possibly be correct in disagreeing with Lydiard is moronic at best.

I apologize if that came out overly snide. I just was stunned that someone would start their post with a comment that Arthur Lyiard was wrong and state it so matter of factly with very little support relavent to the main point Lydiard was making.

Obviously I know that no coach is infallible, I just have the utmost respect for Lydiard and what he contributed to the sport and so try to be careful about contradicting what he says lightly and without good support. Not everyone feels that way though and to see it done so brazenly rubbed me the wrong way.

Malmo - point well taken. I will stick to specific examples when called for and from direct experience and individuals rather than blanket statements.

Mark, I think you're spot on in your comments. I wish we could train a million American kids with your approach. I am convinced that is what it would take to find 100 men and women with the raw talent and the work ethic to develop into world class distance runners.

If we had large numbers of motivated kids and long-view coaching approaches, the U.S.A. would be extremely competitive at a depth that would rival the East Africans.

What in the world wrote:

Beaver Retriever wrote:

Through 3 foot high snow drifts, in 112 degree temperatures and against the wind. Both ways.

Running back to his house for lunch.

in trainers[/quote]

while carrying a Kenyan on his back[/quote]

While be chased by a pack of Ethiopians.[/quote]

That are being chased by a pack of Kenyans.[/quote]

While dodging obstacles such as this:

[/quote]

Unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on the antelope for launching itself into the rider.

Why doesn’t the US produce world class marathon runners?

99.9% of the American public couldn’t give a rats-ass about marathon running or the need to produce world class marathon runners.

Whereas every Kenyan youngster knows one of the very few opportunities he has to escape extreme poverty - is to become a world class marathon runner.

Simple.