’84 marathon trials – Running Times

Agree with this all, but another main factor was the lack of dominance by the Kenyans. Americans still felt they had a chance to win races before the specialization of the sport.

Watch Olympic videos from the 70-80s... if I grew up in that era, I would have thought I had a chance of making it, either Boston Marathon Champ or Olympic Gold. Very aspirational seeing a lot of Caucasians mixing it up to win.

Now, turn on the TV/Internet for a Golden League meet and it's a pack of Africans weighing 95lbs blitzing the circuit. Not very aspirational to a 15-year old. That kid has a greater shot at being the next Landon Donovan- soccer star- than the next Galen Rupp. Just look at Verzbikas... going to a sport where there is no African dominance... still has hope (same with cycling).

GR wrote:

Agree with this all, but another main factor was the lack of dominance by the Kenyans. Americans still felt they had a chance to win races before the specialization of the sport.

Watch Olympic videos from the 70-80s... if I grew up in that era, I would have thought I had a chance of making it, either Boston Marathon Champ or Olympic Gold. Very aspirational seeing a lot of Caucasians mixing it up to win.

Now, turn on the TV/Internet for a Golden League meet and it's a pack of Africans weighing 95lbs blitzing the circuit. Not very aspirational to a 15-year old. That kid has a greater shot at being the next Landon Donovan- soccer star- than the next Galen Rupp. Just look at Verzbikas... going to a sport where there is no African dominance... still has hope (same with cycling).

It didn't matter. You still were looking to top last year, last month, last week. You still wanted to run more miles than you did last year, it was about the journey, how far can you take it.

People like you are part of the problem. Oh, they are too fast why try? That is a lousy attitude. What was important then was being better each time out, seeing how far you could go and how fast.

I never entered a race just wanting to finish or wondering if I could.

I remember going to PHX for the Runner's Den 10k a couple of times in the mid-80s. One year there was some ridiculous number (40-50?) of guys breaking 30. If you broke 30, they wrote you a check for $100. I'm assuming the top finishers were awarded more, but that was the first prize money I ever earned.

GR wrote:

Agree with this all, but another main factor was the lack of dominance by the Kenyans. Americans still felt they had a chance to win races before the specialization of the sport.

I agree. The East African dominance of the T&F has really hurt the SPORT, not the activity, but the SPORT of distance running in America.

No question that the East African dominance has made it less likely that a US male will win a major international distance race and consequently fewer US males are willing to commit to careers as elite distance runners. That idea, however, does not address the fact that the top marathon performances (by time) have not improved materially outside of Hall running 2:04 and 2:06. With supposed advances in exercise physiology and training methods, better financial support from shoe companies and natural evolution, the very best US marathon runners should be running faster times than the very best runners in the early '80's. Again, outside of Hall that is not the case. What can explain this? Are the current crop of runners not training as hard? Are the supposed advances in training off the mark? It's hard to reconcile the latter two questions in the context of the improvment in 5k and 10k times in the US. Perhaps US runners simply don't want it as badly.

Good article. It kind of makes me wish I wasn't 9 in 1984.

Dingler wrote:

I remember they made a documentary movie about the '84 marathon trials called "No Tomorrows".

I own it. Great vid.

redux wrote:

Good article. It kind of makes me wish I wasn't 9 in 1984.

Ha, there are trade-offs. I ran 28:45 in 1984 as a 22-yr-old. Good enough for 50th on the U.S. list that year.

In 1984 I think 28-flat was fast enough to make the all-time U.S. list... strange to think that 50 runners in 1984 were within 45 seconds.

What is 10th on the altime U.S. list today... 27:30? I don't see 50 U.S. runners running 28:15 or faster in the same year soon.

The attitude is so different now. I coach a few friends on the side. They run mostly the half marathon and now the marathon. They asked me if I could help them get faster. One had a 2:09 PR, the other a 2:04 PR. I introduced them to interval work. It was quite a shock to them to say the least. But within a few months the 2:09 runner ran 1:58 then decided she didn't want to get any faster. I got the 2:04 runner down to 1:49. I told her she can run much faster if she ran more than 3X a week. She ran 4:11 at the NYC Marathon last year on three runs a week. Seriously she'd do a long run on Sundays and like two 5-milers during the week and that's it. But she insists on doing 3 boot camp sessions a week and two spin classes on top of three runs a week. I think she can run a 1:35 half if she allowed me to train her properly and she dropped her spin classes and cut back on the boot camp. I convinced her to add a 4th run a week because she wants to run sub 4:00. I told her she has the potential to run 3:30 if she really trained. I even suggested tot he both of them to run some fun local all-comer track meets to work on their speed. But they don't want to compete against others. the just want to "compete against themselves". What the heck does that even mean? She has some running talent I think she can easily run sub 3:30 or even low 3:20's if she trained properly.

malmo wrote:

Masters Fattie wrote:

You could go to a 5k, run 15:30 and place 15th.

I never heard of anyone running 5k in 1984 unless it was on a track.

I ran my first road 5k in 1983.

webfoot wrote:

In 1984 I think 28-flat was fast enough to make the all-time U.S. list.

Are you referring to top 10 all-time? I could be wrong, but I think by the end of '84 10th on the all-time U.S. list was just under 27:50.

It's all this:

The low-mileage 90s, leading to the dreadful state of US distance running.

Which then ran straight into East Africa getting their sh*t together, and schooling the rest of the world.

And the boom in 'tech,' or the WWW, cool phones which do nearly everything you can imagine, and a million cable channels. That ability at all times to know everything about everyone else, while "back in the day" you did all you could all the time as well as you could, because you had no idea what anyone else was up to. (We'd get a letter with updates about everyone else over the summer during college, maybe in late July, telling various July 4 5K or 4 mile times, then leave two weeks later to go back to school. Not quite Twitter 30 seconds after someone runs a 1:53 at an all-comers meet on the high school track four days after the last final in early June.)

Even bigger, then, is the "fame" entitlement that most of the under 20 crowd holds dear these days. DOING isn't what it's about. It's BEING. Simply going to the movies or something, and standing there, among the friends they've been texting all day is enough. Sort of like what we did on Friday nights during high school parties, minus the phones. They just ARE. That's the same we were, when we were accomplished at something, a title, a win, a time, a qualifier, whatever. Today, there's status in simply being, because a reality show is right around the corner. They really think that.

It's interesting to look at the race reports from the late 1980s and 90s to see who was winning. It wasn't surprising to see any of these guys' names as winners of major road races in the US.

US: Steve Spence, Ed Eyestone, Jon Sinclair

MEX: Arturo Barrios, Marcus Barreto, Dionicio Ceron, German Silva, Martin Pitayo

Ireland: John Treacy

UK: Steve Jones

MAR: Khalid Kairouani

KEN: Michael Musyoki, Ibrahim Hussein, Thomas Osano

Peru: Rolando Vera

NOR: John Halverson

I don't think you see this type of mix anymore. It's not uncommon to see Kenyans and Ethiopians go 5-10 deep or more.

Also, it's a lot harder for a westerner to maintain a standard of living on a $1000 payday than an African. There are a lot of mid-sized races that quit offering prize money or have significantly cut back on it: Crescent City, Cleveland Marathon, Bowling Green, Pittsburgh Great Race, Vulcan, Azalea Trail, Senior Bowl, New Times Phoenix, Orange Classic.

The money has significantly grown in some races such as Cooper River and Peachtree but it is more concentrated in those fewer races.

interesting. i was cleaning out some old files and found race results from a norther california 10 miler from 1981. Of the 400 runners, 25 broke 60 minutes. nowadays, if you get 10 people breaking 60 at a 10 miler people think you have a deep field.

True. Look at the Bobby Crim results from back then. I would bet about 100 runners broke 60 minutes during many of the 80's races.

malmo wrote:

Masters Fattie wrote:

You could go to a 5k, run 15:30 and place 15th.

I never heard of anyone running 5k in 1984 unless it was on a track.

5Ks were out there in 1984 but they were considered weaker, often the companion event of a longer race (10K or 10 mile). I lived in Colorado at the time. Whereas one of the bigger 10Ks might have 20 or 30 men running under 31 (i.e., sub 30 range if at sea level), the accompanying 5K would have two or three under 16 minutes.

Prior to 1982 or so, road 5Ks were not common--and definitely considered in the "fun run" category (when fun run was sort of a put down), but by 1985 they were becoming more common and more competitive. Things tapered off across the board in the 1990s, and then came the penguin era and it's been downhill since.

I think the difference is mostly just that the most talented US runners are staying on the track. We have a bunch of guys who could probably go 2:12 or faster, but they haven't (and won't) run a marathon.

If you look at the list of contenders, it seems to be mostly guys with good but not great PRs at other distances.