10 years ago, US was an embarrassment in mid-d ranks (none in Worlds final of 800/1500), now we are a world power - Why?

Here's what makes sense to me:

1) just plain luck. Our MD is good now, but M marathoners are terrible. We have one sub 2:10 guy. Then a bunch of 2: 12ish. these things are not predictable.

2) Fast indoor tracks. I'd like to see the physics on these things - I run 3 seconds faster for a mile at the Armory than at Icahn. it's like running downhill.

3) Connected to this: College T/F more serious. Coaching is better, kids are more serious. This is probably the internet argument put another way. We have created a way for obsessives to spend all their lives on training. I think this is more important than a wider HS base. HS is rarely that serious.

4) I like the soccer argument.

5) lagat's arrival. if you wanted to win a USA championship you had to start chasing BL. he upped the game.

For what it's worth, here are the annual number of high school boys under 4:10 (or he metric equivalents, 4:08.5/3:51.5) and girls under 4:50 (or 4:48.3/4:28.5).

Year Boys Girls

2013 33 31

2012 25 33

2011 22 39

2010 21 25

2009 18 16

2008 11 11

2007 22 16

2006 12

2005 9

2004 12 18

2003 15 5

2002 7 4

2001 8 7

2000 14 4

1999 6 6

1998 6 2

1997 7 3

1996 3 3

1995 6 5

1994 3 6

1993 2 1

1992 6 1

1991 3 1

1990 7 2

1989 5 4

1988 7 1

1987 6 5

1986 8 6

1985 8 13

1984 6 8

1983 12 17

1982 14 16

1981 7 12

1980 14 7

1979 15 14

1978 15 11

1977 15 7

1500 METERS

3:33.14 3 Leo Manzano unat Jul 06 Paris DL

3:33.23 6 David Torrence Nike Sep 08 Rieti IWC

3:33.58 8 Matthew Centrowitz Nike Jul 19 Monaco DL

3:34.00 4 Jordan McNamara Oregon TC Jul 06 Oordegem

3:34.12 5 Garrett Heath Saucony Jul 06 Oordegem

3:34.47 6 Andrew Bayer Indiana Jul 06 Oordegem

3:34.55 10 Lopez Lomong Nike Jul 06 Paris DL

10 Nick Symmonds Oregon TC Jul 19 Monaco DL

3:34.78i 1 Galen Rupp Nike Jan 26 Terrier Cl

3:34.93 7 Cory Leslie Nike Jul 06 Oordegem

3:35.27 8 Will Leer Nike Jul 06 Oordegem

3:35.48 11 Craig Miller New Balance Jul 06 Oordegem

3:35.54 12 Jack Bolas New Balance Jul 06 Oordegem

3:36.34 2f2 Evan Jager Nike May 17 Oxy HP

3:36.36 13 Bernard Lagat Nike Jul 06 Paris DL

3:36.61 2 Matt Elliott Brooks Jul 27 Ninove

3:36.79 3f2 Russell Brown Oregon TC May 17 Oxy HP

3:37.03 1 Ben Blankenship Oregon TC Jul 16 Lignano

3 Andrew Wheating Oregon TC May 17 Oxy HP

3:37.31 16 Liam Boylan-Pett NJNY TC Jul 06 Oordegem

3:37.54 5f2 Jeff See Saucony May 17 Oxy HP

3:38.34 1 Rob Finnerty Wisconsin Jun 15 AMC III

3:38.35 5 Mac Fleet Oregon Jul 01 Jerome Cl

3:38.38 2 Trevor Dunbar unat Jul 05 Victoria

3:38.57 1f2 Ryan Hill NC State Jul 06 Oordegem

3:38.79 2f2 Riley Masters Oklahoma Apr 28 Jordan Inv

3:38.85 2f4 Tony Jordanek Neo TC May 17 Oxy HP

3:38.91 5f3 Brett Johnson unat May 17 Oxy HP

3:39.04 2f2 Andrew Bumbalough Nike Jul 06 Oordegem

3:39.06 5 De'Sean Turner New Balance Jul 16 Lignano

3:39.24 3f4 Duncan Phillips Austin TC May 17 Oxy HP

3:39.27 3f2 Elliott Heath Nike Jul 06 Oordegem

3:39.28 7f3 Dan Huling Nike May 17 Oxy HP

3:39.45 9f3 Chris Derrick Nike May 17 Oxy HP

3:39.57 4f2 Michael Atchoo Stanford Apr 28 Jordan Inv

3:39.72 5f2 Joe Stilin unat Jul 06 Oordegem

3:39.77 5f4 Eric Harasyn Brooks May 17 Oxy HP

3:39.81 3 Mack McLain American Distance Project Jun 15 AMC III

3:39.87 1 Daniel Clark unat Jun 08 AMC I

1f3 Alex Hatz Wisconsin Apr 28 Jordan Inv

3:39.91 2f3 Macklin Chaffee Boulder TC Apr 28 Jordan Inv

Better coaches?

Exactly!

not a sheep wrote:

Let me get this straight. Better drug testing is the reason US runners are running FASTER than ever? And explains the obliteration of our top ten lists?

And thank God the internet is only available here in the US and not the rest of the world.

The answer my friend, is pharmaceuticals. Acknowledge, move on.

agip wrote:

Here's what makes sense to me:

2) Fast indoor tracks. I'd like to see the physics on these things - I run 3 seconds faster for a mile at the Armory than at Icahn. it's like running downhill.

Indoor marks were not used for the comparison, only outdoor marks.

--DFM

old guy 68 wrote:

Maggie Vessey's 1:57:84 at Monaco in 2009 was the fastest time of the year if you disregard Caster Semenya.

Vessey and Willard (Pierce) were the dominate 800M runners in 2009.

I think that opened the flood gates for the 800/1500 American women. I remember reading quotes like, "If Maggie Vessey can do it so can I."

After years of injuries she teamed up with a Santa Cruz coach (Greg Brock) and dropped her PR from 2:03 (I believe) to 1:57:84 over 2-3 years. That had to inspire other women who were hovering just above two minutes.

Vessey also has a doping sanction on her record.....

eldanielfire wrote:

old guy 68 wrote:

Maggie Vessey's 1:57:84 at Monaco in 2009 was the fastest time of the year if you disregard Caster Semenya.

Vessey and Willard (Pierce) were the dominate 800M runners in 2009.

I think that opened the flood gates for the 800/1500 American women. I remember reading quotes like, "If Maggie Vessey can do it so can I."

After years of injuries she teamed up with a Santa Cruz coach (Greg Brock) and dropped her PR from 2:03 (I believe) to 1:57:84 over 2-3 years. That had to inspire other women who were hovering just above two minutes.

Vessey also has a doping sanction on her record.....

Going from 2:03 to 1:57:84 in 3 years in your mid-20s is a major improvement, but not that suspicious. I have seen a number of Russian ladies make that sort of drop in one year.

rojo wrote:

David Monti has written a good piece on this subject:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2014/01/2013-caps-decade-long-turnaround-usa-middle-distance-running/

It sort of shocked me to realize how much faster the US is now than it was 10 years ago. The improvement in depth is amazing.

Ten years ago, Monti says only 6 american men were under 3:40 outdoors. Wow.

-Rojo

PS. I'll post a few thoughts later.

I was about write that the turnaround actually started a decade ago, but I think I am saying the same thing the article says. I agree with everything the writer says are contributing factors to the turnaround, but I would add that the end product is also the fact that better raw materials are coming into the system. The high school male and female top-10 list was practically unchanged from the mid-80s through the 90s, now the top-10 list is dominated by performances from the last 12 years, which a lot of that credit is do to internet sites like Dyestat. Like I said, I think the article makes a lot of good points, but perhaps over credits the pro clubs a bit and discredits the improvements at the grassroots.

after having to view the asinine clean/dirty poll to get to the boards, my guess is rojo wants to see posts that accuse fast runners of doping.

your obsession with slandering virtually any elite with the doper label is embarrassing. Makes you look small....like a small turd.

So are US runners training better or just training...more?

Here's a potential alternative.

The Vietnam War really started escalating in 62, with deployments tripling in 63 and at a peak in 68. Going backwards 17-18 years from when the HS list fell off a cliff (in 84 on the track according to a post above) you end up in 66-67. War ends in '75. 17-18 years after '75 sees arguably the worst 2-3 year period in the history of US running.

Once your running program (at a micro i.e, HS or macro level i.e. nationally) is in the dumps, it takes time to build it back up to what's possible. They say life cycles go in 7-8 year waves and it typically takes that long to build up a solid program. 7-8 years brings us to 2000. Now the HS'ers start running fast again. Meanwhile, post-collegiate guys are still those who were unfortunate enough to go through HS in the 90's so 2003 will obviously not have depth.

2013 is about 6 years after the HS lists started exploding, meaning a lot of those juniors and seniors are now really coming into their prime. Given that 2013 was very deep for US HS'ers one would expect 2019-2020 to be really strong at the post-collegiate level.

The War on Terror started in 2001, meaning that just as the current crop of HS studs hit their prime, those who were born in 2001-2003 will be the juniors and seniors in HS. Will we see another dip in performance? The Vietnam dead (58,209) and wounded (153,303) is substantially higher than the War on Terror's dead (6,717) and (50,897), so my guess is no.

Further...

World War II 1941-1945.

17-18 years after is 1957-58 to 1962-1963.

If the same trend holds true for Vietnam and WWII, we'd expect to see some big talents trickling through around 1962 (17 years after it ended), but only here and there. Then, 7-8 years later (1969-1971) the faucets should be about full-bore until the next crop of kids come through who were conceived/in-the-womb/and or delivered when the next major war was weighing on everyone's psyche.

Note to parents. Don't get pregnant during a war.

South Eugene Rocks wrote:

Note to parents. Don't get pregnant during a war.

What exactly are you suggesting?

That gestation during a time of war reduces one's energetic expression the rest of their life...on average.

I remember Jason Lunn and Mike Stember dominating the 1500 in 3:40's, sit and kick races back in 2003. It was super boring. I prefer seeing guys putting it all out there and running great times.

I also remember reading an interview with Lunn shortly after the 2003 world championships, where he was bragging about closing his last lap in 52-seconds. Well, that's great man, but where were you in the final? I'm glad that mentality is not embraced these days by our top guys.

...really wish we could edit.

Should read 1958-59 to 1962-63, although the underlying theme doesn't change.

This is probably more the sort of reasoning Gladwell could dig.

In looking at US medal counts in the Olympics following wars the main thing that jumped out was...Detroit got shut out in the Olympic bidding wars a while back. All downhill for the motor city after that.

Well, this happened:

http://i.imgur.com/cPwZAxg.jpg

High school seniors in 2004 graduated college in 2009 and are professional runners circa now. Ten years ago, the pro runners were high school runners in the doldrum days of the 90s.

Well, now we at least know there are two people idiotic enough to not understand that culling out dopers from systematically cheating countries will produce favorable opportunities for countries where most competitors (in MD events) are clean, and thereby the talented athletes make the commitment to pursue a pro career and better the depth and breadth of that country's performance lists.And David, faster indoor tracks can affect outdoor times as mentioned previously by providing greater competitive opportunities overall and synergizing program development. Ten years ago, most 800/1500 runners had to wait from June until April to even find out what kind of competitive shape they were in, much less set substantial PRs in the interim.Modern indoor tracks are the U.S. answer to the European circuit, with their deep fields, time emphasis, and perfect, windless conditions.Internet saturation is near 100%, compared to much lower levels throughout the world except for Europe and Japan, where other factors are obviously art work.As for the knee-jerk "pharmaceuticals" response, good luck convincing the rest of us that scores of top HS kids are currently on EPO.

YupYouNailedIt wrote:

Exactly!

not a sheep wrote:

Let me get this straight. Better drug testing is the reason US runners are running FASTER than ever? And explains the obliteration of our top ten lists?

And thank God the internet is only available here in the US and not the rest of the world.

The answer my friend, is pharmaceuticals. Acknowledge, move on.