What happened to the road running scene of old?

old fogie (not really) wrote:

I only started seriously running a year or two ago, but I often hear stories about local 5K road races where the winner would be sub 16 or even 15. I'm sure that was the case where I lived too (confirmed this by looking at some old results). I understand that running became big for a while and there was a bubble, that burst, as can be seen in the decline from 2 or 3 races a weekend to 2 or 3 a month (if you're lucky) but what happened to it now? I've won road races with $50-$250 dollar prizes with a 17:xx.

What happened to all the fast guys?

They all cost at least $30 to $50 to enter, supposedly to charge you for the support of a charity you never heard of, and they can't afford it. But hey, everyone's a winner.

Bingo.

Too expensive.

In the eighties there were fewer races and the race directors gave out free entries. If you placed top 5 the year before you could get a bib in the mail for the next year. Races were run as a race and not for charity. Running stores also had more teams were they would pay your entry.

Today you would be hard pressed to get a free entry so it could cost you 40 bucks to win a gift certificate worth 50 bucks.

Track meets for 14-15 minute guys are packed. Road races, not so much.

The sub-elite category -- those fast older times you refer to -- has pretty much disappeared. In the old days, runners, even though they were not as talented as elite runners, would still try to run as fast as they could. Mileage, intervals, long runs. Nowadays, the emphasis has shifted to participation, not running fast. Runners don't train like they used to since the goal is merely to finish without too much distress.

Greedy race directors don't offer decent prize money anymore. More money for them to keep. Sub elites don't waste effort and their time if no money available.

It’s a variety of factors, most already mentioned. We’ve been over this before.

In my experience, the scene has changed from even 15 years ago when I was road racing during the off season in high school. First of all, there were less races, so there was a higher probability of fast guys showing up at the race. There probably was only 1 or 2 decent, big races a month in my area, and now you can expect at least a couple races each weekend, which dilutes the talent pool. Next, you have the emphasis on participation, fun, just finishing. It’s now an experience, not a race or competition. And finally, race directors do a crap job half of the time. Showing up to an open track meet often is better than whatever nonsense they are putting on.

Oh yea, and they are too much money. Myself, I am often turned off by the cost and lack of organization. If I have to pay $30+ for a race, I will only show up if there is a chance of prize money or good competition.

Races aren't inexpensive to put on. I was RD for 1 race and swore I'd never do that again. The cost for traffic management alone sucked up almost all the money we made.

NotPC wrote:

Races aren't inexpensive to put on. I was RD for 1 race and swore I'd never do that again. The cost for traffic management alone sucked up almost all the money we made.

I suspect this is also why I've seen more races moving off of streets and onto bike paths or into parks. Nothing wrong with running in those places, but it reduces the variety of courses and the number of spectators, and it makes the Big City Event more like a run through back corners of the city's parks and bike paths, with little or no view of the city itself.

As a previous poster said, if it's a road race, the municipalities (in most areas) make it almost impossible to keep costs down. Many smaller races, even 5ks require police at intersections (all done at OT rate, of course).

The road racing scene was basically "new" in the 70s and early 80s, and all new things are exciting. There was that so-called running boom happening then, and races were just the thing to do. Costs were low, innovations in shoes and apparel were developing quickly, and we had personable US role models who were competitive on the world level, as well as a belief by the younger set that simply work would make them top competitors, too. The 84 Olympics in LA were right around the corner, excitement in the air. All raced frequently and hard, always taking the chance to show what they had.

Then costs increased. Insurance got in the way. The novelty wore off. There was more and more to do that wasn't running. It just wasn't extreme any more, or exclusive any more. Nobody young gets involved in RD at this point, races are too established. All switched to pricey fundraiser schemes to make it worth the effort.

A lot of really good replies. More races, too expensive are the main factors, I think.

When I was younger, fast runners would come from as far as 2 hours away just to get a race knowing there'd be competition.

Not so much anymore because they can stay close to home.

Expense- yes, through the roof.

Those who are competitive seek out the better races that are accurate, well run, and focus on competition. The remaining races (most of them) that are fund raisers are usually inaccurate end up with pitiful fields. It has become a way for people to post some garbage on Facebook, etc. and say the "Crushed! a 10K" or whatever and think they are way better runners than they are. The competitive races are still out there, you just have to seek them out through a sea of garbage races.

Paraphrasing a running buddy, "Running [in the 1970s] was our generation's X Games."

First running boom was partly rebellion against the strictures of ball-and-stick sports, and partly-- as much as I hate to admit-- fitness fad. You had a lot of people putting in the volume and intensity, but still steeped in earlier generations' values of showing up and doing your best. Baseline fitness of the country was overall better (despite higher smoking rates).

old fogie (not really) wrote:

I only started seriously running a year or two ago, but I often hear stories about local 5K road races where the winner would be sub 16 or even 15. I'm sure that was the case where I lived too (confirmed this by looking at some old results). I understand that running became big for a while and there was a bubble, that burst, as can be seen in the decline from 2 or 3 races a weekend to 2 or 3 a month (if you're lucky) but what happened to it now? I've won road races with $50-$250 dollar prizes with a 17:xx.

What happened to all the fast guys?

I do not believe you’ve won a $250 race with a 17+ time. Decent runners show up for that.

If you did you are either a woman or it’s a miracle.

Well, back in the late 70's and early 80's in New England there were lot's of races. Many of them were around for 30+ years even back then, the road racing scene was huge and the quality was much higher even in the smallest races.

The Freedom Trail is gone, the Milk Run is gone, the Diet Pepsi series is gone, Falmouth lacks the depth, Stowe 8 mile is a fun run now. Charles surplus 10 mile in Worcester is gone, the Holyoke St. Patty's race is gone, many others have gone.

Now there are participation runs, competition is weak, a whole different scene now.

Same for the DC area in the 80's, Bacardi Rum run gone, Fritz's 10k gone, Clydes American 10k gone, Georgetown 10k gone, still have Cherry Blossom and the Army 10 miler, but everything else is participation.

Amen to that. For a year or two in mid 80s the Boston Marathon was the second best race in the Back Bay. The depth was amazing. 50th place was 31 minutes and change. Over 500 people under 36 minutes.

Nowadays, at least here in Chicago area, there are a handful event operators that get a forest preserve permit , slap a cone 1.55 miles down the path, charge you $60 on race day, and give you some swag. ( Jesus, I hate that word). They also make a promise to support some charity but are evasive as to how much money goes to the charity after 'event management fee'. It is a good business model. At some point maybe local government will ask why same groups need permits 15 times a year for what are essentially businesses operating solely for profit.

The top runners are better and I think depth in hs and college is also better but the 29:30 to 35 minute crowd doesn't exist among post college age runners.

These days, it seems like kids coming out of college believe, or are told, that if they aren't fast enough to go pro (broadly defined), then they should quit running. So you don't see the 15/31-32 runners anymore.