Why did road races feel like such a big deal in the 70s and 80s?

oregon oldtimer wrote:

I really enjoy these nostalgic threads. However, I that it confirms that I'm actually old.

I always considered the quality of a race as not what happens at the top 1% but the top 10% (probably because I was always a wannabe top-10%er). A few elites showing up and running 28 is great but what happens after that? Today the top 1% in the big races is still fantastic; however, the depth is amazingly deficient. I recall an early 80's 15K race in Tampa that had me pumped up because I actually cracked the top-100.

Every sport has its "era" and all of us"old-timers" that got to experience road running in the late 70's - early 80's were tremendously blessed to be a part of it. We didn't just get to be a part of it, we actually made it what it was. This was something very very special that the "young'uns" of today will only get to hear about but never experience. We were blessed to be born at that right time.

My kids getting an I-phone...great. Me getting 99th place at the Gasparilla Distance Classic 15K and outkicking Grete Waitz...PRICELESS!!!

Press on, all you old-timers!

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think you nailed it. My goal, besides setting a PR, was to finish in the top 10-15% of the field. My modest times in the late 70's-early 80's would WIN many of today's races. I miss those days. God! I really am old. I sound like my grandfather.

My first race was Thanksgiving 1983, so can't really comment on what it was like during the first running boom of the 70's. But I raced a ton 1983-1993 (25-50+ races/year) and less 1994-1998 but still 8-10 races a year those years so I'll give you my take from when I was active racing compared to today. These days I produce road races...

I wouldn't describe the feeling in those years as a "big dang deal", but it definitely was different than now in a big way. Average finish times were certainly a lot faster then, that change seemed to take place in the early-mid 1990's where I live. The fast local guys raced, on average, a whole lot more than they do now. Same with the 2nd and 3rd tier locals, guys more in my range (I was 3rd tier local at best!). Fast women weren't unheard of, but I would say women's depth up front is deeper now, at least where I live. When I look at local results, the real top end open guys I see in a few results a year. It's almost like "oh look, so and so raced this week" and that's noteworthy. BITD it seemed like I saw those guys every week at a local race.

Part of that is of course the entry fees. 1987-1988, first year and a half I was out of college, I did about 65 races (running, Nordic, bike races, even a couple tri's in 1988), and I don't think I spent $300 total on entry fees. Boston Marathon was expensive (haha), I think it cost $18 and you had to buy a TAC membership for $12. Club races were $2-$5, maybe a couple were $8-$10. The local tri's I did were only about $25. Today the club races are still there (and inexpensive where I live), but the "regular old road races" are all $25 and up. I'd have trouble justifying $1000/year to race as much as I used to.

Here's another pricing example... A local XC ski area has had a summer XC racing series for about 20-25 years. Very informal, no big party at the finish just show up, race, head home. This started out as I think $2. This summer they're $12/week. The funny thing is, when they started they were getting 30-50 people/week. This summer they seem to be down a little in numbers, 175-200 most weeks, but most recent years they've been 225-250 every week.

Another thing I saw change was BITD there were a handful of local races that sort of "owned" their spot on the local/State calendar and nobody else put on a race the same day. Or maybe it was just that we didn't have the google to look up what races were happening and we all knew the races that were going to have good competition and be run decently so that's where we showed up. Today you still get that, around here, to a degree. But other weekends there will be 5-6 races happening (small city, ~40K people). When that happens it seems like the quicker locals end up at different races and the competition is greatly watered down.

Depth of competition is probably the thing that is most noticeable to me now, but fast times are still fast times. There are a few local races that are mostly the same now as when I was racing. Stowe 8 Miler is an example. They moved the start/finish, but it's the same loop. My best time on that course was just over 48 minutes, and that got me barely midpack. Late 1980's, decent size field. This year, I think a slightly bigger number of finishers (496), but 48:10 would have gotten 7th overall. Same with the local 5k's, I was pretty consistently mid to high 17's and usually well back in the results. Winning times today are often not that far off what they used to be, but the times I was running would be way up there now.

While I think it's great that more slower people are willing to come out to races now, I do miss what races used to be. Overall, to have people taking part in races even if they're running super slow or walking, I can't help but think that's good from a fitness and motivational standpoint.

Thanks for saying what I was thinking - the AAU back then controlled the races (you had to go through them to stage one and the athletes were required to be AAU members - with a valid paper card - so the AAU decided what races were 'allowed'.

I remember in Western Mass the local AAU 'officials' were two fat brothers who decided everything. Most of the time the races started when the officials like them felt like it. Like at noon or 1-2 PM in the middle of the summer. Then as the 'jogging' craze caught on, inexperienced people started entering and ended up with heat stroke (up to, and including, dying).

No water stations (maybe some homeowner with a hose was about it). In fact, Boston didn't start having water stations until like 1977 or 78. After a winner complained, and was roundly beaten up for it by the 'press', they started reluctantly putting water out.

Yup, you saw the same folks in races. I remember the one arm guy (was it 'Ziggy'?), a guy who ran barefoot (a doctor if I remember correctly). I remember running against Dick Weeks, Scotto, etc. Old vet runners.

Now you'd win more local US 5k road races than you'd lose in the US with that 15:40ish first half.

Also remember doing a no-prizes 5 miler on a Wednesday night in the middle of track season (having done a 3000m s/c on the Saturday). That was won in well under 25 min, and I think I was about 25:40 for fifth.

I also remember being one of the slowest guys on our team for the short stage in the Southern Road 12 man relay with 14:38 for something like 3 miles and 80 yards, and we ended up about 12th.

So basically no fun runs to win in 17:30 or even 16:30, and a 53 min 10 miler would see you about halfway done the field.[/quote]

Let's step back to reality really quick. A 53 min. 10 miler is 5:18 pace. Show me a non-sanctioned, non-championship, Mom and Pop road race where you could run 53 min for 10 miles and get mid-pack?!?!?!? BS. That's a big stretch to say the least, no matter what era you ran in. The 80s weren't that cool. This thread is getting slightly out of hand.

Powered by Plutus ads wrote:

I know the obvious answer to this is my age, but it really felt like road races in the late 1970s and the first few years of the 80s were this big dang deals, compared to now.

Then: Fields of 1,000 for big races all over, fast times to win, fast times all over. Not walking was a thing.

Now: Fields of 1,000 are small. Times are slow, and depth is non-existent. Probably half are walking, some arm-in-arm.

SMH. This isn't the 80s anymore and not everyone in the 80s was elite. That is absurd. This whole thread got out of wack real quick. Fast times in 70s/80s likely exaggerated due to improperly measured courses and bad timing systems. Running today is dying because people don't want to pay to watch it on a large enough scale, not because of hobby joggers and run/walkers. This is very simple economics.

Sons of Squires wrote:

I expressed that on Page 1, amigo.

Sorry, I forgot to go back and scan each and every post to see what a particular nameless poster

wrote about how many 5K's were run 40-50 years ago. I am aware that most others hang on each

and every post you produce but my attention span wanes. You must be a treat at get-togethers.

Opinionated guy wrote:

Sons of Squires wrote:

I expressed that on Page 1, amigo.

Sorry, I forgot to go back and scan each and every post to see what a particular nameless poster

wrote about how many 5K's were run 40-50 years ago. I am aware that most others hang on each

and every post you produce but my attention span wanes. You must be a treat at get-togethers.

I am. Cheer up, baby cakes.

Wussification of america, thats why. Everyone needs a medal and a feel good award with a selfie instead of racing to compete. It's no longer road RACING, but sadly road RUNNING. In the region I grew up in, I recall many a local 5k where there were 10 guys under 15 flat. Now it's 16 high to 17 unless a bus load of C team kenyans show

Ehhhh, Exaggerated wrote:

Now you'd win more local US 5k road races than you'd lose in the US with that 15:40ish first half.

Also remember doing a no-prizes 5 miler on a Wednesday night in the middle of track season (having done a 3000m s/c on the Saturday). That was won in well under 25 min, and I think I was about 25:40 for fifth.

I also remember being one of the slowest guys on our team for the short stage in the Southern Road 12 man relay with 14:38 for something like 3 miles and 80 yards, and we ended up about 12th.

So basically no fun runs to win in 17:30 or even 16:30, and a 53 min 10 miler would see you about halfway done the field.

Let's step back to reality really quick. A 53 min. 10 miler is 5:18 pace. Show me a non-sanctioned, non-championship, Mom and Pop road race where you could run 53 min for 10 miles and get mid-pack?!?!?!? BS. That's a big stretch to say the least, no matter what era you ran in. The 80s weren't that cool. This thread is getting slightly out of hand.[/quote]

I've got the results from newspapers from probably 50 races I ran 1977-1985, course maps for 15-20 races, GPS today, and many of those courses are still used by today's races. I mean, Seven Mile Bridge in Florida was, and still is, seven miles long. "Legit" times or not, the fact remains that times are slower unless an East African is there. I won't narrow down the race I already mentioned, but my best time there would have won it by five minutes this year, and I was minutes back when I ran my fastest.

I never won my hometown July 4 5K. My fastest time from the 80s would have won it 24 of the past 25 years.

Also, back then the MENTALITY was different. Even if people weren't world or even national-class, people tried to run fast and trained like world and national-class runners. There was big sub-elite presence which has largely disappeared. Now road races are top and bottom heavy, with elite runners and a large hobby jogger contingent with virtually nothing in between.

I have no idea whether elites should be running 80 miles per week or 130. But the lesson here is that everyone below that goes a hell of a lot faster with 80 than they do with 25.

I've got the results from newspapers from probably 50 races I ran 1977-1985, course maps for 15-20 races, GPS today, and many of those courses are still used by today's races. I mean, Seven Mile Bridge in Florida was, and still is, seven miles long. "Legit" times or not, the fact remains that times are slower unless an East African is there. I won't narrow down the race I already mentioned, but my best time there would have won it by five minutes this year, and I was minutes back when I ran my fastest.

I never won my hometown July 4 5K. My fastest time from the 80s would have won it 24 of the past 25 years.[/quote]

That's fine, and maybe you do. But, the issue here is someone stating that 53 min for a 10 miler would get somebody a mid-pack result in a local, non-championship caliber race. That's an extremely gross exaggeration. People collectively, were not faster in the 80s than they are now.

The average road race then was indeed a bigger deal than the average road race now.

There were fewer races then, so the faster people were concentrated in those few races. On average, then there were

faster times, more competitive at the front, less dilution of talent, more exposure, and more hype among real runners.

Some of the races in the 70's did not have gender or age groups. If you wanted to do well you had to run fast.

Also, I believe most runners who raced then were interested in competition, personal improvement, and chasing PRs. Now the masses are much more interested in participation,

Les wrote:

Also, back then the MENTALITY was different. Even if people weren't world or even national-class, people tried to run fast and trained like world and national-class runners. There was big sub-elite presence which has largely disappeared. Now road races are top and bottom heavy, with elite runners and a large hobby jogger contingent with virtually nothing in between.

Unfortunately I eally don't run anymore (actually I ran 2 miles in 23 minutes lastnight) and admittedly at my best I was mediocre. But yeah I trained like a runner and I was happy to set a PB even if i was 3 minutes slower than the leaders in a 5k. Now people get finisher shirts for corporate challenge races and other events. Many of these runners pride themselves on just finishing, maybe it's not a bad thing at all but yes these races are not the same.

I remember races where the winners received a fresh apple pie for winning.

Luv2Run wrote:

Is there a city in the top 100 in population that does NOT have a marathon? (Seriously, I may start a post for that question).

Tampa/St. Pete.

I ran many of those races in Florida. Did the Gas. 15K in Tampa. Super strong wind, hit a PR in the 10K going out, and then against the wind on the way back. I think 83. Set a 15K PR that day but I was just a sub elite wannabe, so way back in the field.. maybe just sub 50 for the 15K. But we trained and raced like were were elites too.

I also think that $$$ is what ruined the sport. A few examples: 1) results and upcoming races were found in Distance Running News (turned into Runner’s World)- I got a lifetime subscription which I still have for I think for I think $15.00. The other magazine was Long Distance Log- nothing but results. 2) most races were .50 cents- $2.00 and the was no actual entry table. There was a shoe box you put your money in and ran. Many times I didn’t have the .50 cents so I would put in .25 or nothing- next time I would pay it back- the same people put on all the races. 3) awards were donated and first picked, second, etc. at the end you searched for the guy that got what you wanted and tritto trade. 4) in the 60’s T-shirt’s came into vogue. However it was bring a race shirt take a race shirt. 5) I noticed that money came into play when I was paid by marathon A not to run not to run marathon B and marathon B paid me not to run marathon A. I didn’t run either and made more than if I had raced either. Finally the current race shirts make us look like a NASCAR with all of the ads. As always a nice morning read to fuel my morning workout- enjoy your day

I've had similar thoughts about the influence of money into road racing. But I also think that some road races became "big deals" because they brought in a name runner or two and doing so generated a lot of attention and hype. That required a few bucks. I remember there had been a 15 km race in Altoona, Pa. for a few years that no one aside from people running it paid attention to. Then one year they scraped together some money and brought in Bill Rodgers. That created quite a stir and the race became, briefly, a much bigger deal.

I am impressed that you did well financially by not running marathons.

Opinion: There are times today when the sport feels so commercial: i.e. setting up Chicago for Galen to win last year... it was as one poster put it “more raw” and there was less bs... great guys showed up and just ran their guts out, and then had a beer afterward... it felt simpler.

Yes- and, someone like Rupp (Shorter, Rogers, et al) could lose, finish out of the top 5 and not be told to hang them up or that he was through by a bunch of nit wit losers on the internet.