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

Not Sand Dunes that jerk, thankfully wrote:

Simple reason: Back then they were actual races.

+1 Back then people raced. You didn't find this walker mentality.

Sons of Squires wrote:

Comment: Back then, 5Ks were seldom held. Why bother? The shortest road race distances tended to be 5-Milers and 10Ks.

.............and 4 milers on the 4th of July!

Out of all the poignant posts, this one stands out for me. So true. Everybody ran, or tried to run 100 mile weeks, right? All you saw in the running periodicals of the day were profiles on elite men and women; consequently, these were a training source and guide for many of us, and, they showed elite runners logging high miles. So even if everyday runners didn't become super-fast, at least 3-hour marathons were within reach of most just because of sheer mileage. We've all seen the stats of sub-2:30 guys in Boston '80 and '82. (1978 Boston - over 2000 broke 3 hours) People ran faster in the 70s and early 80s because they trained harder. Interesting quote from a Chuck Keating column:

"Don Allison, another marathoner from the 1970s, points out that toughness meant training. 'People [today] don't do the mileage we used to do. When I started in the mid '70s it was accepted you needed to run a high mileage to do the marathon. You did what others around you did. Nowadays, anyone who runs high mileage is looked at as an aberration.' I agree. High mileage to us meant running a minimum of 100 miles a week in training. And if your competition was running 100, you'd try for 105."

Backin the Day wrote:

Not Sand Dunes that jerk, thankfully wrote:

Simple reason: Back then they were actual races.

+1 Back then people raced. You didn't find this walker mentality.

I'd add the 60s too.

The number of fat runners were tiny, and they were working hard to lose the weight and get faster, they weren't there be participants. Some wouldn't race because they were embarrassed.

And speaking of embarrassment, you trained hard and raced hard, no one "ran through" or used an excuse like "I'll do it as a tempo run." You may have backed off if training for a goal race or PR, but a race was never done easy. You had too many competitors looking to beat you.

I recall a few of the Popsicle stick finishes, in fact one of my first races they handed one to me and I was perplexed. Ha!

You look at the times of the older races and the results speak for themselves. It was a great era and T&F was a major sport. Now...mainly a sideshow it seems, i.e. Semenya.

It seemed like we all trained hard. I was a mediocre 36 minute 10K runner that still ran 50-60 mpw (most of my friends ran 80-100 mpw), did track work outs (400,800 or mile repeats) once a week, a 3 mile tempo run on Thursday and a 20 miler on the weekends I wasn't racing. I ran EVERY race looking to PR. If my body could've handled more mileage I would have increased it.

I still push the pace when I run. After having to take 4 months off due to injury I started running two 2 mile tempo runs three times a week. Running 9:30 miles feel just like 5:50 miles used to. I'm surprised at how long 2 miles seem to be these days. Hoping to be up to 8 mile runs by the end of the year. Have to have a goal.

old guy 72 wrote:

It seemed like we all trained hard. I was a mediocre 36 minute 10K runner that still ran 50-60 mpw (most of my friends ran 80-100 mpw), did track work outs (400,800 or mile repeats) once a week, a 3 mile tempo run on Thursday and a 20 miler on the weekends I wasn't racing. I ran EVERY race looking to PR. If my body could've handled more mileage I would have increased it.

I still push the pace when I run. After having to take 4 months off due to injury I started running two 2 mile tempo runs three times a week. Running 9:30 miles feel just like 5:50 miles used to. I'm surprised at how long 2 miles seem to be these days. Hoping to be up to 8 mile runs by the end of the year. Have to have a goal.

Yeah, having the same effort level but feeling those miles stretch out is a drag. And any time off makes it ever harder to get back to where you were. I've run on the track with the lights out and for a while it feels like I have the old speed without having many objects to gauge it by.

Due to surgeries I just started again since April and it is disheartening at times. I'm at 4 miles now, trying not to increase too quickly because the injury train is just around the bend. Oh to be as fast now as I once was on my slow days.

I agree that money has had a positive and negative aspect in our sport. I mostly have/had an issue with appearance money. I remember going to races for a set fee (in many cases we were beat by individuals who won less money than we received for just showing up)- this was mostly foreign athletes- it was the early influx of foreign runners). At the time wasn’t concerned, but in retrospect i should have been. It’s nice heading down memory lane- now I have more “food for thought “ on my afternoon workout.

I've never known exactly what I think about the "appearance money vs. prize money" thing. It seems wrong that if Runner A finishes ahead of Runner B s/he should get more money and if B actually got more because of appearance something is amiss. But in many professional sports your contract is determined by what you did prior to signing it. There will always be baseball players hitting better for less money than older guys are hitting because the older guys hit better in their earlier years and are reaping the rewards.

Baseball players and other team sports aren’t like runners. A long while ago I approached a meet event manager about that issue. Even though it was to my disadvantage I tried to make that arrangement, but instead of it happenings I was no longer invited to that event. From many of my current contacts it has improved with the possible exception of our USA hero’s who receive and I believe deserve some added benefits.

I get where you are coming from. I'm out of shape and ran 24:30 for a 5k (very slow) at a recent race, and still placed 6th! Back in the '90s and early '00s that would have put me mid-pack or worse. When I was in shape in the early '00s and ran mid-18s, I was 21st of 200 at a local race.

I'm from Cleveland, OH, and we had a NERC (Northeast Ohio Running Club) XC series every summer at Penitentiary Glen (nature park in Kirtland, near the Melonheads [google it; it's fascinating]). Only $2, and you'd tie a ribbon w/a safety pin to your shirt and that was it. Popsicle stick finish like the old days. I was not alive in the '70s so I can't comment, but the late '90s and some basic races I've raced in were probably akin to what everyone is talking about here.

Nowadays, 5k$ are all about the fund$ and $pon$or$hip$.

I have an old entry form for the '79 San Francisco Marathon. $5 and you got a t-shirt and refreshments at the finish. But, you did have to wait 6 months for the printed results. The one good thing about today's races is you can look up the results on your computer as soon as you get home. Amazing. The costs of today's races are obscene. Those clunky finisher's medals are ridiculous. I'll grab an age group medal if I finish in the top three and throw it in my shoe box. I don't even know why I do that. I never look at them unless I'm wearing them around my neck at a party.

A lot of good stuff here. The premise that we trained like our heroes resonates best. Have always contended that my times were much faster than innate talent would indicate. Emulating the very best brought out my very best. We ran relatively much more mileage, had fewer distractions, embraced the culture we represented. And while it can be frustrating trying to grasp the current state, there are still a few out there, still a few... It is incumbent upon those of a certain vintage to carry that torch of expectation. To remind, in a sea of entitlement and complacency, that the sport of running, that most basic human expression of individualism, is at its most artistic expression amid competition, the more heated, the more sublime.

This is a great thread- it has given my groups lots to talk about during the morning run.. In this morning’s workout out group had runners from 22-69. With current 5 k ability of 15:30- 24:00. The females in the group 25-39 years old with 18:45- 20:30 times were most vocal and clueless about what the issue was. Only one of them had ever read LR. Most were against the walkers in several races because they volunteer at local races. For example last week there was a 5k with several able bodied individuals who took over 70 minutes.

runguru wrote:

A lot of good stuff here. The premise that we trained like our heroes resonates best. Have always contended that my times were much faster than innate talent would indicate. Emulating the very best brought out my very best. We ran relatively much more mileage, had fewer distractions, embraced the culture we represented. And while it can be frustrating trying to grasp the current state, there are still a few out there, still a few... It is incumbent upon those of a certain vintage to carry that torch of expectation. To remind, in a sea of entitlement and complacency, that the sport of running, that most basic human expression of individualism, is at its most artistic expression amid competition, the more heated, the more sublime.

Not all poetry rhymes.

Well said.

HRE wrote:

I've never known exactly what I think about the "appearance money vs. prize money" thing. It seems wrong that if Runner A finishes ahead of Runner B s/he should get more money and if B actually got more because of appearance something is amiss. But in many professional sports your contract is determined by what you did prior to signing it. There will always be baseball players hitting better for less money than older guys are hitting because the older guys hit better in their earlier years and are reaping the rewards.

I'm torn on the issue. How much appearance money do events like London, Boston, etc pay?

What if all of that was added to the prize money pot?

More runners making more money- it could keep people in the sport.

Maybe expenses only should be the norm,

Tennis used to give appearance and expense money and stopped- a loooooong time ago.

Wrong , not a fact. Maybe for grand slam . The many other ones still pay .

I imagine that if you're a race director with some money to spend you have to consider if particular runners add enough "value" to your race that having them is more beneficial than having a lot of prize money. There was a time when there were road runners who were big enough names that it might have been better to give them big money to come than it is to use that money for prizes if you were looking to promote your race.

HRE, you brought up an aspect I didn’t consider seriously. Many mid-pack runners seek out fast courses to hit pr’s or BO & OT times in the marathon as well as other distances. I know I did and imagine you did as well (in a previous life). Well if you and I currently show up and win at a first time race it won’t instill fast people to come. It may bring in a few who want to win a race by running 3:00, but those individuals won’t boost the race into a bucket or must do race. It is still great to see that at least some of the stars from long ago can still cash in on what they achieved decades ago just like those from other sports.

HRE wrote:

I imagine that if you're a race director with some money to spend you have to consider if particular runners add enough "value" to your race that having them is more beneficial than having a lot of prize money. There was a time when there were road runners who were big enough names that it might have been better to give them big money to come than it is to use that money for prizes if you were looking to promote your race.

And this is why I'm torn on the issue. Having Bill Rogers at your event will draw in people, and certainly, A top marathoner deserves some kind of guarantee for choosing your race. Rogers is not winning any prize money.

But then wouldn't it be great if the younger runners could support themselves while they try to reach the top level?