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

^This is a bunch of Boomer BS propaganda. If Boomers had actually been paying attention to running the country, instead of running 100 miles per week to get 30th in some meaningless, no-name road race then we wouldn't be in the mess we now are as a country. They also wouldn't all be on their 3rd and 4th marriages if they had a little less running and a little more balance in their lives.

Boomers are a worthless generation that has done nothing but destroy this country and continually take credit for things they did not do. They have run BOTH political parties into the ground and are responsible for running the economy into the ground and creating a mountain of debt by consistently voting for generous entitlements for themselves while simultaneously refusing to pay (i.e. Raise taxes) for those entitlements.

They claim they have benefited us all by giving us cultural gifts--by starting movements that gave us fast running times, equal rights for blacks, women, gay folks, by giving us modern music (like rock & roll) through their pioneering efforts, by giving us modern computer science, and through things like iconic movies.

But a closer look at these claims reveals their lies. As a starting point, please take note that it is widely agreed that Boomers were born 1946-1964. This means that the oldest members of this generation turned 30 in 1976 and, thus, they have been running the show (...or they should've been instead of running 100 miles per week) in the US since the mid to late 1970s.

The major civil rights leaders for black equal rights in the 60s (Martin Luther King, Jr., Medger Evers, Rosa Parks, Ceaser Chavez, Fred Shuttlesworth, Jon Lewis, Malcom X, and many more) were all born in the 20s to early 40s. But you know who is a boomer? Al Sharpton.

The major players in the second wave feminist movement (Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Mary King, Alice Rossi) of the 60s were all born in 20s - early 40s as well. Of course, this means the women who fought for basic equal rights (like the right to vote) were even older. These brave women were not boomers. But Boomers are the leaders of the disgusting mess that is third wave feminism...

The folks that were the pioneers in equal rights for gay people (Harvey Milk, Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon) also not Boomers.

Who is widely acknowledged to be the father of modern computer science? Alan Turing. A gay non-Boomer.

Let's examine the music claims...Jimmi Hendrix? ‪Jim Morrison‬? ‪The Beatles‬? ‪The Rolling Stones‬? ‪Bob Dylan‬? Yup, all non-Boomers.

How about movies, directors, actors, etc?... Stanley Kubrick? Harrison Ford? George Lucas? Robert De Niro? Al Pacino? Robert Duval? Martin Scorsese? Clint Eastwood? George Romero? Francis Ford Coppala? Chevy Chase? Steve Martin? J.J. Abrams? The entire Monty Python crew? Yup, all non-boomers.

To summarize, Boomers frequently claim that their generation was responsible for major cultural and art movements but it's totally not true. Boomers are parasites and leeches....and I am assume some are good people. We should build a wall on our southern boarder, strip the boomers of their ill-gotten entitlements, and ship them down to old Mexico. All of our problems would be solved. Let's make America great again!

runn wrote:

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?

The thing about our system is that market forces really dictate what happens. You see threads here complaining about colleges that have successful programs and recruit foreign athletes because those places are denying opportunities for US kids to get scholarships and to develop US born distance runners. But I never criticize those programs because I doubt there's a college coach in the country whose contract lists developing US born runners as part of the job. There may however, be clauses there about getting to nationals, winning conference championships, etc., though. So if foreigners will do that for the school that's what's going to happen.

Similarly, when road racing became professionalized there was an idea that it would help US runners stay in the sport by letting them win prize money. But most race directors are primarily concerned with attracting entrants from the masses, not with helping developing talent stay in the sport (with notable exceptions, note the post following yours) and the masses are not likely to be more inclined to enter a race just because the winners can make a few hundred, or even a few thousand dollars. If that race in Altoona. Pa. from all those years ago was going to spend, say $5000 to attract attention and more entrants, it probably could do that better by bringing in a big name to run. Maybe doing something else with that money would have been more beneficial to developing the sport overall but that wasn't his job.

Like you, I don't know if I like that or not. Rodgers certainly "earned" that sort of treatment given his career and affect on the sport. But it also would have been good if some guy who'd just graduated from Penn State and was looking for a way to support himself in the sport could have driven down the road for a little while, run the race of his life to that point, and come away with rent money for the next three months.

Thank you, Governor Cuomo.

Boomers=THE problem in the USA

^This is a bunch of Boomer BS propaganda. If Boomers had actually been paying attention to running the country, instead of running 100 miles per week to get 30th in some meaningless, no-name road race then we wouldn't be in the mess we now are as a country. They also wouldn't all be on their 3rd and 4th marriages if they had a little less running and a little more balance in their lives.

Boomers are a worthless generation that has done nothing but destroy this country and continually take credit for things they did not do. They have run BOTH political parties into the ground and are responsible for running the economy into the ground and creating a mountain of debt by consistently voting for generous entitlements for themselves while simultaneously refusing to pay (i.e. Raise taxes) for those entitlements.

They claim they have benefited us all by giving us cultural gifts--by starting movements that gave us fast running times, equal rights for blacks, women, gay folks, by giving us modern music (like rock & roll) through their pioneering efforts, by giving us modern computer science, and through things like iconic movies.

But a closer look at these claims reveals their lies. As a starting point, please take note that it is widely agreed that Boomers were born 1946-1964. This means that the oldest members of this generation turned 30 in 1976 and, thus, they have been running the show (...or they should've been instead of running 100 miles per week) in the US since the mid to late 1970s.

The major civil rights leaders for black equal rights in the 60s (Martin Luther King, Jr., Medger Evers, Rosa Parks, Ceaser Chavez, Fred Shuttlesworth, Jon Lewis, Malcom X, and many more) were all born in the 20s to early 40s. But you know who is a boomer? Al Sharpton.

The major players in the second wave feminist movement (Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Mary King, Alice Rossi) of the 60s were all born in 20s - early 40s as well. Of course, this means the women who fought for basic equal rights (like the right to vote) were even older. These brave women were not boomers. But Boomers are the leaders of the disgusting mess that is third wave feminism...

The folks that were the pioneers in equal rights for gay people (Harvey Milk, Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon) also not Boomers.

Who is widely acknowledged to be the father of modern computer science? Alan Turing. A gay non-Boomer.

Let's examine the music claims...Jimmi Hendrix? ‪Jim Morrison‬? ‪The Beatles‬? ‪The Rolling Stones‬? ‪Bob Dylan‬? Yup, all non-Boomers.

How about movies, directors, actors, etc?... Stanley Kubrick? Harrison Ford? George Lucas? Robert De Niro? Al Pacino? Robert Duval? Martin Scorsese? Clint Eastwood? George Romero? Francis Ford Coppala? Chevy Chase? Steve Martin? J.J. Abrams? The entire Monty Python crew? Yup, all non-boomers.

To summarize, Boomers frequently claim that their generation was responsible for major cultural and art movements but it's totally not true. Boomers are parasites and leeches....and I am assume some are good people. We should build a wall on our southern boarder, strip the boomers of their ill-gotten entitlements, and ship them down to old Mexico. All of our problems would be solved. Let's make America great again!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

May be true, but we invented the skateboard and frisbee.

Ahh! The Dog Bowls

So this totally useless, undisciplined, parasitic generation would be inclined to run 100 mile weeks?

Boomers created the World Wide Web. And iPhones. Name the thing post-Boomer that can compete with either of those two things.

A curious cat wrote:

You answered your own question. Running was still a niche sport that attracted only the best (no hobby joggers or pseudo Instragram fitness models trying to 'flex' for the gram). It was raw, authentic. There was still excitement due to its newness. People thought runners were weird and it was a big curiosity. Now everything has become diluted and the emphasis is on participation trophies and 'swag' rather than the feat of running itself.

Nailed it. I was looking for a local fall 1/2-marathon, and one really amps up the Old West/cowboy theme-- star-badge finishing medals, Western plaid shirts instead of a more simple one, and-- I kid you not-- a stated attempt to break the fastest 1/2-marathon riding hobby horses (which you can indicate on your entry). Guess Clydesdale/Athena divisions are passe. And $70 US for registration 6 weeks from race day.

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.

If you added up all of the fast times in all of the races is it less? I doubt it. I think now there are more races and more runners in total, but the total number of fast times is probably greater. I'm just speculating. There are just more casual/fun/walker/hobby joggers entering "races" now that did not exist before. That doesn't mean there are fewer, in total, legit racers.

runguru wrote:

I've got 35 years race management experience, local to USA Olympic Trials. Chaired WLDR National Champs from '02-09. Founded a USATF Elite Development club (Team Nebraska) and an even better one (Run Guru Elite, Inc.) Have seen much to keep me inspired to fight the good fight. Trying something new April 27, 2019. Designed the Flattest Closed Road Marathon (21' elevation) in the World, the Valley 7 Lakes Marathon. We've set a 10 min/mile limit for all entrants. You've got to run 4:22 or hop in the equally flat half or our Ekiden Style Marathon Road Relay (5K-10K-5K-10K-12K). Prize money and cash bonuses for those that hit the Trials A Standard. Trying to bring back some of the excitement, trying to do something special in Nebraska.

runguru:

You recall the 10K at Westroads, the United Sporting Goods one? That always pulled a fast crowd.

The Amoco 15K on Abbott Drive? That was a barn burner.

The time Pat Porter won the race from Westroads to Elmwood Park? Has anything like that happened since?

this and this wrote:

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,

Back in the day, there were lot's of races in the New England area every weekend, there might be more running events now, but lets not say the quality id diluted these days. There are just less serious runners these days. More folks out there looking to pay for a finishers medal.

The quality of races in the late 70's and early 80's was far superior to the races of today, it is not even close. Just look at Falmouth for example this year, good top 10 then it falls off a cliff, no depth at all, embarrassing.

We have a local 20K- VERY hilly, people regularly run faster for half marathons than they do on this course.

My best time was 1:16 and I was no where near the winner (80's/early 90's).

When I tell people what I ran on the course they think I'm some kind of stud (lol).

Now, I would be top 2 or 3 easy.

One reason- there are more races so the talent is spread out but most people are Facebook Rock Stars just for finishing any race and people equate longer with better.

runn wrote:

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?

Bringing out Boston Billy and trotting him around at a road race event is going to give the event legitimacy until you have fast competitive times at that event. Bill is 70 years old now but despite that he is still a draw to the many that remember him in his glory days.

Boston Billy wrote:

runn wrote:

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?

Bringing out Boston Billy and trotting him around at a road race event is going to give the event legitimacy until you have fast competitive times at that event. Bill is 70 years old now but despite that he is still a draw to the many that remember him in his glory days.

Maybe. But I don't know that having Ken Misner and Jeff Galloway slugging it out for a couple grand would have been as big a draw as BR was. No matter, there were more people in the sport who you could call "names."

1. Courses were less accurate back then. They just were, despite the protests you will get here.

2. The talent is similar now there are just a lot more races to spread the talent across.

3. It is harder to verify results from back then, so a lot of older runners get faster every time they tell the story of their best races. The older they get the faster they were.

Same exact half marathon, run every year since 1977, same exact course. It's an out-back on a straight highway, that's been unchanged, with a turnaround at 6.5 miles, and a finish in a park right off the road. The turnaround is at the intersection of another highway, it's pretty obviously the same course. I've GPS's it, as others certainly have.

I ran it several times in high school in the early 80s, and finished top ten twice. The slowest of those top ten times would have won this same race every year since 1989.

Also, Falmouth.

nostalgia is not what is used to be wrote:

1. Courses were less accurate back then. They just were, despite the protests you will get here.

2. The talent is similar now there are just a lot more races to spread the talent across.

3. It is harder to verify results from back then, so a lot of older runners get faster every time they tell the story of their best races. The older they get the faster they were.

Maybe there were less accurate courses, still are today. But, there were some that were long believe it or not.

The talent is similar, just less post collegiate types running seriously, less mileage, less intensity, less competitive racing. It is about finishing these days, that is it.

Someone mentioned ziggy, the one armed guy from Mass. back in the day, he was pretty old when I saw him at races, not to mention the one arm thing, but he ran as hard as he could, that was what people did at races, there were no finisher medals and no one showed up with that mentality. I look at race results every weekend still, and the results are slow almost everywhere. There is a race I ran on the 4th of July near baltimore back in the 80's, won it one year in 31:17,the next year was 2nd to Spence in about the same time, this year it was 34:xx. There was a pretty hot road scene in the Balt/wash. area back then, midnight race in Westminster,MD where the top 10 were sub 15:00, hard to find 10 sub 15:00 performance in a year around here now, let alone one race.

Someone mentioned Falmouth, I finished 30th in 34:06 back in the day, was a hot and humid day as well, this year that is top 15 and the weather this year was cool. It is different, not for the better.

FFF- That was before my time, I arrived in Omaha 2001. There is a lot of history of excellence in Omaha from that era. I put on the Omaha Mile in '07 & '08 and brought national level talent in. Granted a downhill course but three sub 4 miles run on it. Put the 2012 USA Club Track & Field Champs on at Burke Stadium, Lalonde Gordon stunned the locals on his way to a Bronze in London that year. I'm hoping that our Valley 7 Lakes Marathon draws in a good number of athletes trying to get their Trials Qualifiers. Working hard on big prize purse and bonuses for those that do.

You guys just keep those rose colored glasses on.

- A lot of courses were short. Even the same courses are not the same. There is a run nearby that has been run for 40 years, the start used to be 500 meters up the road, but all the records are shown with the same race distance.

- In addition to the exponential number of additional races spreading out the talent, college and even high school kids rarely run road races anymore. Most kids hang up their running shoes after college now.

- Now days you can check strava or gps to see courses were short. Back then it was just called a pr. You still see this all the time with kids claiming short XC courses as prs, but the track times never match up.

I run in to guys all the time telling me bs prs, which are easy to check now as fake news. Same thing with guys telling me about some race in the 80s you know are full of it, but it is not as easy way to call them on it. Next time you hear the same story they somehow are even faster.