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

Whatever, I love how you guys that did not even exist yet during that time period feel the need to come on here and tell those who were competing back then about what it was like.

There are a lot of inaccurate courses out there now. I'm in RI. Just about all of the 5k's on the CT border are short. Everyone knows it. There is a 10k in Newport that has been short for the 20+ years it has been in existence. We all know about that one also.

The TAC courses were accurately measured where I grew up in Connecticut. Believe it or not the system that was used to measure courses was very similar to what is done today. I never ran in a road race unless it was certified. The sub elite field was way deeper on the men's side in the 80's then it is now. We had a lot of races around in Fairfield County in the late 80's.

We also had elite runners like Eamonn Coghlan, Andy Ronan, Bill Rogers, Bob Hodge, John Gregorek, John Treacy, etc. show up for road races and use them for training runs. Like Treacy a lot of the guys from PC would do that around southern New England.

Most of the courses in the Bay Area were certified in the 70's and 80's. That's a fact. I don't know anyone from the time who keeps claiming faster PR's. That's also a fact. Face it...even us mediocre runners trained hard and reaped the results. We maxed out our potential. I worked my ass off to break 60 minutes for 10 miles. I know I was a mediocre runner then, but my times would put me in the top 3-4% of most of today's races. That's a fact. It's called a work ethic. Just because you're not willing to put in the work don't try to diminish the effort we were willing to endure IN THE OLDEN DAYS.

old guy 72 wrote:

I worked my ass off to break 60 minutes for 10 miles. I know I was a mediocre runner then, but my times would put me in the top 3-4% of most of today's races. That's a fact. It's called a work ethic. Just because you're not willing to put in the work don't try to diminish the effort we were willing to endure IN THE OLDEN DAYS.

Theory: Being 200th out of 500 or 200th out of 10,000 is pretty much the same. The fact that 1000’s of people now do races non-competitively doesn’t change the performance of of those who compete.

I always wish that these people who come on and say courses were short decades ago had some examples to back that. Of course there were short courses then. There are now as well. And mismeasurement goes both ways. The London Marathon was originally called the Highgate Marathon and was 29 miles long in its first year. On the other hand, the Choysa Marathon in Auckland was a shade over 23 miles. But mistakes were corrected quickly. And there are courses today which have been run for decades so you can compare results even if the course isn't accurate. In those cases the times usually are much slower now than then.

To assume that all road courses were short or long back in the 70's and 80's is still incorrect. Some were and some weren't. The ability to measure courses is much better now and that helps a lot.

I'll give you short courses.

What about the best-ever mile time at my high school? I'm still the second fastest, after 30+ years. The track hasn't changed, sorry to say.

What about the "four mile" out and back from the baseball backstop to the railroad tracks? I ran it faster than anyone since.

My time at state XC would have won several years since. It's the same course!

The "5K" in my hometown? Same course. I still have a top-ten time; six of them were from the early 80s. Go figure!

If it wasn't on the track, sorry. "Same course," is too subjective.

Also, what have you done lately?

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.[/quote]

I hate to tell you but, yes, collectively they actually were faster in the 70s/early 80s than they are now. It's a socio-economic issue. However, it doesn't mean that collectively today's runners couldn't be as fast as the 70s/80s they just aren't.

How is "Same course" subjective at all?

HRE wrote:

How is "Same course" subjective at all?

Yeah. Rural highway. Nothing built beyond the park I mentioned, no re-alignment, highway turnaround hasn't moved somehow. Paint on the road is the same it's been forever. It's an out and back everyone knows about. Runners use it. Cyclists use it. Guys drive their cars fast on it.

Somehow it's 6.5 miles one way, no matter what device I use. There are no turns to navigate.

And this idiot is convinced everyone now is faster than everyone ever was.

nostalgia is not what is used to be wrote:

FFF wrote:

I'll give you short courses.

What about the best-ever mile time at my high school? I'm still the second fastest, after 30+ years. The track hasn't changed, sorry to say.

What about the "four mile" out and back from the baseball backstop to the railroad tracks? I ran it faster than anyone since.

My time at state XC would have won several years since. It's the same course!

The "5K" in my hometown? Same course. I still have a top-ten time; six of them were from the early 80s. Go figure!

If it wasn't on the track, sorry. "Same course," is too subjective.

Also, what have you done lately?

I finished second in a 5K. There were more than 400 'competing.' I ran over 21 minutes. And was second. Blazing fast, if I do say so myself.