How Competitive is Distance Running in the 21st Century?

Internetsherlock wrote:

When compared to other non athletic sports where does it stand in terms of competitiveness? Is the sport diluted in such a way that very few make it to the top and the rest gets discouraged because few winner takes it all?

Beauty of running is every(almost) one can do it, and most people either don't have the genetic to run fast, or are lazy to train hard, or take up the sport too late in life.

I'm sure rising obesity levels and the sedentary lifestyle of children of the last couple of generations has a lot to do with it.

Also, the fact that not only is distance running dominated by East Africans, but it's repeatedly stated that this is down to major underlying genetic differences (and it's 'racist' to deny this), probably does deter a new Frank Shorter or Steve Jones from ever even thinking about taking up distance running seriously.

Coevett wrote:

Also, the fact that not only is distance running dominated by East Africans, but it's repeatedly stated that this is down to major underlying genetic differences (and it's 'racist' to deny this), probably does deter a new Frank Shorter or Steve Jones from ever even thinking about taking up distance running seriously.

I cannot agree more on this. I truly believe that some of these studies done on African athletes demoralises a non african runner before even taking up the sport. God knows how accurate are these studies. And the researchers like concluding their studies as if they have solved the ultimate puzzle why East Africans dominates distance running. Its horrendous

Internetsherlock wrote:

So exactly how competitive is it? Got me wondering, apart from East African countries and Japan I get the feeling there are very less serious runners as recreational running seem to be taking over. Most casual runners don't even know who holds the HM/Marathon WR.

When compared to other non athletic sports where does it stand in terms of competitiveness? Is the sport diluted in such a way that very few make it to the top and the rest gets discouraged because few winner takes it all?

The running world is very bottom heavy with rec runners as 30+ years ago you wouldn't see 50,000 average people jogging a marathon off of 20 miles a week of training. So there is way more mediocrity in races relative to the top end. That being said we have about 150 guys who have run under 2:19 since the trials window opened a year and a half ago. A couple under 2:10, once Rupp is healthy again he's a 2:06 guy. When you compare that to 15-25 years back our current crop is way deeper. I think it appears more diluted because at say New York about .1% of the race I would classify as competitive runners.

Overall there haven't been many times in history where if you matched up today's runners against that generation that today's group wouldn't win. But the difference is the US and European countries have not improved at anywhere close to the same rate as the East African countries that dominate the sport. So the US may be faster as a whole but have taken a step back from the heyday on the world stage. Although still much better than 15 years ago when I started running.

I'd say it's more competitive than ever by numbers and depth, but maybe not by percentage of the population. We have the highest populations ever in history right now by a lot. So a 10% decrease in 'serious' runners by population can still yield a larger number of 'serious' runners therefore improving the depth of competitive athletes and having more guys faster than previously considered elite levels.

For example, the number of guys in the world that run under 13:20 for 5k now is WAAAAAAY more than the number of guys that could do it 30-40 years ago. In the 1970's just a handful of guys could run under 13:15-13:20 range, now we had like 5-10 guys do that at Payton Jordan last weekend. And same for marathon, we now have over a hundred guys running under 2:10 in the marathon, go back 20 years and we had like 20 guys that could do that in the world.

Even in the NCAA, look at the 5k indoor this year. The cutoff was 13:41 to go to the NCAA championships, go back 10 years ago and the cutoff is typically around 13:50. Go back 20 years ago and you just have to go under 14 minutes and you've got a shot.

Sure, most normal people don't know the world record holders, but do you know the world record holder for the 100 meter backstroke in swimming? I don't. Who scored the most goals in the Premier League this year? I have no idea. Who won all of the Grand Slam tennis tournaments this year? I have no idea. Who won the Tour de France last year? I have no idea.

Running is still just a second or third tier sport, but the number of super serious fans has never been higher than now, but the percentage of the population that is a super serious fan is still very low.

I would wager it’s more competitive than ever as there is more exposure to more parts of the world than there ever has been. Freedom of information makes it easier to learn training and get coaching that would have been harder to do Mack in the day. Nowadays there are more niches in running...also probably more niche spirts that kids take up younger that keep them from running, but you could say that about any sport.

The East African dominance is due to the following reasons ranked in order of importance:

1) running is an established way to earn a living and elevate your quality of life on those countries.

2) so In turn, those runners work the hardest and most diligently as anyone in the world.

3) doping is rampant, as a result of the desperation to succeed in the sport, and the risk reward factor for the athletes is such that it’s worth it to try cheat so they can make a living. The athletes are the least responsible for this, as compared to the governing bodies of the sport and the people’s circumstances.

4) the runners are to a degree, predisposed to be good runners due to heredity (not genetics) and their lifestyle. They don’t sit around as much as people in other countries. But the idea that they are genetically superior for distance running is wrong, anyone of any ethnic background can be a world level competitor.

Distance running used to be much more of an international sport back in the days of the US/USSR rivalry at the Olympics. Every major country in the Olympics was dedicating resource to developing distance runners back then. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of E. African dominance, distance running has become a much more individualized sport as countries/industry have moved resources away from distance running. Now there are much smaller pockets of elite training groups. As the resources have dwindled and the E. Africans have dominated, the competition within the small pockets of elites has improved significantly even though they are not winning many events.

On the amateur level, the second running boom peaked and is definitely in decline as younger folks are more likely to go for crossfit, tris, yoga and obstacle races. Social media has placed a big emphasis on being muscular and that has taken a lot of people away from distance running as an amateur sport. 15 years ago, I would run a 36 min 10k at a big local race and would not crack the top 25. Now, that same time would get me into the top 10.

Some sports will be gone by then. Unfortunately, football will be the first to disappear. Players will be spoken about in history books like gladiators. By process of elimination, sports like distance running will come to the forefront.

It will be more competitive, but with slower times because the EPO drug cheats are starting to get caught. The 1990-2020 African dominance will be curtailed, which in return will allow European, Asian, or anyone not on drugs to compete.