John Treacy: Majority of Euro distance runners have simply given up "They're being too cautious,"

we were knocking out 110, 120 miles a week, and doing quality as wrote:

"we were knocking out 110, 120 miles a week, and doing quality as part of that. "

http://www.runblogrun.com/2014/12/john-treacy-majority-of-euro-distance-runners-have-simply-given-up-by-cathal-dennehy.html

Yes, because tons of Europeans haven't been smashing times that the other guys used to run. I think he is referencing the marathon and specifically his home country. On the track they have been pretty damn good. Sounds like he is also a little bitter about the African dominance that hadn't quite arrived when he competed.

Currently:

11 under 3:35

22 under 1:46

11 under 13:20

13 under 28:20

Guys are running 3:30, 13:00s, 27:10s. Pretty good for a collection of small to medium sized countries with their own developmental systems in place. Ireland, however, does suck.

That is from 2014 and a lot of today's good runners haven't been around then, like Filip and Jakob Ingebrigtsen.

However, there is some truth to it. I think one reason that many more runners were willing to run very high mileage in the 1970ies and 80ies is, that there was not so much technological entertainment around. Computer and internet were just known by a few nerds and television had about 3 channels to choose from. Smartphones did not exist either.

In that time running the whole day long seemed not so boring like today and was a good alternative to just drinking and smoking every night.

If you lived in a reasonably big city in the 70s there were more than three TV channels. You could not fill up a lot of time on your computer obviously, but you had far less free time than today's pros because you most likely had a job. I think there are three reasons why most runners stopped doing the kinds of miles that many of did in the '70s and '80s.

One was professionalism and its resultant fear of injuries. It sounds counterintuitive, you had all day to run if running was your job. But you couldn't afford not to run. If you're getting decent results, i.e., ones that bring in money, on 90 mpw you may not want to risk 120 plus for fear you'll get hurt and won't be able to race for months. And you could find examples of people running well on fewer miles than the previous generation had done so it was reasonable to think that would work for you.

Another was that the physiologists got involved and said there was no reason to run all those miles. I think it was Dave Martin who said that there was no benefit from running more than 75 mpw. And you had Owen Anderson telling everyone the same thing. That underscored the idea that "less is more," a really common phrase then and that you should train "smarter, not harder."

And then the waves of Kenyans, who were doing the kinds of miles westerners had done in the '60s, '70s, and early to mid '80s came along and won everything. It seemed to me that, as Treacy said, western runners gave up on the idea of winning anything and settled for being the best in their own countries or some such thing.

To you r original point, there are always distractions that can tempt you not to train no matter the era. I had a roommate who was unemployed for a long stretch of time in the mid '70s. He had all day to train and I had a full time job. I'd change right after work and run 10-15 miles. When I'd get back to the apartment afterwards he'd still need to do his run. Somehow he found ways to fill up the entire day.

the money simply isn't there and the gap with other sources of income only widens, so why would you go out and run all day ?

So how come none of those high mileage guys from the 70's earned anything at all from running? Pretty poor reasoning there, IMHO.

Alan55 wrote:

So how come none of those high mileage guys from the 70's earned anything at all from running? Pretty poor reasoning there, IMHO.

Life is much more expensive today in western societies when compared with the 1970s. Just paying for a roof over your head requires at least full-time work in many cases and by both partners if two people in a realtionship are living together and trying to make a start in life. Furthermore, working "full time" today means working longer than just 9 to 5 in many jobs. Basically opting out of the rat race and training like an animal is higher risk to take today than it was in the 1970s. It's sad that society has evolved in this direction but that's the way it is. When Kenya and Ethiopia finally become more developed industrialized nations, their distance running performances will fall through the floor as well.

statingtheobvious wrote:

the money simply isn't there and the gap with other sources of income only widens, so why would you go out and run all day ?

Yeah, because running about 2 hours a day takes all of your time and energy in a day.

Treacy seems to overlook the fact that he got swept aside after the African invasion really started.

If he was running today he would be just another underachieving European, despite all his hard work.

Europe has experienced great economic growth over the modern Olympic era. As previously stated, the money just isn’t there. Same with the U.S. the East African countries will continue to dominate as long as running remains a viable way to improve their socioeconomic status and lives.

we were knocking out 110, 120 miles a week, and doing quality as wrote:

"we were knocking out 110, 120 miles a week, and doing quality as part of that. "

http://www.runblogrun.com/2014/12/john-treacy-majority-of-euro-distance-runners-have-simply-given-up-by-cathal-dennehy.html

Perhaps constantly hearing you are genetically inferior (as an ethnic group) and will never be able to compete at the highest level has an effect.

Probably a smaller talent pool today as more kids are drawn to the popular, big money, big spectacle sport in Europe. Pro running has faded in public interest there, too.

Has nobody said it yet

Olympic bronze medallist

Juice Springsteen wrote:

Europe has experienced great economic growth over the modern Olympic era. As previously stated, the money just isn’t there. Same with the U.S. the East African countries will continue to dominate as long as running remains a viable way to improve their socioeconomic status and lives.

No it's because of doping. As stated by half of Letsrun, white runners can no longer run the times they ran in the 1980s with Coe Cram Ovett Moorcroft etc because the East Africans are now doping.

Wait what

subelite hobbyjogger wrote:

we were knocking out 110, 120 miles a week, and doing quality as wrote:

"we were knocking out 110, 120 miles a week, and doing quality as part of that. "

http://www.runblogrun.com/2014/12/john-treacy-majority-of-euro-distance-runners-have-simply-given-up-by-cathal-dennehy.html

Perhaps constantly hearing you are genetically inferior (as an ethnic group) and will never be able to compete at the highest level has an effect.

"Euro distance runners" covers a wide variety of ethnic groups, so it ain't that.

Lota of good runners in Spain from 800 to 5K.

just sayin wrote:

Has nobody said it yet

Olympic bronze medallist

Silver.

just sayin wrote:

Has nobody said it yet

Olympic bronze medallist

Who is an Olympic bronze medalist?

ex-runner wrote:

Juice Springsteen wrote:

Europe has experienced great economic growth over the modern Olympic era. As previously stated, the money just isn’t there. Same with the U.S. the East African countries will continue to dominate as long as running remains a viable way to improve their socioeconomic status and lives.

No it's because of doping. As stated by half of Letsrun, white runners can no longer run the times they ran in the 1980s with Coe Cram Ovett Moorcroft etc because the East Africans are now doping.

Wait what

White runners do run that fast or faster.

Spedding Away wrote:

just sayin wrote:

Has nobody said it yet

Olympic bronze medallist

Silver.

Correct, Tracy won the silver medal in the marathon at the olympics. He also won two world cross country titles.