1990: Fairchild 16:39
1994: Stamps 16:41
1983: Smith 16:43
1985: Keogh 16:43 (same year as Reina’s 14:36 - over 30s faster than Methner)
I’m pretty sure that the top 3 at FL this year will run the 2 miles in 9:4X in the next few months, however they could not beat these old FL times.
Laura Craven - age 15
24 Jun 1979 3? 9:35.3 OT 3 km Bloomington IN/USA USA Junior Championships
10-minutes was still a major mental barrier as was 9 minutes for boys.
Each gender has since had a Renaissance showing that all these times were possible.
Something else to think about is how women's sports did not become a norm until 1975. Where is the men have had high school Athletics since the 1880s.
80s mentality was high mileage. 90s started quality. By the mid 90s, XC times dropped off. Runners today know how to balance.
You did not have all the special set up races back in the day. There was no Brooks PR etc.. No rabbits and pacers etc.., back in the day races were races, run to win baby.
Rabbits and pacers in HS races? Arcadia has been around for 40 years now. Maybe it did not once attract runners from all over the country but still. The point is the track times are not close.
Turns out to be good at running, you should run.
Well, back in the 70's you had Lynn Jennings running 4:38 for a full mile indoors, also 10:10 for a full 2 mile that same season, did not run any fast times outdoors that year because she decided to jump in the Boston Marathon and run 2:43 instead.
Also, Joanna Forman ran 2:04 for 800 in Mass., Darlene Beckford ran 4:41 for a full mile around the same time.
Kim Gallagher down in PA ran pretty fast for everything.
Running has more depth these days, along with more opportunities to run against the best comp. Not to mention, better tracks everywhere, better shoes/spikes etc..
Fairchild ran under 10 minutes, that record lasted for 20 years.
bromha ha wrote:
...
Running has more depth these days, along with more opportunities to run against the best comp. Not to mention, better tracks everywhere, better shoes/spikes etc..
I don’t see any help from the girl in second or third in this race
The track looks pretty normal. Pretty much the same that you would see in the 80s and early 90s.
...and wouldn’t you think that spike technology advances would be even more relevant in XC than on the track (or at least as much).
...so how did these girls, with slow track times, manage to run 16:43 and faster on that FL course in the 80s and early 90s.
https://youtu.be/aqt1mPF_FQgtrivago wrote:
10-minutes was still a major mental barrier as was 9 minutes for boys.
Each gender has since had a Renaissance showing that all these times were possible.
Something else to think about is how women's sports did not become a norm until 1975. Where is the men have had high school Athletics since the 1880s.
Mostly this. The internet has connected everyone and made training advances global, not to mention the competitive aspect of knowing what others are doing.
philosophy wrote:
...
Mostly this. The internet has connected everyone and made training advances global, not to mention the competitive aspect of knowing what others are doing.
Of course. You don’t have to wait one month to get your copy of T&F News anymore to find out how your competitors are doing in the other side of the country.
For sure HS girls are way faster now than they were in the 80s and early 90s.
However, why has this not helped the XC runners.
Runners in the 80s and early 90s did not know how to run fast on a flat surface, but were very good going up/down hills?
These old results make no sense to me.
Probably a mixture. Mental barriers and maybe less emphasis on time trialing track races back in the 70s/80s. Also high mileage.
Girls now are probably more focused in simply racing to win in XC and are going for times when it matters in track. Also, it’s likely a lot of the top girls these days aren’t running as many miles as top girls back then. They understand training better now, and have a more balanced approach, especially in regards to leaving room to grow in college and beyond. This potentially leaves them a little lacking in the longer events.
For instance; Marlee Starliper has done a couple a couple of the milesplit journal logs and her training was quite pedestrian for someone of her level. She’s got a significant amount of room to grow.
Hhshsh wrote:
However, why has this not helped the XC runners.
It has. Guys are breaking records everywhere in short time in cross country, and girls have tonnes of fast times very recently. You have generational talents once in a while. Training cannot beat that.
80s culture for men was extreme mileage and training, so some good times came out of there. It is not necessarily the most sensible strategy for development.
Plus, girls are lower mileage for the most part, so that limits xc performance.
Yea, Lynn Jennings ran a 4:38 mile and a 10:10 2 mile indoors in HS and then a 2:43 marathon as a senior in HS, did nothing after that right?
And track surfaces are better than 30+ years ago, along with spike technology.
So, yea track times are better, more races set up to be fast. Training is more advanced you would think, but also more about running fast in HS and then hope for the best, the HS coaches don't care as long as they get to NXN or win a bunch of titles.
But, XC is about toughness and grit, those things are lacking these days. Sorry, but pampered kids with helicopter parents lack those things.
One factor may just be the watered down competition at FL over the last decade or so because of NXN. Tuohy, Baxter, Efraimson, Cain, Oakley, etc., never ran at Balboa. We saw what happened last weekend with a higher level of competition with the girls resulting in much faster times than in recent years.
jack lumber wrote:
One factor may just be the watered down competition at FL over the last decade or so because of NXN. Tuohy, Baxter, Efraimson, Cain, Oakley, etc., never ran at Balboa. We saw what happened last weekend with a higher level of competition with the girls resulting in much faster times than in recent years.
Ok, but plenty of girls with PBs faster than Fairchild did run at Balboa. Just in the past couple of years, I can think of VanderLende and Hart who have better PBs than Fairchild, yet they never came close to Fairchild’s time at Foot Locker.
What were Smith, Stamps and Keogh’s 2 mile PB in HS?
is it only the footlocker xc course that we're talking about here? the surface has probably changed over decades of use. more grass...more dirt...more gravel...anything!
There was Footlocker but no national-level track meets like Brooks PR (and few did indoor).
A rare exception:
Hhahshhs wrote:
jack lumber wrote:
One factor may just be the watered down competition at FL over the last decade or so because of NXN. Tuohy, Baxter, Efraimson, Cain, Oakley, etc., never ran at Balboa. We saw what happened last weekend with a higher level of competition with the girls resulting in much faster times than in recent years.
Ok, but plenty of girls with PBs faster than Fairchild did run at Balboa. Just in the past couple of years, I can think of VanderLende and Hart who have better PBs than Fairchild, yet they never came close to Fairchild’s time at Foot Locker.
What were Smith, Stamps and Keogh’s 2 mile PB in HS?
Was Fairchild really slower than Hart and VanderLende? Their 2 mile times were about the same.
VanderLende – 9:53.00
Hart - 9:56.13
Fairchild - 9:55.9
And Fairchild ran 9:17 at 3,000 indoors, which was a national junior record at the time, on a 200m track. Remember she was also 3rd at junior WC XC in high school so maybe she was just really good at XC. Also, how many times did she have the opportunity to run a fast race on the track in high school at sea level?
But there are some other inconsistencies. For example, Claudia Lane has faster times than Stamps at Woodward and Mt Sac but never came close to her time at Balboa. But I still think it's not so much girls from the 80s and 90s underperforming in track as much as the current crop of girls underperforming at FL. And I do believe NXN has a lot to do with that. Many of the fastest girls now either don't run FL at all or come in the week after NXN so they are not as fresh. I think if FL was still the only national XC race and every top girl in the country came in focused to win we would see faster times that are more in line with track performances.