Could today's runners handle the 40s, 50s, 60s?

Why wouldn't today's runners be able to handle it?

Maybe they wouldn't have the mental resilience to handle austere training conditions? Or maybe running in Converse All Stars would prove too difficult? Limited nutritional supplements and a requirement to work full time on top of training .

I don't think today's athletes are any less willing to suffer to achieve success.

You seriously think today's professional athlete would be willing to train in leather soled shoes, no GPS, with no sponsorship, while keeping a full time job? I doubt it and few would come close to running world class times.

Yes they would...stop looking at the past through rose coloured glasses

mtl runner wrote:

Yes they would...stop looking at the past through rose coloured glasses

+1

If El G had been born in 1875, the world record in 1900 would have been 3:26.0

If Bekele per chance had been born into a British aristocratic family in the Edwardian era, he likely would have lapped even himself at the 28 Games. Kipchoge born 100 years ago might have ran sub 2 hours, simply because of the cleaner air.

I think between now and then there are only two main differences

1) Opportunity - Maybe some of the Ethiopians and Kenyans would have struggled to make it then just due to not getting the chance or exposure to make it overseas so maybe Kipchoge would have never made it

2) Biomechanics - There are certain pro's out there who are less perfect biomechanically and are injured with today's technology often. So maybe in those days with that equipment it would have led to some of them not making it

You mean, back when they didn't test, not even in competition? Yeah, I think a lot of today's elites would do pretty good.

If you took a pro in their early twenties now and forced them into a time machine they would never pursue running at a world class level. They directly make money from running now and are perpetually on the brink of quitting. Asking how they'd fair if they were born back then is an impossible and pointless exercise. El G running a 3:26 if he was born in the 1800s? Don't make me laugh they did not have EPO back then.

50 years ago would be 1970...

marauder44 wrote:

With all the talk about the GOAT and how well Ryun and other would compare if they raced today, would today's athletes be competitive 50 years ago? By this I mean if forced to use training methodology and equipment of the day, could they beat athletes of that era? I just watched the Boston documentary on Amazon and the shoes they used back in the day were insane.

I think today’s semi decent runners would actually be more motivated to train in the 40s than in the modern day.

Assuming I survived WWII I would actually have a shot at making the Olympic team in 1948. Assuming I just woke up one morning on April 25th 1945 I would also know a bit more about training than a runner born in the 20s and raised in the 30s and 40s.

marauder44 wrote:

You seriously think today's professional athlete would be willing to train in leather soled shoes, no GPS, with no sponsorship, while keeping a full time job? I doubt it and few would come close to running world class times.

Very good point. Guys like Bannister or Ron Clarke would demolish most of today's stars if today's stars had to train under similar conditions. I think it is OK to keep today's shoes for health/injury reasons, and GPS is an interesting training tool. However, with hindsight, it has definitely not been OK to have been paying/sponsoring people to just run and race. The practice has proliferated doping and crooked managers and has basically turned the sport into some sort of organized crime. Hopefully, in the wake of the COVID 19 crisis, the sport will be made amateur again.

Could the runners of 40s, 50s, 60s handle the 10s , 20s, 30?

make the sport great again wrote:

marauder44 wrote:

You seriously think today's professional athlete would be willing to train in leather soled shoes, no GPS, with no sponsorship, while keeping a full time job? I doubt it and few would come close to running world class times.

Very good point. Guys like Bannister or Ron Clarke would demolish most of today's stars if today's stars had to train under similar conditions. I think it is OK to keep today's shoes for health/injury reasons, and GPS is an interesting training tool. However, with hindsight, it has definitely not been OK to have been paying/sponsoring people to just run and race. The practice has proliferated doping and crooked managers and has basically turned the sport into some sort of organized crime. Hopefully, in the wake of the COVID 19 crisis, the sport will be made amateur again.

Do you have any facts to indicate that those guys would demolish to day's stars, or is it just your opinion? If so, what is your opinion based on?

As to your amateur comment, I seriously doubt more than a small minority of athletes from the shamateur era would agree with you.

A few of today's athletes might have been competitive 50 years ago, but most would DNS.

First, there was no financial incentive to race. Even the top runners needed to keep a job. That would eliminate all the East Africans.

Second, energy gels didn't exist. Posters who complain about PEDs don't realize that GU revolutionized the marathon. In the 1990s, runners used to joke about their pre-Gu times vs their post-Gu times. Without Gu or another energy product, some of today's runners wouldn't be able to hold pace for 26.2 miles. In the old days, only runners who COULD race without energy gels were at the top level.

Third, training methods, poor shoes, and primitive medical interventions would have resulted in injuries that would limit or even end running careers.

Fourth, runners who are pushing the limits of legal performance enhancement, which includes a lot of the world's best today, might drop back to sub-elite if they were forced to give up their thyroid meds, asthma inhalers, B12 shots, altitude training... and on and on.

Fifth, and then we have the ones who are on PEDs today. They obviously wouldn't be competitive.

Typical LetsRun IQ wrote:

mtl runner wrote:

Yes they would...stop looking at the past through rose coloured glasses

+1

If El G had been born in 1875, the world record in 1900 would have been 3:26.0

If Bekele per chance had been born into a British aristocratic family in the Edwardian era, he likely would have lapped even himself at the 28 Games. Kipchoge born 100 years ago might have ran sub 2 hours, simply because of the cleaner air.

It's very likely that guys like that would have been the best in the world whenever they were born. But they would have never run anything like the times they're running now. Do you really think that there were no athletes with the same physical attributes they have in 1900, 1950, 1970, etc.? It's not like the human body has evolved and become better at running over time.

Obviously the OP's question can't be answered. All of us are who we are and do the things we do in response to our environment. Frank Shorter decided to go all in for distance running after asking Bob Giegengack how good he, Shorter, could be if he got very serious. Giegengack told him there was no limit including an Olympic medal. If the two of them were having that conversation today would Giegengack give the same answer? Jim Ryun went out for cross country because he wanted to be on a high school team and it seemed his best option. If there had been soccer or tennis or golf or lacrosse would he ever have tried running? Would Kipchoge have run marathons when Bikila did and there was no money to made from them? Maybe. Bikila did. But maybe not.

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

If you took a pro in their early twenties now and forced them into a time machine they would never pursue running at a world class level. They directly make money from running now and are perpetually on the brink of quitting.

You've got high schoolers, who make no money from the sport, running what would have been world class times in the 1940s.

marauder44 wrote:

You seriously think today's professional athlete would be willing to train in leather soled shoes, no GPS, with no sponsorship, while keeping a full time job? I doubt it and few would come close to running world class times.

If they didn’t know any better, then yes absolutely.

I started running in the late 1960's, which was better for distance running than the 40's or 50's, but I'd have to say that many runners, at every level, would not have had the same kind of running career than they would today.

On the one hand, there were fewer distractions -- eg, soccer, video games -- and T&F was a more accepted sport. On the other hand, there was no money in it, equipment was much more basic, and runners faced many obstacles in their training.