Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
sub-2:30 marathon
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Matt Carlisle (tempoed (not raced!) a 15 mid 5k last year, in much better shape this year)
Lee Reynolds (8:44 3k)
Michael Tarpey (15:37 5k and 8:50 3k)
Myself (15:51 5k- hopefully more to come off that!)
Chris Saville (1:51 800 and back in training)
with Chris possibly/probably being replaced by Paul Greaves (sub 16 5k already this year) - we just don't know how well Chris is running.
We've got a very small base of runners but getting quite good at getting all of us out for one-off races so we qualified for Nationals in 6 stage last year destroying GCR but then in the mid-weeks we get annhilated!
Like I say...that 5k was just crazy...me and Kev were just determined to keep on pushing until one of us gave in and it turned out to be me! Seeing how he's gone on from there not too worried at a loss to him though!
HH - that's a really good core group of runners you've got, but I can see that 12 to score events aren't going to be the best for you. You should do very well at the FVC. I should declare that I run for GCR. Although we don't have the top class runners we do seem to be able to get 12 decent runners out most races which is the key to MWRRL sucess. We were also quite pleased to come 29th at the National Road Relays this year. Having said that I think Padams's SAS are going to be very strong this year and it is going to be close.
We have one club which is capable of being a top class track club, top ten at national 12 stage and a medal contender in the South of England and a dominant force in XC certainly in Hertfordshire.
As it is we have one club which is struggling to keep seniors but has a top class junior side, which has 6 or 7 high calibre runners but then struggles, has a track team which is now getting beaten down as the top athletes start leaving as there is no adult focus and no driving force behind the road and XC side as all those young runners with the passion are mostly at uni.
On the other hand we have a club which has (by all appearances), an awesome social side, a cadre of good standard runners ( I think your top 6 are these days very comparable to ours) but has no track team (and even if you guys created one would take years to go up the divisions) and no youth team for young talent to come through and so are relying on either attracting existing quality runners or bringing senior athletes on which you do a very creditable job of (e.g. Kev and Graham).
I'm just shocked and amazed that the two clubs aren't combined as it would be by far the best move for the athletes who are on the whole very friendly with each other (we cheer you guys on at southerns/nationals and you cheer us on though Horse and Matt Robins had a bit of a bust-up at Southerns this year!).
Not only would it give us a stronger team- it would give us a team strong enough that top class local athletes like Kev Skinner, Neil Miller, John Clarke, Ben Hellmers etc. wouldn't have had to leave the respective clubs/join other ones to get better competition.
Let alone the ladies! Can you imagine your strong ladies team with Lizzie Hall, Braithwaite, Sarah Campbell or Laura Cowley dipping in whenever they can to help! It'd be a serious national medal contender!
It's just a few people in hte upper echelons who I think stop anything happening and it's ridiculous as clubs should be run for the athletes not the adminstrators and we could both benefit so much. You'd gain a number of top class athletes and the developing talent (for what it's worth next year we should have a 12 stage team out with a couple of junior sub 2 800/sub 4:20 1500 lads bulking out the short stages making their debut) and we'd gain the strength in depth and quality athletes like yourself.
Coro/HH - we've got good numbers and strength in depth, but if GCR and ourselves both get out our best teams, I think GCR would win with slightly better top runners. And we certainly can't compete with those 3k times HH! Mind you, if we can get a few of our best runners back to top fitness we would be close.
Marmite - here's a couple of the weeks between London and Edinburgh, before the taper (easy is about MP+75s, steady about MP+45s). Nothing particularly interesting, except that I didn't do much speedwork really.
Mon 21/04 - 8M easy + swimming session (3k)
Tues 22/04 - 14M steady
Weds 23/04 - 17M easy cycling, 6M easy
Thurs 24/04 - 10.5M steady with some bursts + swimming session
Fri 25/04 - 2 easy runs totalling 10.5M
Sat 26/04 - 8M easy with some strides
Sun 27/04 - Bracknell HM at intended MP (73:50) with 2M w/u, 2M w/d + 6M easy
Mon 28/04 - 7M easy + swimming session
Tues 29/04 - 10M including 30min Paarlauf + 400m rep (64s)
Weds 30/04 - 14M progression run (starting at MP+1min, finishing at MP)
Thurs 01/05 - 2 easy runs totalling 11M
Fri 02/05 - 10M steady
Sat 03/05 - 23.5M steady
Sun 04/05 - 5.5M easy + 9M inc. 5M MP
HH - you make a number of very interesting and valid points. I've only been at GCR for a bit over 18 mnts after 16 yrs away from the sport and I must say that I've tried to steer clear of the obvious politics re :Garden City Runners/Joggers vs Herts Pheonix (nee Verlea). It appears that some of the issues go a long way back and I don't understand the background to them. Things like the access to the Gosling track seems to get people quite upset. I agree with you that on paper it looks obvious; great track club with lots of young talent and an adult/social based club with a core of competitive senior/vet men/women runners (people like Paul and Laura train with GCR). The best from both clubs would indeed be very competitive and would become one of the better southern clubs outside London. From the admin side it would get more complicated with things like child protection issues to be considered. I think the very top local runners would still be tempted to join one of the really big clubs (Belgrave, N&EB, TH&H et al).
It appears to me that GCR is still a 'joggers' club at heart, with the person who comes last held in the same regard as the person who comes first (for every top-6 runner there are another 25 members of the club) - I don't think this is true at most of the bigger clubs. This is only a feeling I have as my only other experience of running for a club was at Brighton and Hove AC and that was so long ago that I remember running a session with Steve Ovett!!
From a personal perspective, my 12 yr old daughter has started running and is now looking at joining HP; it's a pity she can't join the club that her mum and dad run for.
Tom - What do you think the reason is that there were more runners of that quality than nowadays?
Sports science has come a long way and training is very different now from back then (my dad keeps harping on to me to run fartleks to improve my marathon, although he only converted his 50 min 10m into 2:36 marathon).
I can only imagine that it's to do with lifestyle - longer working hours, fast food, computers/playstations etc. Rise in obesity also results in less runners I guess. Plenty of runners out there, just less of the top notch. As you say, 50 min 10 mile was just a good club runner. These days that's about 1:05 for HM which is right up there in the top 10 in the country
I'm sure the reasons for the decline in performances are many and varied (and I don't want to knock the current crop of young athletes) - I thought I would repeat a table of results taken from another running web-site which prompted quite a heated discussion on this topic
Long Stage Legs at the National 12-Stage Relays - Sutton Coalfield
SUB 26-minute long stages in 1979 (29 years ago) �THIRTY TWO in total
Brendan Foster (Gateshead) 24.33
Nick Rose (Bristol) 24.36
Julian Goater (Shaftsbury) 24.51
Steve Kenyon (Bolton) 24.54 1979 RESULT
Bernie Ford (Aldershot) 25.05 1 Gateshead Harriers 4-03-25
Andy Holden (Tipton) 25.08 2 Birchfield Harriers 4-04-44
Nick Lees (Derby) 25.11 3 Tipton Harriers 4-04-55
Geoff Smith (Liverpool) 25.13
Andy Armitage (Airedale) 25.18
John Davies (TVH) 25.19 2007 RESULT
Ken Newton (Sheffield) 25.24
Ray Smedley (Birchfield) 25.28 1. Leeds 4-11-31 (good enough for 12th in 1979)
Steve Slocombe (Cardiff) 25.30
Barry Smith (Gateshead) 25.30
Chris Ridler (Bristol) 25.32
John Graham (Birchfield) 25.34
Brendan McSloy (Bristol) 25.36
Steve Parr (Gateshead) 25.38
Steve Emson (Tipton) 25.39
Ray Crabb (Bristol) 25.40
John Woods (Liverpool) 25.43
Colin Moore (Bingley) 25.44
Colin Brown (Coventry) 25.45
Dave James (Cardiff) 25.45
Micky Morris (Cardiff) 25.46
Chris Woodhouse (Derby) 25.49
Pete Shaw (Manchester) 25.50
Brian Cole (Tipton) 25.51
Andy Catton (Ilford) 25.52
Bob Maule (Coventry) 25.53
Dave Slater (Bingley) 25.54
John Caine (Portsmouth) 25.57
SUB 26-minutes in 2007 - FIVE in total
J.Ndaysenga (Birchfield) 25.21
P.Nicholls (Tipton) 25.52
J.Mays (Kent) 25.53
S.Deakin (Leeds) 25.54
R.Russell (TVH) 25.59
So in 1979 a total of 28 men ran faster than the second quickest long stage in 2007. And don't let anybody tell you the course was shorter then. It was actually two yards longer!
1. If you look at the runners that year - almost everyone who wa snayone was there. These days the top echelon will quite often skip the road relays. Just for starters I could easily imagine... Farah, Thompson, Ford, Geele, Meryon, Abyu, Robinson, Tickner etc. who could all go sub 26 and I'm not sure if htey ran or not. That's just off the top of my head and you're already looking more competitive.
2. Short legs. Back in "the days" if you were a good runner you ran a long leg. These days many of our top athletes decide to run short legs because they consider themselves middle-distance athletes. Baddeley would easily have gone sub 26.
3.That year was almost certainly the top year for the event and so you're comparing the very best in hte past against 2007- injust about every sport there's at least one year which is better.
4. Once you get a few better runners they drag the rest along. I'd be interested to know how many of those splits are from the first long leg.
I think a massive part in the decline though is the sheer number of running clubs that have formed (going back to my earlier points re HP and GCR), If you look these days there is a club present just about in every single town! Whilst useful for joggers this isn't conducive for the top level of the road runners and as a result people aren't training together anymore.
I mean in Ware there is Herts Phoenix with a number of top athletes, Ware Joggers with now a fair few sub 33 guys, Neil Miller, John Clarke and none of them train together! Just down the road is GCR as well together with Mitchinson and Skinner! Absolutely ridiculous and we should all be training together and pushing each other on and yet everyone is off training in their own small groups.
Just my $0.02
This is a frequently recurring topic and one which I can never resist!
The following is a copy of a previous posting I made on this subject a couple of years ago
“There’s no doubt that the structure and standard of road running has changed considerably over the past thirty years. At the same time the demographics of participation have changed significantly. Nowadays there are far more over 40s in the sport and most of these are late starters drawn into the sport for health rather than competitive reasons. At the same time, the core of 20-30 year old hard trainers/hard racers that existed in the1970-80s has dwindled dramatically.
In general, older runners who have come into the sport late tend to be less competitive, seeing their running as part of a healthy lifestyle, tend not to be members of running clubs, and see their participation as a social activity. That’s not to say there aren’t some very competitive and talented oldies around – Martin Rees and Mike Hagar have both run sub 72minute HMs at the age of 55.
The socio-economic trends leading to this decline are as follows:
1. Lack of interest and time spent on sport in schools, due to sold off playing fields, demands on teachers reducing extra-curricular activities and the pervading importance of the national curriculum.
2. Less healthy lifestyles arising from poor sporting opportunities (see above), the growth of convenience food and the growth of obesity.
3. The growth of sedentary activities such as video gaming, and lack of daily exercise.
4. The lack of national systems to identify and nurture talented youngsters.
5.The attraction of other sports, less demanding in training time and intensity.
6. The length of time it takes to turn a talented youngster into a high performing adult
7. The ability of professional sports such as football/ rugby union to attract youngsters from the sport, with offers of financial support and prospects of fame!
Its very easy to yearn for the lost standards of the 70s, and I’m as guilty as most in this respect. However I do think that times have changed since then. I think that life and career make much greater demands on people now, as do the demands of the sport. To really succeed at the upper levels of the sport you really do need to be part time/full time. Without sponsorship, which is only really available to the most talented, it’s almost impossible to support yourself from athletics/road running. One of the reasons why African athletes are able to succeed is because their standard of living is so much lower than in the UK. This means that these guys can make a decent living and support their families from prize money won from UK road races, and appearance money for pace making on the European circuit.
I’m not really sure what the answer is, but I do think that the club culture has changed (less competitive runners/more health related recreational runners) .I think part of it is to get elite road runners into the elite road running clubs were they can train with their peers. I also think that at a national level there is a need for the training camp approach similar to that used by the Kenyans and the Ethiopians – always assuming that runners can get the necessary financial support while they are attending these training camps.
So what is the prospect for those dedicated runners who make it thus far? Their numbers are unlikely, other than for the odd exception, to be swelled by late arrivals to the sport – partly they’re just too old, don’t have a competitive background from the character building bedrock of the sport or are blinkered by the “train easy” philosophy of the health and fitness brigade. The answer is – not as good as it was (in the “good old days”).
The reason, I think, is because they are just not as competitive as their predecessors. That’s not a criticism, it’s just that the culture now doesn’t exist to encourage that competitive spirit. The first and obvious reason is that, because of the factors discussed above, there are less talented runners reaching maturity hence less peers to generate competitive tension between ambitious athletes. Secondly the huge growth in the sport, driven by the health and fitness brigade, has lead to an enormous increase in races. This means that it’s quite easy for any half decent runner to find a winnable race without having to risk his reputation against one of his peers. This stunts the competitive instinct of ambitious runners. In the old days the top runners raced each other week in week out. To get a feel for this try reading Bill Adcocks’ autobiography.
My original post hints at various factors which undermine the desire for talented runners to make the big commitment to succeed at the highest level. It takes a huge belief in your own ability and potential to put your career prospects on one side and devote everything in pursuit of your athletic ambitions – in the modern world the compromise of social life, family and career demands may just be too much. Athletics and in particular road running is still essentially an amateur sport and it’s only world class runners or jobbing East African runners, courtesy of environmental advantage and a low standard of living, who can make it pay. If your running career is reliant on lottery funding then you’re walking a tight rope… try getting old, getting injured or losing form. You may be on a tightrope but there’s no safety net!
Some examples… James McEvoy, a highly talented 800m runner has recently given it up as he can no longer, in the absence of lottery funding, finance his ambitions. I believe that with the exception of Radcliffe, who doesn’t need help, no British long distance runner on track, road or country gets any institutional support. Even Mike
East, an Olympic finalist, is currently battling to overcome injury without financial assistance.
Even at the lower levels of competitive ambition, there’s no real incentive to give it your all. The various factors discussed above all filter downwards to create an environment to dampen competitive spirit and undermine the ambitions of even the most competitive runners.
Back in the 70s and 80s, British distance running was a young, male dominated, testosterone driven, competitive activity. If you couldn’t hack it, then you’d be left by the side of the road, with only the consolation of knowing that, if you’d given your best then you would command the total respect of your mates as they disappeared into the distance. It may not have been perfect, but compared to what we’ve got today, it produced the goods.
Phew!!
I see that Ray Crabb is on that list from 1979. About 10 years later when I started working I used to train with him most lunchtimes. He had done the 1983 London Marathon in 2:13, yet I had not heard of him previously. A 213 back then obviously didn't get you as much kudos as it would do today.
A quick check on athleticsdata reveals that Ray ran 2:13:15, just 5 seconds slower than Dan Robinson ran this year to qualify for Beijing, but that only ranks him 8th in 1983.
Great post Tom-the most comprehensive and convincing summary of the reasons for the self-evident decline in UK distance performances I've read.
The only thing I would question (and sorry if this seems "picky") is the implication that at least part of the decline is due to the number of joggers/ "fun runners" there are nowadays.While that is true,surely would-be elite runners should be supremely indifferent to those ( like me !) trundling along behind them,at a 2,3,4 or 5 minute per mile slower pace than they are ?
Isn''t it a bit like blaming (even if only partly) pub footballers for England's failure to qualify for Euro 2008,or the legions of Sunday morning golfers for UK pros' failure to win a Major in recent years ?
At the "sharp end",it shouldn't matter.
To my mind it is part of the problem for two reasons...
1. The proliferation of joggers means that there are now many many more clubs. For a lot of runners they only aim to be the best in their club- that is now significantly easier.
2. Similiarly there are now many many more races for joggers. This means that rather than go to the "main" local 10k for the area and finish in 10th place in 32 odd, now that same runner who could have been running 32 odd can race away from all the other top club standard runners and win in 34 and a half.
Did a 3k tonight. Achilles was playing up a bit but ended up running 9:09 so a 5 second PB which is reasonable and nice to finally get under 9:10
Points taken HH...but I'm still not entirely convinced.
While there are many more clubs,isn't it the case that in most areas there are 1 or 2 more competition-oriented clubs to which the best,most promising runners will gravitate ?
In my part of Kent,for example,many of the best runners join Medway & Maidstone AC.
If a really promising runner takes the easy option of winning a low key 10K in say,34 minutes,rather than pit himself against the best and perhaps not win,but run 32 minutes,doesn't that suggest a lack of ambition...rather than being the "fault" of the joggers making up the bulk of the field ?
However,it might be an idea if the British Milers Club model for middle distances could be replicated for say,10k's-by putting on really competitive races with a minimum qualifying time of sub-34 minutes for example.Of course,it would need some kind of sponsorship or other reward system,to entice the best runners to compete.
Wow - this thread has been a brilliant read. Thanks so much to those that have contributed.
I'd like to add one quick thing to that which Tom and Hobbling Harrier have said with regard to mass participation running. I find that the vast majority of people in the UK see road running as a way of raising money for charity, or keeping healthy. Therefore, the 15 year old who has a natural competative streak and who could make a good distance runner doesn't even realise that running is a 'proper sport' and will go elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the hordes trundle along in their pantomime horse costumes reinforcing the stereotype.
I'm not saying that running for charity is a bad thing, only that it has replaced competative running in the public consciousness of what road running is about.
And, although I think I'll never do it, I do harbour some ambitions of running a sub 2'30 marathon one day so I shall continue to lurk. Thanks again!
Been lurking with interest as well. One day! Just did my first marathon in Paris in 3.29, so am interested that some have gone from high 3 hour marathons towards the 2.30 mark. I know one or two things I did wrong in Paris, so can already see room for improvement.
But a question for you all. I was a competent but not great 400/800m runner at school (for which I didn't train at all), then had some years off being unhealthy, then got back into reasonably regular running about 4 years ago, been consistently regular since about this time last year. My 10k / half times convert pretty evenly to my marathon time. I'm 32 now, so I'm curious which people think is more significant, age, or miles in your legs. I'm more interested in the longer distances, but can see that a period of focus on my speed at shorter distances may be needed to get much below 3 hours. Any thoughts appreciated!
Reference the "offshoot" of this thread,dealing with the declining performances of UK male distance runners as compared with their predecessors,it's only fair to salute Andrew Baddeley's magnificent run in the mile last Friday.
Sub 3'50'' and the fastest time since Peter Elliott 20 years ago is an outstanding achievement.
That's a brilliant time. Now, if he can hold that for another 25.2
Seriously though, to knock 2 seconds off his PB at that pace is good going
Just stumbled across this thread, such a good read that it's inspired my first post!
My best marathon is 2:38 off 25-35 miles per week training (yes I hear you chuckling but I also did a 40 mile week I think). However the training was more about quality and not quantity as a fair bit of it was spent with the guys training for 800's.
I'm living somewhere else now and training by myself which doesn't help although I'm going to try a local club this week. However the question going through my mind is how to get the time down and the mileage v's quality debate, I'm trying to add more mileage, currently at circa 50m per week. Reading through this i'm still a long way short of what a lot of you guys are doing!
Quality or Quantity?
It seems to me like the consensus opinion is to do a lot of quantity, then top it off with some quality. But like most things in running, I guess it's really a question of each individual finding what works best for their body.