Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Are we all getting slower?
NorthEnder
✭✭✭
I read on another forum (not a running one) that of all women's track events from 100m - 10,000m, only one world record has been set since 1996. If that's true, it's an amazing stat but the point being implied was that drug cheating was much worse back in the 80s and 90s... so times are slower now that top athletes are generally cleaner (yes... the news from Russia was known by the OP!).
I didn't realise the stat about women's world records, but I am aware that lots of club race times are slower now than they were 20-odd years ago. And I doubt we can say that ordinary club runners were all doping up back then!
Why are club runners slower nowadays? Why are women not breaking such old records? Is there a link between the answers to both those questions?
It's probably been discussed before... but any theories?
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
Different issues I suspect - for clubs I suspect it's either a) a wider range of people running with running getting more popular (from memory there's been two booms) and b) some good women might be being attracted to other sports with things like women's football becoming more popular
I don't have any stats on that, just off the top of my head
Drugs simple answer...
xfr bear... my understanding (which might be wrong!) is that if you look at typical course records, or top 20 fastest times for any given course, there is a tendency to find a lot of entries from the 80s and 90s. Not many from the last 10 years.
Someone told me that, and I did a bit of random searching a while back that definitely backed it up (but was, of course, not scientifically done - so could be unrepresentative)
So having a wider range of people running, and running being more popular now, should mean that course records should be better now than 20 years back. Especially with (allegedly) better shoes, better nutrition and better understanding of coaching principles. (the average times might be slower because of the mix of runners, but the course records should be faster).
So whilst booktrunk's answer might (or might not!) be true for the elites, there must be another factor at work for the rest of us.
I didn't express that well, long day yesterday! I was't sure whether you meant fastest times or average times - probably a different answer to each. Probably my answer (b) now I know you're talking about top times. I doubt that's the only factor though.
clubs are getting slower.........top athletes are getting into other sports where there is more money...
a good runner is probably good at all sports...
I don't mind the runners being slower.......in the 80's we might have had a number of fast world athletes and a number of great club runners......
Now we have much bigger clubs with many many more people running .. especially females........clubs are all expanding in my area...
so i personally would prefer lots and lots more people running slower and keeping fitter than just a few running but running faster..
I'm getting slower.............
At the pro level I reckon it's down to drug use being more limited - we know doping goes on but they can no longer stick as much epo down their throats as they want and get away with it.
At the amateur level I think people are just getting a lot heavier and you rarely see a heavy runner winning races. A couple of kgs makes a measurable difference and pretty much the whole population's weight has shifted upwards. As the general standard goes down even if you are skinny the depth of competition isn't there to push you to be better.
That's why none pro women and men generally are slower.
And why is it there's more fat people? PC crap! People are scared to call a spade a spade and peoples perceptions of normal have gone through the roof.
As for the pro women, we seem to have a different definition of woman nowadays compared to 40-50 years ago.
Edit: I see you still can't insert a youtube video easily into this crappy forum.
Some of those Chinese athletes records will surely never be beaten.
Some say it's drugs, some put it down to such incredible slogging in training that one of the record holders still gets headaches this far on..
I do think though, if the women's marathon had been set by a Chinese or Russian woman, everyone would be all over it asking questions.
However, because it's our Paula, no one gives it a second thought.
Yet, no woman has got within 3mins of a time she set in 2003, 11 years later!
And the second fastest woman ever has since been banned for drugs!
please continue...
Don't get me wrong, I'd hate it if Paula was ever outed as a drugs cheat.
But I remember in the Lance Armstrong business, someone saying that when you're beating people who have been found to be drugs cheats themselves, it's time to start wondering...
Throw it away son!
🙂
I suppose it's possible, but I think I remember Paula volunteering to have some of her blood kept in cold storage so that drug tests developed ten years into the future could be done on her blood. Or did I imagine that?
Wang and Paula's records are only comparable because they are both so far ahead of the opposition.
If you look at the context around Wang Junxia's record it's obvious not only that she was doping but that she was part of an organised doping programme. The 1500, 3000 and 10000 metres records all still stand from the 1993 Chinese championships. Top 3 in the world champs 3k, top 2 in the 10k, won the 1500, two 3k world champs in the same year, the 10k world record holder also setting what would have been the 1500 record had another chinese woman not beaten her and an Asian marathon record all in that same year. Basically they took the piss in 1993 and by rights all those records should be scrubbed from the books.
there's better distances to cheat at in fairness.
Ones that don't involve 140mile weeks.
Just pointing out that the women's marathon and 10k records are not equally suspect just because they both seem untouchable. I agree that we don't know Paula was clean, but we don't have any reason to think she wasn't other than her being so good - there are plenty of reasons to think Wang Junxia was on the sauce.
it is a fair thing to ponder. if she was from ethiopa or kenya the question might not be asked, but historically white europeans are not the best marathon runners. actually she must have benn on drugs... on occasions she even took the piss and had a dump to let the others catch up ????
The vast majority of the women's track world records are deeply suspect, and include records held by people from countries with state sponsored doping programmes, and where there is documentary evidence that individuals doped. The Chinese issue is an odd one, those times (by a whole phalanx of women at the Chinese champs, not just the record holders) go way beyond credibility. Part of the reason the women's records are so much more unassailable than men's from the same era is the relative benefit women get from testosterone as opposed to men.
As to why GB club runners are getting slower, that's a lifestyle question, as its happening across the western world. And its a male issue, as I don't think women's depth is reducing. I've seen all kinds of explanations - sedentary lifestyles, more expectations of men being at home with the family and not pissing off running all weekend, competition from other sports, long commutes making it difficult to fit in 100 mile weeks, people training on their own and not with the competitive training groups that used to exist. I think all play a role to some extent.
I will throw a couple of other things into the mix - look at road race results where ages are displayed. Apart from maybe the front of the field and a smattering throughout, where are the 20 somethings? The people theoretically in their running prime? I ran in my teens, did nothing in my 20s and returned in my 30s. I can think of a lot of people with similar stories. Unless you've genuinely got a chance of getting near the top, you don't stick with it, and only cone back when middle aged spread takes over.
The other thing is that the training mindset is different now, and a lot of emphasis is on injury prevention. Build up slowly, take cut-back weeks, lots of easy miles etc. Thats fine. From what I understand of the old days, lots of people ran big miles, and a lot of it fast. That led lotsof people to get pretty good. I suspect it probably led lots of other people to get very injured. I have no evidence to back that up, but its my hunch.
Also bear in mind that historically, its the 70s and 80s that are the anomaly, not the other way round. People weren't faster in the 20s or 40s or 50s. the 70s and 80s were a boom, and booms don't go on forever.
good post Dachs
Good points Dachs. I particularly like the use of the word phalanx.
I'd not really considered your point about the disruptive effect of going to uni but it makes sense. I'm also potentially part of the missing depth of a similar period; when I went off to uni I was a decent junior cyclist, but when confronted with the new lifestyle distractions it seemed like an all or nothing question of whether to get serious or let it slip by the wayside. In another life I would have kept plugging away at Herne Hill velodrome getting even fitter and racing Bradley Wiggins. (Genuinely; that's where he started out getting good as a teenager, while I was busy discovering beer and kebabs in my 20s...)
Also a good point about why it's the women's records that stand out from that period. I suspect whatever drug abuse is going on now doesn't or can't include such blatant use of testosterone-boosting steroids on such a systematic basis.
I agree with all of Dach's observations.
Had a chat with a club mate from 'Bedford's era on this very subject. "We all did masses of miles, the more the better. I was a duffer who only managed to average 85 mpw which was why only ran 14:15 for 5000m"
.
He also added that these days, most runners have more sense.
Here's a picture from those far off days (late 70's). Can you see the jogger? me neither.
🙂
Thanks everyone*... some really good thoughts. Especially Dachs. A few details I hadn't considered.
I'm one of the 'good(ish) until university' boys, who got middle-age spready, coming back to it in my forties. Can't do a single mile as fast as I once ran 6.2 of them!
*except those smearing the name of one of our heroes!
Elite women is drugs.
The East Germans were doping then and that is a fact from the Stasi files that have come out since. Not sure why the women were particularly so but they were. The Soviets as well but the GDR were doing it on an industrial scale.
The Chinese blip was probably dodgy because it came and went rather than a sustained improvement in that country.
As for club level, yes there are a lot more recreational runners down bringing the avergae down BUT the fact is the better club runners are slower.
I think the mileage then was higher. I think people trained harder but also did one sport.
In Britain in particular there is all this talk about the Africans having lots of natural advantages BUT if Coe, Ovett, Cram were running now they would be competitive with all of them. If somebody broke theBritish record at a middle distance or long distance event at the Olympics they would be on the podium. Ok the long distance goes without saying now that Mo has the records. I don't really know why but it is the case.