Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Why have standards fallen..
BR's GFA thread got me thinking about this. Nowadays we have better access to training info, nutrition, kit, gadgets etc, but club standards were still much higher in the 80's and early 90's. There were simply more faster runners. Why?
A couple of examples. In my hometown 10 mile race in 1983, out of a field of approx 550 runners 76 broke 60 mins. In a nearby 10 mile race this year - similar terrain and number of runners - only 31 achieved sub 60 mins.
Take a more recent example. In 1997 1,499 runners broke 3hrs at FLM. In recent years the numbers breaking this marque are:
2003 - 937 (warm conditions)
2004 - 1158
2005 - 1129
So even in the last 6-8 years there is a visible decline - 20-25% less runners breaking 3 hrs. There are simply less runners at the sharp end.
I have spoken to the decent vets at my club from this 'golden age' and asked them what was different. I have had a few different answers, but the overall view is that it was a snowball effect. The more fast runners there were, the more fast runners it encouraged. Less plodding on club nights was mentioned, some nights they used to race each other.
I was talking to a 61 year old guy on my holiday who stood on the elite vets start at the London Marathon in the late 80's. 'Good For Age' then was sub 2:50! That was the height of the qualifying barrier then because the standard was so high.
What do the good vets at your club reckon? What tricks can the old dogs teach us? Do any of you think that the standard will rise once again?
Lest anyone think I am starting an elitist thread, I consider myself one of those who have underachieved and could do better.
A couple of examples. In my hometown 10 mile race in 1983, out of a field of approx 550 runners 76 broke 60 mins. In a nearby 10 mile race this year - similar terrain and number of runners - only 31 achieved sub 60 mins.
Take a more recent example. In 1997 1,499 runners broke 3hrs at FLM. In recent years the numbers breaking this marque are:
2003 - 937 (warm conditions)
2004 - 1158
2005 - 1129
So even in the last 6-8 years there is a visible decline - 20-25% less runners breaking 3 hrs. There are simply less runners at the sharp end.
I have spoken to the decent vets at my club from this 'golden age' and asked them what was different. I have had a few different answers, but the overall view is that it was a snowball effect. The more fast runners there were, the more fast runners it encouraged. Less plodding on club nights was mentioned, some nights they used to race each other.
I was talking to a 61 year old guy on my holiday who stood on the elite vets start at the London Marathon in the late 80's. 'Good For Age' then was sub 2:50! That was the height of the qualifying barrier then because the standard was so high.
What do the good vets at your club reckon? What tricks can the old dogs teach us? Do any of you think that the standard will rise once again?
Lest anyone think I am starting an elitist thread, I consider myself one of those who have underachieved and could do better.
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
There's a gentleman here asking why standard aren't as good as they were in the 70s and 80s...
I think they started off with an inbuilt advantage to my generation with their cars and McD meals...
standards were higher so one set out to achieve higher standards.
Possibly the base was broader because a lot more peeps came into the sport at a relatively young age during the 80's and stayed there.
Running was accessible, cheap and had a beguiling simplicity - further, faster - as a goal.
I was a relative oldster even then but my training sessions and those that I ran with lots of others were hard nearly all the time - that was the general concensus of how to train - right or not can be (and has been) endlessly debated.
Interestingly I was rarely injured, I went to see a physio for one injury in 6 years, whereas now on a steady mileage routine I am always injured...................:-)
I did 4 miles a day to school and back - I would like to say in my barefeet but unfortunately I cannot conform entirely to stereotype.
Mind we did have to grow up during post war austerity so diet was not that good though undoubtedly free of additives and processing.
Popsider - have you noticed when you go shopping or to a McDs the amount of blokes in their 20s and 30s dressed in nice clothes (ie obviously take a pride in their appearance) but weighing 3 or 4 stone too much - double chins and sagging waistlines I used to associate with middle aged spread in the 50+ age group?
lol
I always thought of myself as the Dirty Harry type - clean out the town of pinkos, commies and skivvers, establish strong capitalist base and then ride on to another town - so now I know why I am out of time now:-))
yes the average health of those in the war years actually rose because of rationing which gave guaranteed access to foodstuffs -seems amazing now.
Post war the effects were not so noticable on the overall population though good socialist principles like free orange juice and free milk for children no doubt helped the post war baby boom - of which I was one!!!
Perfect - another thing that's all her fault!!
Batty, Bedford, Foster, McLeod, Rose, Moorcroft, Hutchings, Martin, Jones, Spedding. Probably missed a few.
Possible reasons for decline:
Wider choice of sports to get involved in;
Children attracted to more glamorous sports;
Children generally less active so bigger hurdle to getting them involved in physically demanding sport like running;
Less cross country and track athletics at school;
Too few role models;
Running regarded as 'having had its heyday';
Emergence of many African runners with many physiological advantages winning most international events and the larger domestic events discouraging for UK runners;
More awareness of drug taking in athletics has damaged its image;
Very little coverage on TV;
Not enough talented runners doing big mileage (200mpw).
Probably quite a few others. Taking a broader view, for any sport to produce talented individuals it first needs to inspire people to get involved. It then needs to make the sport accessible and give people opportunities for getting involved. It needs to train, guide, and motivate them and provide enough reward to offset the hard work they are putting in. Getting all that to happen takes a lot of planning and maybe the circumstances were only right in the 70s and 80s.
removing school milk in the 70's was a "good thing" as by then childhood obesity was beginning to make its mark!
JRM
good list - apart from the last one:-)
crying with laughter at your post.
After having spoken at length to the "old guard" at Notts AC the overwhelming consensus as to why standards have dropped is that "no one trains hard enough these days".
General sentiment from the chaps there who routinely clocked 50-52 min 10M, 65-72 min 1/2M and 2:20-2:30 marathons in the 80's and 90's is that frequent racing and absurdly hard training sessions are the key. It's straight out of the pages of "The Long Hard Road" by Ron Hill ;-)
I think it's very telling that one of the Notts AC club runners from this period who used to clock 55min for 10M and 74 min 1/2M was know as "Jogger" ;-)
The structure and standard of road running has changed considerably over the past twenty five 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 the 1970-80s has dwindled dramatically. These people are just not coming into the sport any more. Possible reasons for this are:
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
&. 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! Very often, talented individuals exhibit skills at more than one sport, and inevitably those sports which offer greater financial rewards are seen to be more attractive
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 or an understanding employer, which is only really available to the most talented, it’s almost impossible to support your self 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.
Dennis Watts writes regularly in AW. Sometimes he annoys me as a never ending prophet of doom. However he does have relevant things to say about the shortomings of the UK athletics and their inability to develop the potential of talented runners.
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. (Good for the individual, but not for the club scene). 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.
eg my cousin who is a decent club runner on running twice a week is aiming for the UK surfing team instead.
People do reckon I'm a bit weird for wanting to do ultras (more running) when I could be doing tri (several disciplines) or doing bits of lots of sports (uni offers everything from Pole Dancing to Parachute, running gets squeezed). In time to run 70mpw, one could be on the team for several different sports, and be at quite a high fitness level, without specialising.
More choice generally about leisure time - can spend one's days on computers, tv, etc rather than outside.
poor diet - more access to processed high-fat foods.
Probably of more concern (to me anyway) is the decline at the level below elite. MM is quite right, and its obvious really (well to me anyway), people just don't train hard enough. Mind you that is a bit of an over simplification - see my previous post.
Not only do runners not train hard enough, there just aren't enough of them in the sport who are of an age, where their bodies will respond to hard training.
Sadly I don't think this trend will be reversed - as there just doesn't seem to be any incentive to people brought up in our @ I want it now" society.
The problem is quite well illustrated by television coverage of major road race. Lots of emphasis of the East African gods and godesses (Jon Brown was 10th in todays NY marathon - didn't even get a mention) and coverage of brave runners making there efforts for charity, but nothing for the core of club athletes who keep the flame burning.
I first ran in 1970s (Oh god, here he goes back on that when I were lad routine, give me a penny every time I've heard that...), when people weren't bogged down with the mumbo jumbo of running, there was no Runners World mag, no fitness and health runners, no running shoe industry, garmins or HRMs and the "last man standing" club run reigned supreme. I came back to running after a 25 year break and tried to take up were I left off. I felt that my approach was flying in the face of current thinking. Certainly if I hadn't had that previous career my current approach would be much more conservative.
We had cars in the 80s too, you know! But you're right, people (especially children) are too lazy to walk anywhere now.
Tom
I don't think it's generally true to say that "life and career make much greater demands on people now". There was no flexible working or working time regulation in the 80s. Most of the top UK runners had pretty demanding jobs then and less opportunity to make a career from running.
A reasonably talented runner at my club has recently been moved onto 4 days on/4 days off of 12 hour days, which has played havock with his training. My son works a similar shift pattern and he's totally knocked up on his first rest day.
I accept that this is purely anecdotal, and it really boils down to how badly you want it.
So as a counter arguement I can cite Martin Rees aged 52 who runs sub 32mins for 10k, despite working a 4 on/4 off shift pattern at British Steel in Port Talbot - oh and he cycles to and from work.
Also, I meant that the people who are now in their 20 and 30s were not brought up with the idea you had to be chauffered everywhere. I used to cycle all over East Yorkshire to get a game of cricket. Same when I was in Sheffield (only then it was S. Yorks:-))
There's less of a pool of runners.
Also, as Tom says, at Barnsley AC we only have a couple of runners in their 20s. I'm a relative youngster and all the people my age took up the sport in their late 20s primarily to get fit. Some of us then discovered we enjoyed the competition and trained to improve. But as I've said before, that training was after 10 years of drinking beer and eating pies.
I said "I don't think it's generally true". We all have anecdotes. You may be right, and even if you are, personally I don't think that the answer lies in that direction.
Some jobs have more paperwork now, yes. Jobs harder generally now? I'm not convinced.
BTW. I don't remember any of my teachers telling me that they had a nap every afternoon like you recently claimed that you do!
I thought it was `patronising' to suggest that people who weren't hitting GFA times might think about training harder.
But club runners who are training as hard as they can in their own way aren't training hard enough.
Confused of Barnsley.
I'm confused too. I thought they were now called SFA (soft for age)? Mind you, in the mid-80s, you'd have been in the ballot with all the plebs with your 2:43. No GFA then, and the AAA champs qualifying time was 2:40.
The reality of course is I don't know for certain, why standards have fallen. All I can do is try to take satifaction in doing my bit by training and racing to the best of my ability - then and now.