Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Why have standards fallen..
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
That's right, even you would have been quicker in the 80s.
I think that there are more vets racing now, and also that more of the fiercely competitive young runners gave up the sport when there racing times started to decline with age?
That's a good question and I think the answer is yes because a lot of those good runners from the 70s and 80s are still doing it and I think more people gave it up once they'd given it their best shot as a senior.
Certainly the top of the field is more veteran dominated than old race results I've seen.
Of the 4 fastest runners who turn out regularly in Barnsley AC colours, 2 are 45 and one is 53. And I'd bet there wouldn't be more than a couple of secs between the 53 year old and me on current form.
And how do they train, pray? Hard last man standing type runs:-)
I must admit I am a bit more "nesh" these days and do sneak the occasional after dinner nap on my part time work days.
Hence this generation was brought up on the verge of starvation... compare with the east africans? How often do you see a fat kenyan (except a corrupt politician?)
If the average population is much thinner, shorter and lighter they are much more likely to be good distance runners.
I saw a great quote in Lydiard yesterday, regarding one of Snell's rivals "we knew that he was interval trained, and so would be unable to go the distance"
Don't doubt for a moment that running has suffered the sports equivalent of dumming down, says one sporting dummy who's still grinning ear to ear (if yawning maniacly at the same time) for simply having snuck under the wire and not gotten a dnf at a local half.
I did walk to school and back, twice (home for lunch) every day through junior school. No I didn't. I ran.
We do get a lot of choice for our kids now. There's sailing, dance, music, football, tennis, gymnastics, you name it, there's an after school activity for doing it.
Was sport really respected in school in our time? I'm not convinced. We weren't allowed a cross country team.
But I suppose those a mere 30 years younger than I are less likely to have run 2 miles a day from age 4 through age 12. I think that was a solid base to come back to, even after a slight pause of, erm, 38 years.
<<pads off adjusting nightcap carefully, and stepping so as not to tread on long white beard>>
Another possible - I say possible because I don't know - 20 years ago did men take as much of a share of child care etc as they do now? I know all day bike club runs of 100-150 miles are pretty rare these days because people have to get back to the family - yet 30 years ago this was the staple (according to people I talk to) of the cycling scene. Possibly it's what people are doing after work that is limiting training time rather than work hours themselves - maybe men are just taking on a fairer share of looking after the house and kids?
I'd like to try running that one past Mrs BR...
All the fastest kids get snapped up for Rugby League or Rugby.
My family never owned a car and yes we did eat lots of stuff grown in our garden. Think it was simple - they ran for glory in the old days not for financial rewards.
I'm really impressed by one NZ guy who's just run 2.15 at New York. This guy started as a 800m runner.
I just looked up his bio. He ran 3.59.35 for the mile in 1997, 13.30.41 5000m in 1999 and 27.45.98 for the 10,000m in 2004. The very top level of running has improved a lot that it why it is so hard for these guys to keep at it. It is such a hard sport and only a few get the rewards.
This guy has now moved up to the marathon but will probably miss selection for the Commonwealth Games by a few seconds.
I also remember reading Coe and Cram biographies as a kid and seeing how much faster they were running at my age.
Unfortunately I didn't really consider the fact that I was only running about 12mpw.
So in one sense having lots of talent around is good for competiton but it can also be demoralising.
The other thing is, in the '80s breaking 3hrs for the marathon was respectable now it seems breaking 4hrs is seen as being pretty good. Guess that's why us old ones can still keep running!
The standards at the absolute top have steadily improved as evidenced by improvements in world records so the demands for training time (and recovery!) to match those standards at the highest level need to increase.
Can't be done and hold down a job, look after a family, pay the bills etc unless there is adequate funding support. But in the UK potential is not recognised and rewarded in athletics, you have to achieve before the cash cow of lottery funding hoves into sight and middle/long distance is a long term progression = end of top class middle distance runners in UK
As has been said by several other contributers there are a lot of other sports where athletic potential can lead to a more lucrative future, including Christines example from the other side of the world, so it isn't just a UK thing and the outstanding talent pool gets further reduced so overall standards decline.
Strangely I see as many folks on the roads now running as during the 80's, and a huge increase in the proportion of women amongst them, but I rarely see runnners indulging in "the last man standing" regimes referred to earlier.
Finally reference to the FLM times made me look out of curiosity for benchmarks. In the 1980's my times got me to finish just inside the top 1,000 and I was reasonably satisfied given the time I devoted to training. Now I would finish around 350th on the same time.
Personally I blame the athletics clubs, they're teaching kids that 3 hard track sessions a week are all you need to be a very good runner and it's just not true. Mate of mine now 20, ran the marathon 2 years back in 2:52 off a long run of 9 miles and little other training apart from these track sessions. The talent there that he can run a sub 50 400m and then with little training for it run 2:52... He has to be the sort of athlete that could potentially be a world beater over the marathon. Or at the very least of the same standard as Jon Brown. As it is he's not training progressively and whilst he's been "training" he's no progressing. at 16 or so he ran a 16:10 5k, he'd run about the same now at 20. Kids with the potential eed to be picked up and start training progressively as early as possible.
The talent is still there, it's a question of channeling it through proper coaching as I don't think youngsters these days are willing enough to go and teach themselves at a young enough age. I learnt as much as possible myself and I'm reaping the rewards, but lots don't get involved racing vets and seniors early on and don't get that experience and so are at the mercy of whicever club coach they end up with. Some are good (Dave Farrow has about 5 or 6 athletes just in the last 2/3 years including Emily Pidgeon) all of whom have won national or equivalent titles. But a large number just believe in 3 hard track sessions a week which is of little use in long term development of an athlete if that's all there is.
At my schol 'bright' kids were discouraged from doing PE beyond the minimum and dropped from school sports teams around GCSE years.
i stopped running more than occasionally when i was doing A-levels, because it just did not fit with all the extra CV-building things I was being pushed to do.
Fairly or otherwise, running just does not look as good on an UCAS form as playing the violin or whatever.
'long-distance running' actually seems to be quite off-putting on a CV - you get some very strange looks at interview, whereas I suspect that if I put down 'aerobics', i would be seen as a bit more of a 'team player'.
i think people now just see commitment to running as quite a strange thing to be doing - even if they do admire running, it's always in a way that sets you out as 'different'.
in 1996 I PB'd in the Birkenhead Park 5 (29:27) - and came outside the top 100.
8 years later in the same race, I was 12 seconds slower - and came 30th. Not only that, as highest placed unattached runner (as I was then), I was offered a prize of a year's free membership of Wirral AC. I was nowhere near fastest unattached in 1996.
Yes, in 2004, the field was some way reduced in numbers. But it still staggers me - the disappearance of more than 70 sub 29:27 5 milers.
And as Tired and Emotional says I think most people are happy to just be out there taking part - good for the health system - good for the race promoters - making plenty of money, just not good for the advancement of running on a national or international level.
Ref: during the war.. was toothpaste rationed {o:
Marmite.. I am still smiling at your 'Jogger' quote. Priceless.
Popsider.. ditto the 15 stone quote.
NZC.. I have just come back from Southern Spain. GB is a smokeless zone by comparison!
Thanks for the responses thus far, both educational and entertaining.