Lack of 10k success in the 70's

you think?

BryanB2 wrote:

It's equally likely that the Old School runners were stronger over the long distances because they ran more miles.

BryanB2, I agree, the sample of 5 or 6 runners from each generation can't "conclusively prove" anything. In my mind, however, it opens up some possibilities that the Old Schoolers categorically deny.

Any suggestion of any possibility beyond the ilk of ?we were tougher,? ?we trained harder, ran more miles,? ?weren?t afraid of Kenyans,? ?we never wore sunglasses?? is anathema to the Old Schoolers.

I happen to believe the courses were shorter back then. I don?t blame people for questioning that belief but I think everyone should at least be open to different possibilities.

Bob Roll wrote:

27:13 to 27:30 translates to 2:10-2:12 for New Schoolers and 2:08 for Old Schoolers.

28:00-28:25 translates to 2:12-2:13 for New Schoolers and 2:09-2:10 for Old Schoolers.

The longer the road race the more skewed the Old Schooler's times become.

Mr. Roll - excellent analysis.

Can you go JUST one step further and list the marathon PR's of the various Kenyan, Moroccan and Japanese marathoners who've cracked 2:08 and compare those times to their 1500, 5000, 10,000, etc. PR's.

The results should be enlightening.

Bazza,Your post,very informative as usual.

There is something to the depth issue,that I keep thinking back to.Back in the late 70's a lot of high schools did not have soccer programs.Fall sports were Football and X-country,or soccer and x-country.This was especially true in the new england states.During the late 80's to early 90's schools started to implement more athletic programs.The fall season now consists of football,soccer,fall golf,and x-country.The potential talent is spread to more areas.I know that x-country was my only option as a 72lb 9th grader(1974).I would have played football if I was a little bigger.Only 2 options(football or x-country).

The best schoolgirl runner in our state (maine) is currently playing soccer.This winter she will turn her attention to basketball.She is the best player in state in both these sports also.(attending Boston College next year on full basketball scholarship)Her concentration on these other sports is not conducive to distance running.(Sport specific weight training, weight gain,etc.)This is just one example of the talent pool being divided.But if every state has just one of these cases,you are talking about 50 less elites.

Not necessarily. I was just pointing out that Bob needs to do more work. Do you have something to contribute to this topic?

Don't forget...no one could count laps on the track before 1990. It was the dark ages.

Bob Roll wrote:

?we trained harder, ran more miles,?

I honestly believe that, in the case of the marathon, the above statement is the case. I don't believe the other 2 points are either valid or being made. Maybe they are. As someone pointed out on another list, the fact that someone doesn't want to train their ass off to be a sub elite or a sub-sub elite marathoner might be a sign of sanity. And the only place to get the elites is from a large pool of sub-elites. I was ranked 33rd in my country in 83 and 84 and unless the 84 US trials course was short, I am pretty sure my 84 time is legit. The 83 time was NY which I understand had measurement problems but they were fixed by 83. If it was short then each mile was short by about the same amount based on the metronomic splits I was hitting that year. Anyway, the times now would be top 10 or better for the last several years. I have already analyzed and proven that, at the shorter distances, the talent pool is probably just as big. The 50th ranked 1500 metre runner in 83 had almost the identical time as the 50th runner in 2000. I ran a few times with a guy who is almost 20 years younger than me and he had done his first marathon in just over 2:30. I knew the guy had more talent than I ever had and so I and another guy bored him with a bunch of "the day" stories which were really just the miles and work we used to do(5662 miles in 1984 with a job that was almost 60 hours a week). He was very interested or at least pretended to be while he was holding himself back while running with us. He told his roommate about our discussion and the roomate thought it was insanity but he took a few of the conversations to heart and took 10 minutes off of his time the next time he ran a marathon. The funny thing was, he thought he was doing about 90 miles a week based on updates he was giving me and I asked him for his logs and proved to him that he was only doing 75 but that was a step up from the 60 or so he had done the time before. I told him he had lots of room to ramp it up and take it to the next level.

That's an interesting comment, so I looked into it a little bit. Here's a tidbit: it seems clear that track distances should be more constant over time than road distances, right? (stating the obvious)

Guess where's there's no old-guy/new-guy Top 10 bias? The track.

Where's the biggest old-guy/new-guy bias? On the roads.

If we look at standard track distances from 3k-10k, there's an approximate breakdown of Top 10 performances (by decade) of:

70s 7.5%

80s 47.5%

90s 45%

Look at the roads (5k to marathon):

70s 3%

80s 63%

90s 33%

Greatest performance discrepancy, by decade? roads

Greatest possible measurement errors? roads

So it's not that they couldn't count laps before 1990, it's that they couldn't measure accurately :-)

I didn't want to clutter up that other message too much, but there are a lot of interesting things going on with times over the years. For example, what's with the dominance of old-guy runners at the marathon? (maybe measurement, maybe mileage) But conversely, where are they in the 5k and the half-marathon on the roads?

Those results I mentioned before would be a lot worse (more heavily biased toward the 80s) except for the fact that, since about 1990, newer runners have wiped the early times out of the Top 10 at the 5k and half-marathon (9 and 7 of the Top-10 times, respectively).

Did they not run the half in the 80s? The 5k I can somewhat understand, since the reverse is true on the track (1980s has 6 of the Top 10).

Anyway, I used to think that the runners from the late-70s and early-80s really were dominant in the overall scheme of things, but now I'm not so certain. The dominance really seems to exist almost completely on the roads and, even there, almost totally at the marathon. And I don't know any way to resolve the question of whether that's due to better long-distance training or the changed accuracy/measurement of road courses (especially as it relates to the marathon).

Okay, crap, I have to do some actual work today. But this is a lot more fun...

BryanB2 wrote:

Those results I mentioned before would be a lot worse (more heavily biased toward the 80s) except for the fact that, since about 1990, newer runners have wiped the early times out of the Top 10 at the 5k and half-marathon (9 and 7 of the Top-10 times, respectively).

Did they not run the half in the 80s? The 5k I can somewhat understand, since the reverse is true on the track (1980s has 6 of the Top 10).

..

I said it before and I'll say it again. THEY WERE RUNNING THROUGH THOSE 10KMS. Look at what Meyer did the week he went 29 minutes. As far as the 5km goes, there were very few 5km races then. That is a reasonably recent phenomena. 10km and marathon were kind of the standard fare.

Pretty obvious here that track races were shorter back in the 60s and 70s. Recall that races were in yards then, and a meter is some 9% longer than a yard. Thus, the 5000s back then were considerably shorter.

Hell, the meter stick wasn't even invented until 1982.

When road racing took off in the 70''s the 5 miler was the

norm, some 10 milers and odd distance traditional course

races like Falmouth, Blessing of the Fleet(RI). The 5k

was the compromise to allow more people to get involved

(walk run) and cost (police details, traffic,etc)

Half-Marathons were rare.

I know a 2:12 runner from the 1970s who only ever ran one half marathon. His best for 10k on the track was just outside 29minutes - I don't think he ever ran a 10k road race when he was at his best. He did, however run a lot of 5, 10, 15 and 20mile races which all used to be very popular in the UK at that time, but are pretty much defunct. I also know a couple of guys who only just broke 30minutes for 10k yet ran 2:15 and 2:16 in the early 80s in the London Marathon - which is not short.

A couple of other examples of UK runners from a little while back; Hugh Jones ran 2:09:24 off a 10k pb of 28:49, while Steve Jones produced 2:07:12 having ran 27:39. If we look at some of the better UK guys of recent years we see Keith Cullen has clocked 27:49 for 10k but managed only a 2:13 marathon while Glynn Tromans has run 28:20 but in 3 attempts still hasn't broke 2:20. Even Jon Brown, who has run 27:18 for 10k still can't run under 2:09.

BryanB2,

The qualifying time for the Olympic Trials 10k in 1984 was 28:42? Check out how many folk's qualified.

There were two heats of 20 plus runners then a final. Compare with later years. I ran 28:24 in 84 and was nowhere near the top 10.

I wish I could put my hands on the stats. perhaps you can.

Again, 10k's were not the standard (road) race in the late 70's early 80's.

My second fastest half marathon race was accomplished in a marathon, (Beppu Japan 82). I ran 35 marathons but only half as many half marathons and they were preps for the longer race.

Most road races in the 70's were odd distances/traditional courses, no one cared about the accuracy of a course except for the marathon which was a standard for many years before.

Apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge,

It is an ancient Runner Hodge,

And he stoppeth one of three.

"By thy long grey beard and glittering eye,

Now wherefore stopp'st thou me?

"The athletes are all at the line,

And I am supposed to win

The teams are met, the runners set:

May'st hear the merry din."

He holds him with his skinny hand,

"There was a race," quoth he.

"Hold off! unhand me, greybeard loon!"

Eftsoons his hand dropt he.

He holds him with his glittering eye -

The young athlete stood still,

And listens like a three years' child:

The Runner Hodge hath his will.

The young athlete sat on a stone:

He cannot chose but hear the logic;

And thus spake on that ancient man,

The bright-eyed Runner Hodgie.

"The miles were large , the course was hard,

Merrily did we start

Around the bend, through the sand,

Around the field house did we dart.

The sun came up upon the left,

Above the trees came he!

And he shone bright, and on the right

Went down as many miles ran we.

Higher and higher every day,

The miles we did by noon-"

The Young-Athlete here beat his breast,

For his race would start very soon.

The Young-Athlete he beat his breast.

Yet he cannot flee or dodge:

And thus spake on that ancient man,

The bright-eyed Runner Hodge.

"And now the weekly races came, and he

Was tyrannous and strong:

He struck with his o'ertaking spikes,

And chased us miles along.

And now there came both mist and snow

And it grew wondrous cold:

And ice, thigh-high, we ran on by,

As green as emerald.

And though the drifts the snowy clifts

Did send a dismal sheen:

Ne?er did our mileage slack we ken -

Our volume was all it should have been.

The race was here, the race was there,

The ?thons were all around:

We never cracked, we hit the track,

Like a finely tuned greyhound!

At length did cross a low-mileage philos?,

Through the years it came;

As if it had been a Demon soul,

We cursed it in Lyd's name.

They ate the GU we ne'er had eat,

And round and round they flew.

Their miles were weak and times were meek;

A path we did eschew!

Yet a good internet sprung up in recent years;

The low-mileage philosopy did decline,

And every day, young runners? ears,

Do hark to the Runner Hodge?s line!

In cross or track, or marathon,

Now runners add the miles to train;

While all the splits and times we run,

Come lower once again

"God save thee, ancient Runner Hodge:

From the fiends, that plague thee thus! -

Why look'st thou so?? ?With my website info

I killed the low-mileage foolishness."

Hodgie-san wrote:

Also, prize money began at Boston in 1986.

I never said PRIZE money, I said MONEY.

Don't hit your on the table bottom when getting up.

Young folks, another great example of these old guys ducking and twisting.

Also, MALMO, since when does World Cup (a joke back then, Argue it all you want) in the SEVENTIES and a Hodge-like "I ran World Cross in the eighties (when no one looking for Boston money wanted to run it) do anything to answer what I wrote.

As was said, read these old guys, read me, you decide who is adding the spin. Anyone reading this board KNOWS how much these two have dissed any training other than "just running" no matter how much they try to backtrack and maintain their Internt God/wizened mentor staus amid the backlash some are callin them on.

... bazza! very interesting stats. would be equally interesting to campare same data to USA over same time etc. ... sooooo what is your take on this ... how do YOU explain the selevident peak in '83 etc. I find it quite intriguing that this is not a country specific phenomena but more widespread. anyone have same data for USA?

Bob Roll, you really are obsessed with this old school/new school thing, aren't you? I'm really trying to get your point, and I think I see what you are trying to get at, but your analysis looks like some sort of a Rorschach test to me. It's really kind of subjective - you see whatever you want to see. You've wiped your ass and pinned the paper to a wall and all I see is shit on paper. Stinks too. You're using statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost - for support, not illumination. Both Bryan2B and Crossman should be ashamed for falling for such a crappy analysis. I'm thinking in your zealous haste you may have forgotten something. Normally, I 'd suggest that you "conveniently" left off a few of the NEW SCHOOLERS and a few OLD SCHOOLERS from your analysis to get a result that you wanted. Not Bob Roll, the Bob Roll whose integrity is beyond reproach here, we know you would NEVER be so dishonest and do that would you? No way. Anyway I thought I'd ask what these glaring omissions does to your analysis? Maybe we borrow Statman's Cray computer?

NEW SCHOOL

Lawson 28:44 1:01:43 2:09.35

Morris 13:44 28:39 2:09:35

Kempainen 13:44 28:23 2:08:47

OLD SCHOOL

Nenow 7:43 13:18 27:20 2:14:21

Virgin 13:19 27:29 2:10:26

Eyestone 13:32 27:41 43:06 2:10:59

Cummings 3:37 13:19 27:43 42:42 1:01:30 2:11:31

Plasencia 3:40 13:19 27:45 2:12:51

Bjorklund 7:46 13:32 27:41 2:10:59

Sandoval 13:44 27:47 2:10:19

Gregorek 3:51 13:17 27:56 25:16:31

Chapa 3:57 7:37 13:19 28:32 2:11:13

Mac Donald 3:58 13:19 28:38 2:12:50

Wells 13:30 28:12 2:10:15

Curp 13:40 28:01 43:01 1:00:55 2:11:45

Hunt 3:42 7:48 13:26 27:59 2:12:14

TWEENER

Brantly 3:41 7:53 13:36 28:10 1:01:30 2:12:31

Did Lawson, Morris and Kempainen go back-to-the-future or something? What about the list of old-schoolers (plus the tweener) with all of those really fast 5ks and 10ks - shouldn't they have run 2:08s or faster on those short courses? Must be the short tracks and the slow watches?

Maybe, just maybe, you look at a list of PRs and you see it for what it is - a runners PR profile. I don't know how long you've been a fan of the sport - I've been doing this a long time. Even in my early days I recognized that a runners PR profile seems to reflect what event he is most suited for. Sure there are a few anomalies, but overall the PRs progressively get better as you look towards their primary event and not so good away from it. Sometimes the PRs reflect little more than opportunity. Trying to compare PRs of runners with different specialties has never meant squat. It's good entertainment though. Marathoners tend to be good at the marathon because that is what their body type, training efforts and opportunites yielded. Those who aren't as good at the marathon tend to be (pheno)type-cast for another event. They're training and mind-set are geared for that event, as well. I'm sure that after you storm that windmill of yours, you'll prove me wrong. When that happens I'll help you lobby USATF and have all of the old-timers results thrown out. Until then....

Bryan2B: I know you had some sort of rocket-science thing going that was WAY over my head. I'm only speculating here, but I think what you were trying to do was to establish some sore of basis with those track times (top 10), then somehow compare them with the road times, and with a finger in the air and a cartoonist's idea cloud above your head make the final "Aha!" declaration. You might want to look at the average 50th best US time for every year. You might want to look at the National Champs,Oly Trials, and NCAAs all-time lists (included below). You might want to consider all of those sub- 4:10/9:00 high-schoolers (and the 1000s below 4:25/9:30) of the 70s might possibly have formed a large enough pool of runners in the 80s to produce those road times. That's just wild speculation on my part. Maybe it's as simple as a numbers game. Ya think I'm on to something, or do you think that Bob Roll's brilliant analysis has uncovered a massive fraud? The courses are short . The tracks are short. The clocks were slow.

All-time NCAAs

Sub....60s....70s....80s....90s

1:46... 4 ....5.....6......7

3:40....2....24.....31....19

8:30....0....11.....23.....6

13:40...0....12.....2......1

28:40....0....21....9.....12

-------------------------------

All-time Oly Trials:

1500 METERS

3:35.15 1 Steve Scott '80

3:35.90 1 Gabe Jennings 00

3:36.23 2 Steve Lacy '80

3:36.24 1 Jim Spivey '92

3:36.43 1 ---Spivey '84

3:36.47 1 Rick Wohlhuter '76

3:36.48 2 Steve Holman '92

3:36.70 2 Matt Centrowitz '76

3:36.70 2 Jason Pyrah 00

3:36.72 3 Mike Durkin '76

3:36.76 2 ---Scott '84

3:37.02 3 Sydney Maree '84

3:37.04 3 Michael Stember 00

3:37.05 4 Mike Manke '76

3:37.07 4 Chuck Aragon '84

STEEPLECHASE

8:15.68 1 Henry Marsh '80

8:15.77 1 Pascal Dobert 00

8:15.91 1 ---Marsh '84

8:16.20 2 Mark Croghan 00

8:16.56 1 Brian Diemer '92

8:16.87 2 Mark Croghan '92

8:16.88 3 Danny Lopez '92

8:16.92 4 Tom Nohilly '92

8:17.00 2 ---Diemer '84

8:18.45 3 John Gregorek '84

8:18.80 1 ---Croghan '96

8:19.26 2 Robert Gary '96

8:20.60 2 Doug Brown '80

8:20.73 3 Marc Davis '96

8:21.41 3 Tony Cosey 00

8:21.50 4 Tim Broe 00

8:22.54 4 Farley Gerber '84

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5000 METERS

13:22.8 1 Steve Prefontaine '72

13:26.34 1 Doug Padilla '84

13:26.60 1 Dick Buerkle '76

13:27.06 1 Adam Goucher 00

13:27.31 2 Brad Hauser 00

13:27.72 2 Steve Lacy '84

13:28.62 3 Don Clary '84

13:29.4 2 George Young '72

13:29.46 2 Duncan MacDonald '76

13:29.48 3 Nick Rogers 00

13:30.62 1 Matt Centrowitz '80

13:31.90 2 ---Buerkle '80

13:33.78 4 Bruce Bickford '84

13:34.42 3 Bill McChesney '84

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10,000 METERS

27:45.61 1 Craig Virgin '80

27:55.45 1 Frank Shorter '76

27:59.08 1 Paul Cummings '84

27:59.43 2 ---Virgin '76

28:02.27 2 ---Virgin '84

28:03.14 2 Greg Fredericks '80

28:03.32 1 Mebrahtom Keflezighi 00

28:03.35 2 Alan Culpepper 00

28:03.74 3 Garry Bjorklund '76

28:03.86 3 Pat Porter '84

28:04.42 4 Bill Rodgers '76

28:05.83 4 ---Bjorklund '84

28:06.80 5 Mark Curp '84

28:10.42 3 Alberto Salazar '80

28:12.82 4 Jeff Wells '80

MARATHON

2:10:19 1 Tony Sandoval '80

2:10:41 2 Benji Durden '80

2:10:55 3 Kyle Heffner '80

2:11:43 1 Pete Pfitzinger '84

2:11:44 2 Alberto Salazar '84

2:11:50 3 John Tuttle '84

2:11:51 1 Frank Shorter '76

2:11:58 2 Bill Rodgers '76

2:11:59 4 Dave Gordon '84

2:12:25 5 Dean Matthews '84

---------------------------------------

Sub 2:20 marathons by year

1972 = 12

1973 = 12

1974 = 22

1975 = 40

1976 = 35

1977 = 46

1978 = 95

1979 = 165

1980 = 187

1981 = 218

1982 = 191

1983 = 267

1984 = 165

1985 = 99

1986 = 115

1987 = 96

1988 = 65

1989 = 63

1990 = 75

1991 = 93

1992 = 64

1993 = 58

1994 = 54

1995 = 59

1996 = 40

1997 = 27

1998 = 36

1999 = 47

2000 = 27

2001 = 20

-----------------------------------------

High School 4:10 and 9:00 (mile/2mile NOT 1600/3200)

1970s:

12,299,000 average HS aged children each year.

3,887,352 participants in all sports (boys)

95 4:10 milers

84 9:00 2-milers

1980s: (compared to 70s)

10,780,000 HS kids (-12.4%)

3,387,482 participants (-12.9%)

75 4:10 milers (-21.1%)

51 9:00 2-milers (-39.3%)

1990s: (compared to 70s)

11,111,000 HS kids (-9.7%)

3,605,942 participants (-7.2%)

36 4:10 milers (-62.1%)

15 9:00 2-milers (-82.1%)

Malmo, you forgot to tell this fool that the only that you "Short" is Equities...:-)