12

Looking for BQ times from the 70's, 80's 90's. I know current times. (Read 1106 times)

JakeKnight


    I agree that more than 10% of runners could qualify for Boston if they trained properly. However, reality is that only 10% actually do BQ. If that is the BAA intent, then the current standards do a good job of facilitating it. (See http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/id202.html.)
    I always hear this argument and don't really understand what it means. 10% of what? How do you define "runners?" If the point is that, in theory, 10%+ of all able bodied people willing to devote the significant time, energy, and mileage to the training, who are willing and able to study enough to do it right, and who will prioritize their training over other aspects of their lives ... that they could BQ, well, okay. Sure. But that's theory. By that same token, a significant percentage of people could master foreign languages or musical instruments or whatever. In the real world, its meaningless. The simple fact is that to hit 3:15 or 3:10 (or God forbid 2:50) is going to take not only some basic physical capability and the ability to stay healthy and train 10 or more hours a week, it's also going to take a lot of desire and motivation to even want to do it. I don't consider people who run but who don't have the time or desire to be non-runners. They just have different priorities. And I salute anybody who attempts a BQ. Unless you're freakishly gifted, it will take a lot of work. And whether people could BQ or not is irrelevant; Jim2 is right. All that matters is how many people WILL do it. And the answer to that is: not many.

    E-mail: eric.fuller.mail@gmail.com
    -----------------------------

      Well said, JK. I don't understand when people lament the falling standards of runners these days. Running a marathon in 2:50 or 3:00 or 3:10 is not inherently good. It's just an arbitrary goal amongst hundreds (thousands? an infinite number?) of possible arbitrary goals one could have in their lives. In the end the people who qualify for Boston are the ones who decide, for whatever personal reason, to prioritize it.

      Runners run

        JIM 2, Fantastic. I almost wet my pants when I read your research. Very impressive work. Thanks. Nick PS Tis interesting to see the various comments--just what I was looking for--stimulate some discussion on a topic that generates some various positions. None right or wrong.
          I agree with Mike....well said, Jake! I guess what I was trying to say....and didn't do a good job of it....is that more runners could BQ than do. And even more people who are non-runners could if they chose to run and train for a BQ. But, as you said, so what? It's theoretical and indeterminant. All that matters is reality.
            I agree with Mike....well said, Jake! I guess what I was trying to say....and didn't do a good job of it....is that more runners could BQ than do. And even more people who are non-runners could if they chose to run and train for a BQ. But, as you said, so what? It's theoretical and indeterminant. All that matters is reality.
            >All that matters is reality In trying to answer the question as to why times have gotten slower??? Do you think I'm off base in saying that it's because *runners aren't, on the average, training as much as they once did? Geez, it's not as though I'm accusing them of beating their children. Hell, there have been many years since in started when I didn't log many miles. I didn't run nearly as fast as when I trained more either, but I don't think it make me a bad guy. I thinks it's a reasonable answer to the question "Seems times have got a lot easier. Why is this I wonder?" *runners, for purpose of this discussion are people who enter foot races--especially marathons
            Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33
              >All that matters is reality In trying to answer the question as to why times have gotten slower??? Do you think I'm off base in saying that it's because *runners aren't, on the average, training as much as they once did? Geez, it's not as though I'm accusing them of beating their children. Hell, there have been many years since in started when I didn't log many miles. I didn't run nearly as fast as when I trained more either, but I don't think it make me a bad guy. I thinks it's a reasonable answer to the question "Seems times have got a lot easier. Why is this I wonder?" *runners, for purpose of this discussion are people who enter foot races--especially marathons
              I don't think you are off base at all. See: http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/id78.html, http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/id79.html and http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/id199.html.
                I don't think you are off base at all. See: http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/id78.html, http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/id79.html and http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/id199.html.
                Thanks Jim. I immediately bookmarked your home page. What a goldmine!
                Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33
                JakeKnight


                  I don't think you are off base at all. See: http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/id78.html, http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/id79.html and http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/id199.html.
                  I just read through all those (I think I'd read them months ago, too) and found your discussion interesting. However, it raised more questions for me. First, I don't much care about "anybody who signs up for a race." It's an apples and oranges comparison. 35 years ago, people who entered marathons were generally competitive runners. It's a different world today. A completely different culture and mindset. Grandmas who decide to run one seven hour marathon because it's on their must-do-before-I-die list just didn't exist in 1975. And good for them, by the way. But the elites data - especially the comparisons of current times to past times - is interesting. It would be one thing if times were dropping everywhere but Americans were just less competitive; what fascinates me is that times have dropped even by comparison with times a generation ago. I can't think of another sport that's had that happen. Which actually leads to my main question. In all of your proposed reasonings for why the above is happening, you leave out one important thing: a comparison to other American sports. (If I missed it, my apologies). If all the reasons you offer for the decline in marathoning are true - from air conditioning to diet to video games - there ought to be a similar decline in the level of competitiveness in all sports, shouldn't there? I realize its hard to quantify that in sports that don't have exact time measurements. So outside of track and field and perhaps swimming, maybe its hard to assess. Are American baseball players less competitive compared to 30 years ago? I don't know. But how's this: what about non-marathon track and field? Are Americans less competitive? I don't really follow that scene - but based on what I see every four years at the Olympics, we sure don't seem to be declining much. If your rationale is right, it seems we ought to be slipping as a sports culture everywhere. And I don't think that's happening. Although I can think of a few interesting examples that might hint at similar changes: like boxing ... Americans don't dominate most weight classes anymore ... and I suspect similar reasons are behind that. I suspect its a unique and narrow aspect of changes in our culture. Both running culture and general culture. And maybe something unique about marathon training. I actually think the things you largely blame for the decline aren't actually causes but parallel symptoms of the same root problem. (Although I found your points about marathon technology and gels, etc., to be pretty interesting). Regardless, it's still awfully damn strange that we haven't had at least an occasional break-out star in the marathon appear. Even if they were few and far between. In a country this big, it's weird that there aren't at least a few exceptions to the decline. Maybe Ryan Hall will be that guy, or start a reversal of the trend. For your next article, how about you tackle the toughest question: what to do about it. And I'd be really interested in that comparison to other track and field sports (or other 'racing' type sports - cycling or swimming, I guess).

                  E-mail: eric.fuller.mail@gmail.com
                  -----------------------------


                  Why is it sideways?

                    My theory is that it has something to do with the decline in the number of hippies. That, and soccer. Soccer made skinny kids with strong legs cool. And cool kids are less neurotic. And so they didn't have to chase their demons back with 140 mile weeks.
                      Which actually leads to my main question. In all of your proposed reasonings for why the above is happening, you leave out one important thing: a comparison to other American sports. (If I missed it, my apologies). If all the reasons you offer for the decline in marathoning are true - from air conditioning to diet to video games - there ought to be a similar decline in the level of competitiveness in all sports, shouldn't there? I realize its hard to quantify that in sports that don't have exact time measurements. So outside of track and field and perhaps swimming, maybe its hard to assess. Are American baseball players less competitive compared to 30 years ago? I don't know. But how's this: what about non-marathon track and field? Are Americans less competitive? I don't really follow that scene - but based on what I see every four years at the Olympics, we sure don't seem to be declining much.
                      I think there are two bigger issues: 1 is glamor/watchability, and 2 is time investment, Distance running does not have anywhere near the fan appeal of sprints, or of any other sport. As such, there are many who never get attracted to the sport. Who knows how many 'naturals' never even get a taste of it. Sprinting, or other sports have short, watchable highlights. The highlights show athletes who are bursting out with strength and speed, looking like they are ready to take on anyone. The highlight of a marathon is typical some guy crossing a finish line with no one in sight looking beat down and happy to have finished. Plus you have cross pollination effect. Sprinters very likely use their speed in other sports, be it football or soccer, but distance running is another animal altogether. Americans don't invest huge amounts of time to see a pay off anymore. Sorry, I think it is sad, but it is what I see. Also, I think Americans more than others feel like you are only competing if you are trying to win. Most people aren't willing to invest so much time to compete with themselves, or with others for a non-winning position. They want to be healthy, or challenge themselves, but don't need to compete otherwise. What is the time investment to go from 500th to 400th in a marathon? How many hours to get what, 15-30 minutes faster? To most people, if you can't win, you aren't competing. You may as well save your time for the other 400 million things you've 'got' to do. I don't know, lots of things to think about.
                      milkbaby


                        Hey Jim2, one of the things you didn't mention in your articles that some people may add in as a factor to the erosion of marathon times in the elite/national-class and sub-elite categories is the rise of professionalism in road racing. Before runners could win huge sums of money at a marathon -- and some get huge sums just to show up at the start line -- you had to be a little crazy to run that far that fast. But when the prize money became a factor, a lot of African runners started to show up and basically prize money that would be a subsistence living for Americans became a potentially life-changing sum for Africans. For some reason perhaps that had a deadening effect on American runners where some folks just threw up their arms and wondered what the point was when some itinerant African (or Mexican in the old days) runner would just win anyhow. There is also a growing mood among the general public that the elites must all be on some performance enhancing drugs. If you go to a place like letsrun, anytime there is a WR run, there is instantly some pundit who comments on how it is only possible through the use of performance enhancing drugs. (There was even an accusation online against Rothlin a Swiss runner who ran 2:07 just recently, which on the face of it is ridiculous considering that white European guys have run that fast over 20 years ago!) I may be wrong, but I think this line of thinking is especially prevalent among sub-elite competitors which essentially sabotages their potential racing performances since they believe they will never reach the next level without breaking the rules. And on down the line, runners like me who are average folks start to have the same feeling that it is impossible to run any faster without drugs, when the fact of the matter is that we probably haven't been running long enough nor are we running enough miles before tackling the marathon. Like JK said earlier, how many marathoners are running 10+ hours a week? If that information was somehow collected by race entry forms, we would see that it is probably a much smaller fraction of the entrants than 30 years ago. Also, most people can't just jump into running 10+ hours a week off the couch, but I suspect that the entry field of most marathons have a much larger percentage of newer runners than the fields of the past. Additionally, a lot of people will run a marathon early in their running life and go, "Holy crap that was hard!" Then they get in their mind that a BQ time would be impossible based on their initial performance. We want things to come to us easy nowadays instead of putting in the hard work and finding out what will happen. This is often seen by people who follow some cookie cutter training plan, then fall short of their goal whereupon they will ask, "What went wrong?" Training isn't some black box where you put in A and automatically get out B, but a lot of people expect that. Thank you to Long Run Nick for starting this discussion because it's pretty interesting. Maybe for some this is old news being rehashed, but it's still cool to talk about...
                        "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi "I have need to be all on fire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt." -- William Lloyd Garrison "The marathon is an art; the marathoner is an artist." -- Kiyoshi Nakamura
                        12