Where have all the good runners gone? (Read 1621 times)

You can't put a number to talent and actually quantify it, but it's not that hard to qualitatively assess someone after awhile. You basically have to look at how fast they are and how much work it takes them to get there. If they can do really well of comparatively little training, they've got some serious talent. Most of the really good people are identified pretty young this way. However, there are a ton of people who have decent talent but it's not as extreme, so it's never identified unless they put the work in. The best guy on my college team was running 15:30 5Ks in high school off 30-40 mpw. He ran 14:53 in college off 40-50 mpw. It's pretty safe to say that had a car wreck not left him with chronic back and hip injuries and he'd worked up to double that volume, he could have been mid to low 14s. Now THAT is talent, and obvious, but not near potential. A former Olympian who coached me for awhile, claims he's the only guy he knew (and he knew everybody that counted) that could run mid-13 5Ks off 50 mpw and no more. Now THAT is talent, and even more obvious, again probably not at potential. Now me, I spent several years at 50 mpw and did nothing noteworthy (mid-34 10Ks etc). Some people would call that talented compared to the weekend warrior crowd but in a competitive environment it's nothing. Twice I worked up to the highest training load my body could handle (resulting in 31:50ish and 30:57 10Ks) and broke myself. If I couldn't do it off 110-120 mpw, and that was all I could handle, I argue that was near potential. No magical training plan was going to squeeze another minute out of the same training load over 10K. Clearly both of the above had more talent, as they could do the same or better off half the work. I think part of the dearth in marathoning depth we see is that in the early 80s is was still "cool" to do what I did, train like a madman and run fast marathons while working or going to school full time. I know a ton of guys from that era that did that, they trained in groups together. That was the fad. Because more guys were at least putting in the work to see if they were good, more guys like me who originally thought that they were decidedly mediocre found themselves running surprisingly fast. Today, you don't see guys out running 100 mpw just for the hell of it. Not often at all. You know, I know a ton of good or formerly good runners and right now I don't know a single one running 100 mpw.

Hmm, I did not see "jerk-offs" coming.

I hope someone else enjoyed this word play. It was intentional, right?

"There are fewer fast (sub 2:15) marathoners in the world than there were in 1988. And a much higher percentage of those that are left are from Africa." Are there? I know there are a lot fewer people going sub 2:50 but I sort of figured that was due to there being fewer weekend warriors getting after it. Are there really fewer guys going sub 2:15? It seems the opposite...there were 13 Kenyans (a few Ethiopians, etc.) who ran faster than 2:09 in the past two weeks.

It depends on one's frame of reference, Mikey. There may be as many (or more) total sub-2:15 runners in the world today. But what has changed is the demographics that make up that group. The majority today are Africans. Twenty years ago, the majority were from Europe, the Americas and the far East. There has been an erosion in that category in developed nations Looking at U.S marathoners as an example. Scott Douglas published an article titled "The Second Tier Disappears, Where have all the 2:15 marathoners gone?" in the January edition of 1997 Running Times in which he addressed the matter. He pointed out the following: --In 1981, 141 American men ran sub-2:20. In 1993 41 did. --In 1983, 190 men broke 2:20. In 1995 only 58 did. --The 160 men in the 1984 Olympic Trials had to break 2:19:04 to get there. In the 1996 OTs when the Q standard was 2:22, only 135 qualified. --In the 1984 OTs, the 40th fastest Q time among the 160 participants was 2:14:17. In the 1996 OTs the 40th fastest Q time among 135 participants was 2:18:01. I would also note that, of the 101 fastest marathons ever run by Americans, 44 were run in 1980-88 compared to 22 in 2000-2008. Douglas' very interesting article used to be available on his website, but disappeared in a redesign of the website in the last year or so. I have a copy that he sent to me 10 years ago when I first wrote my essay, The Decline of the American Marathoner. Maybe I will email him and ask if he would object to me putting it on my Running Page in case anyone is interested in it.

I think sub-2:15 is no longer "good". that's elite territory. when folks talk whistfully about where the sub-2:15 runners have gone they (usually) mean where have the sub-2:15 white runners gone. I don't mean to offend but that's what it seems like. 20 years ago the Kenyans and Eithiopians were just starting to win. Now they thoroughly dominate. Is that bad? No. But everyone wants to root for a countryman. There's nothing wrong with that. It was interesting to me that in 1975 Bill Rodgers set a Boston course record with 2:09:55. In 2009 Ryan Hall ran 2:09:40 and came in 3rd. Bill Rodgers final Boston win was in a time of 2:12:11. We have our Bill Rodgers ladies and gentleman. He has a lot more company but almost none of it from Europe or America. But all this talk is about elite runners and kind of off the original topic.

Confusing talent with hard work continues to make me sad.

I can not only tie a cherry stem into a knot in my mouth, but I can also tie two together. And it's not that hard. It is my special talent. Everybody has something.

It was interesting to me that in 1975 Bill Rodgers set a Boston course record with 2:09:55. In 2009 Ryan Hall ran 2:09:40 and came in 3rd. Bill Rodgers final Boston win was in a time of 2:12:11. We have our Bill Rodgers ladies and gentleman. He has a lot more company but almost none of it from Europe or America.

I'm just amazed that Rodgers ran as fast as he did back then, without the benefit of heart rate monitors, lactate-threshold testing, GPS-enabled watches, and advanced footwear.

Yeah I wasn't commenting on the demographics. But 7 of the 10 fastest times ever have been run in just the first 4 months of 2009 and it seems like 10 guys go sub 2:09 every weekend, so I have a hard time believing that there are fewer people running sub 2:15 now versus the 80's. That's all I was saying. These are remarkable times for the marathon event.

Mike - you are correct. I was inaccurate in my assertion. There are fewer sub 2:15 marathoners, excluding those from African nations.

It depends on one's frame of reference, Mikey. There may be as many (or more) total sub-2:15 runners in the world today. But what has changed is the demographics that make up that group. The majority today are Africans. Twenty years ago, the majority were from Europe, the Americas and the far East. There has been an erosion in that category in developed nations Looking at U.S marathoners as an example. Scott Douglas published an article titled "The Second Tier Disappears, Where have all the 2:15 marathoners gone?" in the January edition of 1997 Running Times in which he addressed the matter. He pointed out the following: --In 1981, 141 American men ran sub-2:20. In 1993 41 did. --In 1983, 190 men broke 2:20. In 1995 only 58 did. --The 160 men in the 1984 Olympic Trials had to break 2:19:04 to get there. In the 1996 OTs when the Q standard was 2:22, only 135 qualified. --In the 1984 OTs, the 40th fastest Q time among the 160 participants was 2:14:17. In the 1996 OTs the 40th fastest Q time among 135 participants was 2:18:01. I would also note that, of the 101 fastest marathons ever run by Americans, 44 were run in 1980-88 compared to 22 in 2000-2008. Douglas' very interesting article used to be available on his website, but disappeared in a redesign of the website in the last year or so. I have a copy that he sent to me 10 years ago when I first wrote my essay, The Decline of the American Marathoner. Maybe I will email him and ask if he would object to me putting it on my Running Page in case anyone is interested in it.

This is easy to explain. You either have it and do it, or you don't have it and don't bother. Back to the "it is no longer cool" comment. The people who know they can be elite do it and run 2:09-2:12, but you don't have the hundreds or thousands of guys who don't think they'll be world class but try anyways going in there with 100+ mpw and ending up 2:15 runners. These days, with the way the working world has gone, you can't afford to do it anymore if you can't make a career of it and very few can. Look at groups like the Hansons, none of those guys have real careers and can support a family, they work in the shoe stores primarily. I'd love to still be logging the miles, but a professional job now is not 40 hrs/week it's a lot more. With travel. Look at the statistics, Americans are working a lot more than they did 25-30 years ago. Our lack of free time and exercise, and prevelance of obese bodies are evidence of that.