Auld fellahs and their (suspect) road PBs

TheRoadRunner

A couple of months back somebody put a piece of paper up in our clubhouse asking what peoples marathon PBs were. Over the weeks the sheet started to slowly fill up and some impressive PBs were evident.

A little while later asterisks (*) started to appear beside some of the times and when I asked it turned out some of the lads reckoned some of the courses were short. Of course there was no way of proving/disproving this. There was much debate. Most of these supposed short courses were races that dated back 20-30 years.

This got me thinking about road races and some of the PBs I've heard people have run back in the 70s/80s etc. While I'm not saying all courses were short I do have a sneaky suspicion there is a proportion (maybe significant) of PBs that shouldn't count. Even looking at some of our top marathon runners in days gone by. They have impressive 2.12-14 marathon times yet some of their 10 mile PBs are 46-47 minutes which translates into sub 2.10 marathons.

I've brought this up once or twice and was told I was soft. However I know 2 guys who have 31.30ish 10k pbs on the road yet their track PBs are 34 something. Similarly I know some fellas (and they are old:D) who have 14.40ish road 5k PBs but their track PBs are high 15 minutes. If I based my 5 mile PB on the short race I ran in the Irish runner "4.9" mile race I'd have a PB of over 40 seconds.

Anyway moral of the story when an auld fellah in your club or park or where ever tells you of his savage PB ask him was it measured accurately ........ with a garmin (;)) or at least a metre wheel or jones counter.

ecoli

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

A couple of months back somebody put a piece of paper up in our clubhouse asking what peoples marathon PBs were. Over the weeks the sheet started to slowly fill up and some impressive PBs were evident.

A little while later asterisks (*) started to appear beside some of the times and when I asked it turned out some of the lads reckoned some of the courses were short. Of course there was no way of proving/disproving this. There was much debate. Most of these supposed short courses were races that dated back 20-30 years.

This got me thinking about road races and some of the PBs I've heard people have run back in the 70s/80s etc. While I'm not saying all courses were short I do have a sneaky suspicion there is a proportion (maybe significant) of PBs that shouldn't count. Even looking at some of our top marathon runners in days gone by. They have impressive 2.12-14 marathon times yet some of their 10 mile PBs are 46-47 minutes which translates into sub 2.10 marathons.

I've brought this up once or twice and was told I was soft. However I know 2 guys who have 31.30ish 10k pbs on the road yet their track PBs are 34 something. Similarly I know some fellas (and they are old:D) who have 14.40ish road 5k PBs but their track PBs are high 15 minutes. If I based my 5 mile PB on the short race I ran in the Irish runner "4.9" mile race I'd have a PB of over 40 seconds.

Anyway moral of the story when an auld fellah in your club or park or where ever tells you of his savage PB ask him was it measured accurately ........ with a garmin (;)) or at least a metre wheel or jones counter.

I think this is a very valid point especially when you think that the number of complaints of short course has greatly increased since the garmin has become widely available to the public. Maybe the standard of races organizers has not greatly regressed but rather the public are more aware now with the advancement of technology

gerard65

About 25 years ago there was a well know '10mile' race near where I lived. It went on for a good few years and was know as a fast course. Years later when I started running again and got my garmin gps I ran the course. Guess what? it measure 9.3miles. I used to run the lap twice thinking I was putting in some good 20mile times, now I know those runs were 18.5miles:(

plodder

LOL. I think sometimes memories get a bit rosier as well with the passage of time ... An aul lad near me, who I never knew to be an athlete claims to have run sub 3 hour (Dublin) marathons back in the 80's. No websites back then to check up either

TheRoadRunner

plodder wrote: »

LOL. I think sometimes memories get a bit rosier as well with the passage of time ... An aul lad near me, who I never knew to be an athlete claims to have run sub 3 hour (Dublin) marathons back in the 80's. No websites back then to check up either

I reckon the Dublin marathon would have been bang on the distance although ypu are right no way to check. However there were other marathons like the Finglas marathon and national marathon that may have been a little short (or maybe even long).

RoyMcC

At my club the senior women's long jump record was set many years ago by a 14 year-old at a league match. It was clearly recorded wrong - it was about two metres further than the girl had ever jumped before :pac: Still, of course our team management kept quiet on the day to get the points.

But it still sits there as a record (along with several other dodgy ones from times past.)

Stark

Interesting.

It's a common sentiment that the standard of runner these days isn't as good as the standard of runner 20-30 years ago. Maybe it's a case that the courses are simply longer these days?

Though at the same time, the Ballycotton 10 is one race where the decline in standard is clearly evident and I don't think the course has changed there. Unless they moved the start/finish a bit. Well there is the fact that the front runners have to push past about a hundred walkers before they get going as well these days

TFBubendorfer

Proper old-school geezers will tell you that in the good old days road running was concentrating on racing each other. It was more important to beat yer rival than to set a PB. In that case it did not really matter if a race was 9.3 or 10.5 miles, they all had to run the same.

oldrunner

Will you ever leave us poor old runners alone. All we have left is our failing legs and fading memory of past glory

(oh and the fact that the top ten in many road races are packed with masters beating you young ones).

Krusty_Clown

You realize you'll all be in trouble when Condo131 turns up. He'll red'en your backsides for suggesting that newer technologies suggest more accurate measurement of courses, and that course distances in the golden-era were any less accurately measured (at least in Cork anyway!).

TheRoadRunner

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Proper old-school geezers will tell you that in the good old days road running was concentrating on racing each other. It was more important to beat yer rival than to set a PB. In that case it did not really matter if a race was 9.3 or 10.5 miles, they all had to run the same.

True, a race is a race no matter what the distance. However those geezers still like to quote their suspect PBs.

TheRoadRunner

oldrunner wrote: »

(oh and the fact that the top ten in many road races are packed with masters beating you young ones).

ha ha no denying that

tunney

Stark wrote: »

Interesting.

It's a common sentiment that the standard of runner these days isn't as good as the standard of runner 20-30 years ago. Maybe it's a case that the courses are simply longer these days?

Though at the same time, the Ballycotton 10 is one race where the decline in standard is clearly evident and I don't think the course has changed there. Unless they moved the start/finish a bit. Well there is the fact that the front runners have to push past about a hundred walkers before they get going as well these days

I'm friends with one of these ould lads. Despite being nearly fifty he still places in the top few (10-20) in any races he does. I dread to think what he was like 20-30 years ago.

Gringo78

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

You realize you'll all be in trouble when Condo131 turns up. He'll red'en your backsides for suggesting that newer technologies suggest more accurate measurement of courses, and that course distances in the golden-era were any less accurately measured (at least in Cork anyway!).

Condo has an excellent database on www.eagleac.net that has searchable race results from back to the late 70's...makes checking out peoples race time claims from years yonder easy.

Ballycotton though is proof alright that the auld fellas really were faster than us. The top runners in ballycotton still get away cleanly at the start and do not have to contend with walkers so thats no excuse.

But looking through condo's CARD database, you do see some questionable races from time to time where its obvious the course had to have been short or downhill or something, far too many runners running faster than normal.

Krusty_Clown

Wrong url, but the webserver seems to be down at the moment anyway: http://www.eagleac.net/

TheRoadRunner

Gringo78 wrote: »

Ballycotton though is proof alright that the auld fellas really were faster than us. The top runners in ballycotton still get away cleanly at the start and do not have to contend with walkers so thats no excuse.

I'm not questioning that faster times were run back "in the day" or that the dept in talent was a lot deeper.

I'm just saying that there are some very questionable PBs being claimed by people that could never have run them. If you can run sub 15 minutes for a 5k on the road you should be able to replicate something close on the track (assuming you race track of course)

mrak

For what it's worth I'd say you're right trr. People who race regularly should not be far out from the "mcmillan" curve. Irish runner magazine sometimes does profiles of vets and sometimes their times are all over the shop (e.g. amazing marathon and amazing mile but ordinary 5k and half).

Might be a variety of factors - different courses, maybe the times were set at a different year when they weren't going so well, possibly a bit of human exaggeration (easy for a 2:39 marathon becoming a "two and a half" a few years later), etc. Short courses are probably a factor too and as your example shows, short courses are still common. I can imagine that some people walked away from the irish runner 5 miler thinking it was accurate distance and will be quoting it to incredulous youngsters in 2050.

There's no doubt that the std was higher back in the day but as one old-timer said to me "the only pb that counts is a track pb".

TFBubendorfer

tunney wrote: »

I'm friends with one of these ould lads. Despite being nearly fifty he still places in the top few (10-20) in any races he does. I dread to think what he was like 20-30 years ago.

Yeah, I know someone just like that as well. He always seems to be just THAT bit faster than me and more often than not has beaten me by exactly one place. He always goes home with the M55 prize in his pocket.

One day I started chatting to him after a race and when I said something like "one day I'll catch you", he told me that he used to be a 2:2x marathon runner (I think he said 2:26, but I may be wrong). Personally I have no doubt that this time is correct. If he can still run a marathon at around 3 hours at M55 level, just imagine what he was able to do 20 years ago.

Actually, I just checked that. According to the WMA tables, a 3 hours marathon for a 58 year old is equivalent to a 2:29:41 time for his younger self. So that definitely sounds believable.

ultraman1

Tee- shirt at a match last year....THE OLDER I GET,THE BETTER I WAS....

Git101

ultraman1 wrote: »

Tee- shirt at a match last year....THE OLDER I GET,THE BETTER I WAS....

My Boards.ie signature for the last year.... and yes it's true

MrCreosote

OMG! Auld fellas exaggerating! Who would have expected?

I'm looking forward to it though in 2050-"back in my day we had it hard- none of these new-fangled Nike anti-gravity runner thingies. And we still ran the DCM in under 2 hours."

oldrunner

Do I detect a bit of jealousy in this thread? Let's all dismiss the results from the past. We can't run these times today so how on earth could those old men have done it in the past - they didn't even have heart monitors or GPS watches or internet forums for training advice - they just put the head down and ran. They must be all liars.:)

TheRoadRunner

oldrunner wrote: »

They must be all liars.:)

Not all of them just the guys who have track pbs of 16 and 34 minutes for 5 and 10k and road pbs of 14.30 and 31 minutes.

tunguska

oldrunner wrote: »

Do I detect a bit of jealousy in this thread? Let's all dismiss the results from the past. We can't run these times today so how on earth could those old men have done it in the past - they didn't even have heart monitors or GPS watches or internet forums for training advice - they just put the head down and ran. They must be all liars.:)

+1. Too many excuses being used by people today for being less than what they could be. Maybe there are some dodgy PBs being quoted, we'll never know. But having gotten to know a few of the lads who ran back in the day, Im inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

BeepBeep67

I ran 18 mins for the '4 mile' milk run when I was 15 - never seemed to be able to replicate that again - did I have a good day or was the course short :rolleyes:.
How many current (historic) races have managed to maintain their route over the years - Raheny Gerry Curtis still holds the record - would be good to do some comparisons?
Also I remember when I started training with the seniors when I was 17 the training sessions were savage, each one was nearly eyeballs out, Sunday long runs typically ended with a 5k time trial as everyone wound it up over the last few miles, I'm sure there's a balance to be found, but the previous generation (;)) seemed to train harder before science got involved!

shels4ever

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I ran 18 mins for the '4 mile' milk run when I was 15 - never seemed to be able to replicate that again - did I have a good day or was the course short :rolleyes:.
How many current (historic) races have managed to maintain their route over the years - Raheny Gerry Curtis still holds the record - would be good to do some comparisons?
Also I remember when I started training with the seniors when I was 17 the training sessions were savage, each one was nearly eyeballs out, Sunday long runs typically ended with a 5k time trial as everyone wound it up over the last few miles, I'm sure there's a balance to be found, but the previous generation (;)) seemed to train harder before science got involved!

Yep and the amount of miles they did was huge (if they were measured correctly ) . Was running with an auld lad on Sunday who was running 100 miles a week coming up to marathons in the 80's , he did run 2:45.. thats with no gait analysis Garmin , P+D and HH...

TheRoadRunner

shels4ever wrote: »

Yep and the amount of miles they did was huge (if they were measured correctly ) .

Don't get me started on our clubs 8 and 10 miles routes that are actually 7.5 and 9.2 respectively

shels4ever

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Don't get me started on our clubs 8 and 10 miles routes that are actually 7.5 and 9.2 respectively

Think i need to go and re-run the races that I set pb's in years ago... if these course were short your to blame Roadrunner...

Condo131

Gringo78 wrote: »

Condo has an excellent database on www.eagleac.net that has searchable race results from back to the late 70's...makes checking out peoples race time claims from years yonder easy.

Ballycotton though is proof alright that the auld fellas really were faster than us. The top runners in ballycotton still get away cleanly at the start and do not have to contend with walkers so thats no excuse.

But looking through condo's CARD database, you do see some questionable races from time to time where its obvious the course had to have been short or downhill or something, far too many runners running faster than normal.

Thanks Gringo!
The URL you cite is for the best (Detailed Search option), but it has been VERY slow to load for some time now. The main CARD (Cork Area Raceresults Database) access is HERE.

The database now contains over 140,000 results, from some 774 races, going back to the first Ballycotton 10. I have results, on paper, from hundreds more races, but, until I get hold of a decent OCR, they're just going to stay on paper. I'd love to extend CARD to IRD (Irish Raceresults Database), but it'd nearly become a fulltime job!

Wrt the OP, CARD is great for finding out who's bluffing, e.g. I had a guy tell that he ran 2:41 for the first Cork Marathon. He probably thought "Nobody will be able to dispute that!" (because the results aren't there anymore - but they are!). He actually ran 3:17 - hell of a difference.

The other point raised has been course accuracy. John Walshe has been measuring courses accurately, (it almost seems since Brian Boru's time), so we in Cork (culchie-land/Yobcountry/Dub nemesis to some on this forum :cool::rolleyes:;) ) have had accurate courses for a very long time. There are now about a half-dozen measurers in Cork, but John continues to set a high standard for us to try to emulate. Other parts of the country seem to be slow off the mark...and new commercial races???? ...how many of them have had issues to date??

...and finally......I regularly come across so called championship races that are way off the mark!

mrak

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

How many current (historic) races have managed to maintain their route over the years - Raheny Gerry Curtis still holds the record - would be good to do some comparisons?

Off topic but that 22:39 was some run. A running hero of mine is Gerry Ryan from Galway - who is himself an old-timer at 47 (but still running well - he is coming back from injury but still broke 25 mins for 5 miles last weekend). When I asked him who was HIS running hero he gave the nod to Gerry Curtis.

Not much on the internet about Curtis - does anyone have any links or pdfs they can share with more info on him. He seems to have dominated road running in ireland in its peak.

BeepBeep67

He's the club coach for Bray Runners, I'll ask what's floating around when I'm meeting him next - I know he and BLE didn't really see eye to eye and he was omited from certain squads at the time.

Condo131

mrak wrote: »

Not much on the internet about Curtis - does anyone have any links or pdfs they can share with more info on him.

A couple of months ago, somebody posted a link to a video of an Irish Ekiden (26.22M relay) victory in Central Park, N.Y., in the mid/late '80s. It reminded me, in particular, of the Irish team's victory [actually they won it 3 or for years in a row] when Gerry was head to head with the U.S.'s Ed Eyestone. It was great to hear the Yank's commentary early on suggesting that Eystone would just run away from the 'full-time fireman'. They were initially taken aback when Curtis when ahead, only for Eyestone to come back and take the lead. Almost immediately Curtis came again and buried Eyestone. The Yanks were gobsmacked that a full time Olympian athlete could be beaten by a full time fireman. It was brilliant.

When you're talking to Gerry, tell him that his performance has not been forgotten - and I bet he hasn't forgotten it either! I'd love to see that again - in fact, as I write, I think I may have it on video. [thoughts: any chance that 20 odd year old video is still 'ok'??]

btw, I still have all my Irish Runners and Marathon Magazines (anyone else remember that one?) going back to 1982 or so - might be an idea to scan some articles and post them 'somewhere' - if Frank Greally and Fr. Kelleher both agree with that.

TheRoadRunner

Condo131 wrote: »

btw, I still have all my Irish Runners and Marathon Magazines (anyone else remember that one?)

It was always my goal to get into the marathon magazine when I was a kid. I did eventually in 1993 but missed the edition as I was away on holidays. Any chance you can check if you have the addition with the BLOE track and field results in it? Everybody who got on the podium got a photo taken which usually featured in Marathon. Thanks

Condo131

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

It was always my goal to get into the marathon magazine when I was a kid. I did eventually in 1993 but missed the edition as I was away on holidays. Any chance you can check if you have the addition with the BLOE track and field results in it? Everybody who got on the podium got a photo taken which usually featured in Marathon. Thanks

Now you're asking :eek::eek::eek: .....I'll check....but it won't be today or tomorrow :rolleyes:. When I said I still had them...I didn't mean that they were all filed away neatly and in order.

...They're in random bags in the garage, the attic, under the stairs and whereever I can stash things away from my OH ("Whad'ya want them for! They're ancient! You never read them! etc.) [btw, one of several things I do when I'm not running is ......historical research (family, local etc)]

Someday these magazines will be useful again! Though not if the OH has her way!

TheRoadRunner

Brilliant whenever you get a chance. Let me know one way or the other. Missing that one edition wrecked my head for years. I bet i'm not even in it

TheRoadRunner

Just checked my medal and it was 1994 not 1993

clonliffe 22

Give the oul fellas credit where credit is due.
atleat then running was honest as in the effort regarding training and racing.
No garmin watches and gimmicks just honest grass routes running.

Stark

Not sure how having an accurate record of your training is "dishonest". A garmin doesn't do the running for you, you know. And it's not like runners twenty odd years ago didn't have stopwatches, heart rate monitors and training diaries.

TFBubendorfer

Well they didn't have HRMs as they were not in use 20 years ago, but otherwise I agree. What the heck is dishonest about running with a Garmin on your wrist??? You still have to do all the running yourself!

Stark

I think my dad had a HRM at some time in the late 80s/early 90s, although it seemed to be a heap of junk compared to the modern ones. The first one came out in 1977 but there was probably a good few years lag before they were affordable for most people.

opus

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Well they didn't have HRMs as they were not in use 20 years ago, but otherwise I agree. What the heck is dishonest about running with a Garmin on your wrist??? You still have to do all the running yourself!

I got one of the deluxe models that does some of the running for you

Actually reading this topic made me think of a funny story I heard where I work (part of UCC). There's a core group who go running at lunchtime most days and get joined by postgrads from time to time. Anyway one of the postgrads (from Austria) who was a marathon runner was a bit sceptical about some of the times that some of the group had done in the past, in particular John Buckley posting a sub-2:30 for the marathon. Anyway this didn't go down well with the group so on the way back from a run one day, around 5 miles from home, they considerably upped the pace & the postgrad was quickly burnt off. Needless to say he didn't show up for any more runs after that!

Condo131

Must get round to replying properly to the OP. Don't know where the "suspect" aspect comes from. Standards *HAVE* fallen massively and now all the doubters - who don't train anywhere near as hard as people did 20/30 years ago - just don't believe. Many races are still operating over the same course for the past 20 to 30 years, or more, yet timesfor the leaders have dropped off significantly.

- More when I get round to it.

On another topic:

mrak wrote: »

Not much on the internet about Curtis - does anyone have any links or pdfs they can share with more info on him. He seems to have dominated road running in ireland in its peak.

In the late '80's, Ireland won the annual New York Ekiden three years (I think) in a row.

Gerry Curtis featured prominently in the 1989 event. I've scanned an article from a 1989 issue of the Irish Runner. I'd like to upload more interesting articles, but I need to get Frank Greally's (Irish Runner) permission to do any of these, so may have to remove them.

1989 Ekiden Click on download if View doesn't work.

Condo131

Here's the Gerry Curtis article I promised some time back.

Note: Reproduced with permission of the Irish Runner magazine (copyright remains with Irish Runner magazine)

BeepBeep67

Condo131 wrote: »

Here's the Gerry Curtis article I promised some time back.

Note: Reproduced with permission of the Irish Runner magazine (copyright remains with Irish Runner magazine)

Thanks for that Condo - I'll pass it on to him.

Condo131

Here's the Gerry Curtis article I promised some time back.

Note: Reproduced with permission of the Irish Runner magazine (copyright remains with Irish Runner magazine)

marchino

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

How many current (historic) races have managed to maintain their route over the years - Raheny Gerry Curtis still holds the record - would be good to do some comparisons?

Did Cormac Finnerty not equal that record in the raheny 5 about 15 years ago aprox.??

serious times from the hardy men in those days but its hard to say for sure if every race was acurate, they still aren't with all the advances these days, so its unlikely they were back then.

BeepBeep67

marchino wrote: »

Did Cormac Finnerty not equal that record in the raheny 5 about 15 years ago aprox.??

Not according to their website: http://www.rahenyshamrock.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=8&Itemid=41

TheRoadRunner

Condo131 wrote: »

Must get round to replying properly to the OP. Don't know where the "suspect" aspect comes from. Standards *HAVE* fallen massively and now all the doubters - who don't train anywhere near as hard as people did 20/30 years ago - just don't believe. Many races are still operating over the same course for the past 20 to 30 years, or more, yet timesfor the leaders have dropped off significantly.

Just to clarify I never doubted that standards have fallen or the top lads (and even average club runner) trained a lot harder. My original point was that I know some auld fellahs with pbs of 18 minutes for 5k, 40 minutes for 10k, 62 minutes for 10 miles and 71 minutes for a half marathon. Either he had a magnificent run the day of the half or the half course was short.

ultraman1

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Just to clarify I never doubted that standards have fallen or the top lads (and even average club runner) trained a lot harder. My original point was that I know some auld fellahs with pbs of 18 minutes for 5k, 40 minutes for 10k, 62 minutes for 10 miles and 71 minutes for a half marathon. Either he had a magnificent run the day of the half or the half course was short.

maybe the 10 miler was long......

TheRoadRunner

ultraman1 wrote: »

maybe the 10 miler was long......

Yes smartypants but that would imply that the 5k and 10k were also long. What do your reckon is the most parsimonious solution?

ultraman1

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Yes smartypants but that would imply that the 5k and 10k were also long. What do your reckon is the most parsimonious solution?

would have to find out what parsimonious meant first....