An era of improving standards?

pconn062

With the current running boom that's happening, I'm wondering are we finally starting to see some improvement in the standards of running? (getting back to the so-called golden years of the 80's?). I'm talking about among regular hobby/club runners, not at an elite level. For all the negative impacts that a running boom can have such as over priced, badly organised races, are we starting to see some positive signs, ie an overall increase in road racing/cross country standards?
Even if we take the training logs here as an example, we have a lot more people featuring in the top 5-10% of races than even a few years ago. All the middle aged runners who started 5 years ago are now banging out respectable times. Even from my own point of view, 2 years ago the only sub 2.50 marathon runner I knew personally was my coach, now I can name at least ten people among my friends/clubmates who have achieved that or equivalent times over shorter distances.

Will we looking back in twenty years time and saying "I remember in 2013 when everyone was a great runner, it's not like that anymore??!".

Pisco Sour

pconn062 wrote: »

With the current running boom that's happening, I'm wondering are we finally starting to see some improvement in the standards of running? (getting back to the so-called golden years of the 80's?). I'm talking about among regular hobby/club runners, not at an elite level. For all the negative impacts that a running boom can have such as over priced, badly organised races, are we starting to see some positive signs, ie an overall increase in road racing/cross country standards?
Even if we take the training logs here as an example, we have a lot more people featuring in the top 5-10% of races than even a few years ago. All the middle aged runners who started 5 years ago are now banging out respectable times. Even from my own point of view, 2 years ago the only sub 2.50 marathon runner I knew personally was my coach, now I can name at least ten people among my friends/clubmates who have achieved that or equivalent times over shorter distances.

Will we looking back in twenty years time and saying "I remember in 2013 when everyone was a great runner, it's not like that anymore??!".

The reason people are in the top 5-10% of road races and marathons is because there are so many walkers and joggers doing them that the average has come tumbling down.

menoscemo

Pisco Sour wrote: »

The reason people are in the top 5-10% of road races and marathons is because there are so many walkers and joggers doing them that the average has come tumbling down.

I am not so sure about that. I have noticed an improvement in road races recently. Take the Meath half at the weekend. 640 finishers and 530 of them went sub 2 hours and 125 sub 1:30.

When i first started less than half would get under 2hrs in a HM. While the standard at the very front and very back of fields might still be the same, there has been a definite improvement in the midpackers IMO.

nerraw1111

Pisco Sour wrote: »

The reason people are in the top 5-10% of road races and marathons is because there are so many walkers and joggers doing them that the average has come tumbling down.

Not sure if that's quite true. Definitely seeing big improvements in a lot of the logs.

I'm guessing that the pointy end of the field is becoming a bit more crowded of late? Seems that way anyway.

pconn062

Pisco Sour wrote: »

The reason people are in the top 5-10% of road races and marathons is because there are so many walkers and joggers doing them that the average has come tumbling down.

I sort of agree, but I'm thinking more along the lines of what the lads are saying. The times in that top 5% have improved greatly and quicker times are needed to make it in. A couple of years ago it was all about sub 4 hour marathons and 20 minute 5k's. Now sub 3 is the new sub 4 and a 40 minute 10k is considered relatively slow even by hobby/club runner standards (I know it's very slow by elite standards). In fact my 10k PB is 38.30 and is one of the slowest in my entire club among the men anyway, whereas a few years ago this wouldn't have been the case.

RayCun

Was talking about this with the glamour couple on Sunday, and you can't take the training logs as evidence of anything. The fact that people are serious enough about running to log their training, or be regulars on this forum, already means they're taking their running more seriously than most. We/they aren't representative.
There's never any agreement on what 'improvements in the standard of running' means anyway. More people hitting international qualifying standards? Faster winning times in benchmark races (Ballycotton, Raheny, DCM)? More people getting under a strong-but-not-elite mark (eg, sub-35 10k, sub 60 10 mile, sub 2.50 marathon), or faster top 100 times in Ballycotton? Faster average finishing time in DCM?

Will we looking back in twenty years time and saying "I remember in 2013 when everyone was a great runner, it's not like that anymore??!".

Don't worry, whatever happens in the next 20 years we'll be describing this as a golden age :pac:

myflipflops

20 years ago, there used to be heats in the mens 5000 at the national championships. You had to be a pretty good runner to make the final. 15 minutes for 5k would have been the base line for a decent club runner. To be honest, 15 flat probably was the base line for good schools runners.

Standards are miles down on that. People now talk about 16 minute 5ks the way they used to talk about 15 minutes.

The other side of the coin is the enormous improvement in the standards and depths in the sprints.

pconn062

RayCun wrote: »

Was talking about this with the glamour couple on Sunday, and you can't take the training logs as evidence of anything. The fact that people are serious enough about running to log their training, or be regulars on this forum, already means they're taking their running more seriously than most. We/they aren't representative.
There's never any agreement on what 'improvements in the standard of running' means anyway. More people hitting international qualifying standards? Faster winning times in benchmark races (Ballycotton, Raheny, DCM)? More people getting under a strong-but-not-elite mark (eg, sub-35 10k, sub 60 10 mile, sub 2.50 marathon), or faster top 100 times in Ballycotton? Faster average finishing time in DCM?



Don't worry, whatever happens in the next 20 years we'll be describing this as a golden age :pac:

Yes but surely improvements are always going to come from people who take their running seriously? Be that people who keep a log here or who run with a club. They are the people you base it on, not people who jog once of twice a week to keep fit.

But I agree, it's hard to gauge what marks improvement. I suppose it was just something that occurred to me recently when chatting to different people about their plans and targets and I noticed the times they are chasing have definitely dropped.

RayCun

myflipflops wrote: »

20 years ago, there used to be heats in the mens 5000 at the national championships.

afaik there is no entry standard for the men's 5000, so if there are no heats it just means the number of entries is down. It's a problem if fewer people want to compete at national T&F (or interclubs XC), but it doesn't mean standards are down.

myflipflops wrote: »

People now talk about 16 minute 5ks the way they used to talk about 15 minutes.

The difference could be in the people you are talking to

Has the winning time in the mens 5000 been getting better or worse in the last 20 years? This isn't even a perfect measure because sometimes the very best athletes don't compete in the nationals, they're thinking of international competition. So the winning time in 2012 might be worse than in 2011, because the winner in 2011 is out of the country - that doesn't indicate falling standards.
Has the 5th place time in the same race been getting better or worse? That's one measure of the depth of the elite field. (But who cares about 5th place?)

Since most of the running boomers are seniors and masters, and distance runners rather than sprinters, maybe you could analyse masters results in DCM to see how things are changing. Average M35, M40 time, number of M35, M40 going under under 3, under 2.50, under 2.40, same for W35, W40.

But you're not going to notice the difference in national T&F, because the number of people who start as adults and get to that level is going to be miniscule. If the running boom is going to have a positive effect on elite standards it won't be directly by elites joining, but indirectly, by greater numbers strengthening the structures that develop future elites.

nerraw1111

In 2012 DCM, around 436 went sub 3 out of 12217 results.

Compared to previous year.

In 2011, out of 11722, 289 went sub 3.

In 2007, only 242 went sub 3 out 8460 results.

But then in 2010, out of 10778 results, 406 went sub 3.

Not sure what that tells us lol.

RayCun

Who were the pacers in 2011? :pac:

TFBubendorfer

The last time I "raced" Dublin in 2008 I came 344th (time was 3:05:38).
The same time in 2012 would have given you 579th place.

That's almost twice as far down the field. The standards are definitely improving.

Pisco Sour

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

The last time I "raced" Dublin in 2008 I came 344th (time was 3:05:38).
The same time in 2012 would have given you 579th place.

That's almost twice as far down the field. The standards are definitely improving.

Percentage wise is there much difference? 12000 people doing it now compared to 8000 back then?

RayCun

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Percentage wise is there much difference? 12000 people doing it now compared to 8000 back then?

So those extra 4000 people are not all walkers and joggers then, the same percentage of them are running sub 3.05.

yes, yes, I know, 3.05 is jogging pace

Gringo78

Not so sure if standards are improving - see attached curve of sub 60 finishers in Ballycotton over the years.

What is interesting though is of the Top 100 finishers in Ballycotton this year, only 5 were not a member of a club. And all of the Top 50 were members of clubs. So maybe standards will improve more, the more people join clubs??

RayCun

to play devil's advocate, that could be a result of the increased number of road races recently spreading the field out. There were 30 people in Bohermeen on Sunday who'd have gone sub-60 in Ballycotton, if they were there. (I know Bohermeen isn't a new race, but don't know how popular it was 10 years ago, or if it always clashed with Ballycotton)

what you'd really want is a database of results from all races of a given distance every year, a distance that isn't falling out of favour like the 10 mile, and count the number of different people going under a particular time in the year.

Krusty_Clown

RayCun wrote: »

a distance that isn't falling out of favour like the 10 mile, and count the number of different people going under a particular time in the year.

What you talking about Willis?! The number of finishers in Ballycotton has been increasing year on year (with the exception of a few blips). I'd say that's very much the case for the frank Duffy also. The quality of the field in Ballycotton is second to none for any race taking place that particular weekend, so I think it is a fair representation of dis-improving standards. In 1993 you had to run 56 minutes to have a chance of getting a top-100 finisher's T-shirt. :eek:

RayCun

Ballycotton and the Frank Duffy are as big as ever, but are there any 10 mile races that started in the last 10 years? There are loads of new 5k, 10k, and half marathon races. So there may be proportionately fewer people racing the distance than in previous years, so it might not be the best distance for comparing the number of runners of a standard 20 years ago and today.
The Ballycotton t-shirt metric is a good one and I agree, it has the best field of any race that weekend. But maybe 20 years ago there were only a couple of other races that weekend, so 70% of sub-60 runners were in Cork, and now there are a few more races (Bohermeen, Kinvara) so only 60% of those people are in Cork. Or 50%.
I'm pretty sure the standard at the top has fallen, I just think it's hard to measure.

pconn062

We all know the standard has fallen since the early 90's, nobody is questioning that and anybody from that era is more than willing to point that out! But the point is, are we starting to see a reversal of the downward trend? Of course, standards are not back up where they were but they are improving and could we be moving towards the quality of the 80's/90's, thanks in a large way to this running boom?

Krusty_Clown

RayCun wrote: »

but are there any 10 mile races that started in the last 10 years?

Stook 10 Mile, to name but one. I'm certain there are more. Ballycotton is the perfect race for comparisons, as it is one of the few races that has been run consistently for 25+ years, and for which some of the best club runners across the country have traveled to participate.

Krusty_Clown

pconn062 wrote: »

We all know the standard has fallen since the early 90's, nobody is questioning that and anybody from that era is more than willing to point that out! But the point is, are we starting to see a reversal of the downward trend? Of course, standards are not back up where they were but they are improving and could we be moving towards the quality of the 80's/90's, thanks in a large way to this running boom?

To address your point, if looking at the overall field, (rather than just the top and bottom end) I reckon you would see small performance improvements over a similar period in the 2000-2005 era (for example), largely attributable to having more information available (clubs, training plans, forums, available races etc.). But to address your original point, I think, like me, you may just be exposed to more sub 2:50 runners in recent years, as your interest in running has increased. When I started running 5-6 years ago, I knew one regular runner, and he had never run anything further than 10k. Through the internet and more recently, my local club, I know hundreds and hundreds of runners, in all shapes and sizes, from sub 2:20 marathoners, to 5+ hour marathoners. Perhaps in more recent times, we are just more connected with other runners who run similar times?

Incidentally, I remember the first time I traveled to Berlin for the marathon, where I met an Irish runner who had just run sub 2:50. I remember being in awe of him and I just couldn't fathom how somebody could possibly run a time like that. It was almost beyond comprehension. I've since run faster than that 4-5 times. Now I am in awe of anyone who can run a mid 2:3x time! An ever-changing value-system!

TFBubendorfer

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Percentage wise is there much difference? 12000 people doing it now compared to 8000 back then?

There were 9367 finishers in 2008, 344th place is 3.7 %
There were 12208 finishers in 2012, 579th place is 4.7 %

The improvement in standards is not quite as dramatic percentage-wise as it is place-wise but it is clearly still there.

myflipflops

pconn062 wrote: »

We all know the standard has fallen since the early 90's, nobody is questioning that and anybody from that era is more than willing to point that out! But the point is, are we starting to see a reversal of the downward trend? Of course, standards are not back up where they were but they are improving and could we be moving towards the quality of the 80's/90's, thanks in a large way to this running boom?

Ah right, that is a different prospect.

I would say standards are definitely improving from the low point of the early and mid 2000's.

rom

It is due to the recession. People have generally more time as we all don't have 2 jobs and are speculating on property, drinking in wine bars till 4 am etc etc. To many people going down to their fit4life or running club is what going down the pub used to be but much cheaper.

Those that are luck to still have a good living and jobs have friends that may not. They are not going to say come on lets go out and blow 1/2 your dole on a night out but lets do something that is pretty inexpensive in comparison.

I do think with the current 33% approx youth unemployment AAI are missing a trick. Yes they may be little jobs but no reason why Fas courses on running etc can't be done as someone long term unemployed is much more employable in a good positive state of mind than whatever training course they are lumped into.

I heard some guy on the radio say something like this before "I can survive with no work and much running but I can't with much work and no running". He talked about how running helped to get him out of long term unemployment.

ChickenTikka

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Ballycotton is the perfect race for comparisons, as it is one of the few races that has been run consistently for 25+ years, and for which some of the best club runners across the country have traveled to participate.

Agree with that and the chart posted by gringo78 shows the curve is on the up. Interesting it peaked in early nineties ... older runners seem to harp back to the eighties more so than the nineties. Would be interesting to see how the curve compares with boom/recession curve in same period.

DrPatrickBarry

Why did we run faster in the 1980s?

There are some very interesting comments from members of the public.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/2013/mar/11/faster-1980s-old-school-running-training

walshb

Interesting article, and I guess it sort of pours cold water on the nutrition debate. Nutrition is important, but subtle nutritional changes/technologies are not anyway a real indicator of improvement.

Two key points or comments: People taking up more lucrative sports that pay more, and drugs testing improvements. Back in the 1980s the testing was not near the level it is today.

I see a point made about Farrah being considerably faster than any Briton before him. Well, Moorcroft was a 13 min runner. Faster over 3 k as well. And, Farrah is African by genetics.

RayCun

walshb wrote: »

And, Farrah is African by genetics.

so are we all

DrPatrickBarry

I watched a programme about the 26 Km beast of a fell race "Borrowdale" in the Lake District. The record (02:34:38) is held by the legendary Billy Bland since 1982. He was asked by the presenter why he thinks his record has stood for so long. His reply "some people do not train hard enough"

http://fellrunner.org.uk/races.php?id=2598

Interesting stats on my tea mug here. Another even harder Fell Race is the Peris Horseshoe in Snowdonia. The male record (03:02:49) is Gavin Bland in 1994. The M60 record (04:20:37) is from 2006. I am 48 yrs old and very happy with a 04:43!! There are more and more very good runners reaching these ages and setting course records in the older age categories.

walshb

Money is a big part of this. Even old records today like the mile probably won't be touched for a while. But, if big money was there at meets you can bet there would a hell of an effort to break it. Of course, the mile is not your standard meet race, but if the IAAF put in the effort and some backers offered the cash you can bet these records would tumble.

DrPatrickBarry

walshb wrote: »

Money is a big part of this.

Not in true amauter running

walshb

DrPatrickBarry wrote: »

Not in true amauter running

As long as no money changes hands, yes.

Hypothetical question: If some wealthy track/road fan offered let's say 20 million euro to the first man to break 2 hrs for the marathon do you think the record would be dropping and eventually hit the 2 hrs and below? What sort of timeframe for the success?

Yes, I know, money isn't an elite's only desire and pusher!

Or, if the best of the best runners were isolated and no expense was spared on them could they get to 2 hrs?

rom

walshb wrote: »

As long as no money changes hands, yes.

Hypothetical question: If some wealthy track/road fan offered let's say 20 million euro to the first man to break 2 hrs for the marathon do you think the record would be dropping and eventually hit the 2 hrs and below? What sort of timeframe for the success?

Yes, I know, money isn't an elite's only desire and pusher!

Or, if the best of the best runners were isolated and no expense was spared on them could they get to 2 hrs?

Maybe they could do it in training

DrPatrickBarry

In my fell running club, the top guys are under-achieving. They are not focusing on their best distances, do too many races close together, drink beer, etc, etc. They love the sport and are doing very well but will not break any records. I am not critising them, but to achieve that bit extra takes a different mindset and is it that that is changing? I know for one that my training could not be called a training plan. I get out when I can due to having a young family.

DrPatrickBarry

walshb wrote: »

Hypothetical question: If some wealthy track/road fan offered let's say 20 million euro to the first man to break 2 hrs for the marathon do you think the record would be dropping and eventually hit the 2 hrs and below?

I wonder if something similar does exist?

walshb

rom wrote: »

Maybe they could do it in training

But that wouldn't be official. And the wealthy man would get off on a technicality!

walshb

DrPatrickBarry wrote: »

I wonder if something similar does exist?

Not sure. I doubt it's all that high a figure if it does exist. Maybe the IAAF need to look into getting more corporate sponsors to offer big bucks. I am sure they are trying hard. I knwo some meets offer extra cash if a WR is achieved.

rom

So you don't think 500k for winning the marathon majors with appearance fees, time bonuses, sponsorship is a enough of a motivation to someone from a country where the wages are about 1/10th they are in Ireland ? or the dubai marathon where you get 200k for first place ?

walshb

rom wrote: »

So you don't think 500k for winning the marathon majors with appearance fees, time bonuses, sponsorship is a enough of a motivation to someone from a country where the wages are about 1/10th they are in Ireland ? or the dubai marathon where you get 200k for first place ?

Oh no, that money is a factor, no doubt. I just wonder if really big bucks would do better. So, what would you say to my question? 20 million for the first male to break 2 hrs. Do you think we would see drops and drops and a possible 2 hrs? Yes, that may happen without 20 million, but could that much reward accelerate the process?

DrPatrickBarry

walshb wrote: »

Oh no, that money is a factor, no doubt. I just wonder if really big bucks would do better. So, what would you say to my question? 20 million for the first male to break 2 hrs. Do you think we would see drops and drops and a possible 2 hrs? Yes, that may happen without 20 million, but could that much reward accelerate the process?

A brief Google implies it is a massive (and very expensive) undertaking so a very big prize may be required.

rom

It is 2:03:38 at the moment.
It was 2:06:50 in 1988.
So approx 3 mins took 20 years. Come back in another 20 years

walshb

Some records will be tougher than others with or without money. The sprints, for example. They are over so quickly. They are so specialist. But, 1500 and upwards could return some breaks if big bucks were available.

TFBubendorfer

walshb wrote: »

and drugs testing improvements. Back in the 1980s the testing was not near the level it is today.

For someone who not long ago argued that Lance Armstrong had been tested 500 times and must therefore have been clean, and who <Snip> you sure have changed your tune.

The thread was about general standards amongst hobby and club runners btw. I doubt drugs have anything to do with it.

Mod: Gentle reminder to stay off the speculation route in this discussion

walshb

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

For someone who not long ago argued that Lance Armstrong had been tested 500 times and must therefore have been clean, <Snip> you sure have changed your tune.

The thread was about general standards amongst hobby and club runners btw. I doubt drugs have anything to do with it.

Changed my tune? All I said was that the drugs testing standards have quite improved between the 80s and now. That was all I said!<snip> I don't recall saying that Lance was tested 500 times. I may have said theat he was heavily tested and that almost all returned negatives.

I must have misread the thread as regards who the article was directed at. I thought for whatever reason that it was speaking about elite and pro runners.

DrPatrickBarry

I resurged this thread a bit, with the link to the Guardian article, and I was more thinking about hobby and club runners, where there is no doubt that there has been a falling off in standards.

walshb

BTW, I was reading and speaking about the Guardian article. That seems to be about athletics at the highest level.

DrPatrickBarry

walshb wrote: »

BTW, I was reading and speaking about the Guardian article. That seems to be about athletics at the highest level.

Yes, but but there were some very interesting comments from the Guardian Readers (coaches, etc) about running al all levels.

walshb

DrPatrickBarry wrote: »

Yes, but but there were some very interesting comments from the Guardian Readers (coaches, etc) about running al all levels.

Yes, there was. I was just clearing up an issue that another poster had mentioned. Incorrectly mentioned.

nerraw1111

Yeah way off topic. The Guardian article is specifically about amateurs, fun running. Thus money has no part to play in it.

Nor does it pour cold water on the nutrition debate.

“The argument that sports scientists tend to make when you point out that the likes of Foster and Spedding achieved all that they did without nutritionists and scientific testing is that they would have been even faster if they'd had access to those things too.”

Which is a fair point.

Also an interesting point about fell running records. The record for Snowdon is 62 minutes and that was set in 1985, the women’s record dates from 1983. Ireland’s John Lenihan won 89 in a time of 64 minutes. That record has stood for nearly 24 years now.

The last time someone won that race under 65 minutes was in 1997. Although last year’s time was the fastest since 1997.

It’s a great experiment, will follow that closely.

walshb

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Yeah way off topic. The Guardian article is specifically about amateurs, fun running. Thus money has no part to play in it.
.

Why then are they mentioning Foster and Medal winners from the Olympics. Granted, back then they were considered amateurs, but they were the best on earth. Am I missing something? Where in the article does it say or imply fun running or amateurs specifically? Looks like a mixed article.

DrPatrickBarry

The Guardian article is actually a blog by Michael Crawley

A summary from last summer states he has a number of top performances under his belt including a 51.15 for 10 miles and 30.22 for 10,000m.

so as a U20, he would be at the very top of the club running scene.