The Slowest Generation

tunney

Yes its about America but it does seem to apply here alot.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324807704579085084130007974.html?dsk=y

"Many new runners come from a mind-set where everyone gets a medal and it's good enough just to finish."

"If you're going to get just as much praise for doing a four-hour marathon as a three-hour, why bother killing yourself training?" asked Robert Johnson, a founder of LetsRun.com, adding that, "It's hard to do well in a marathon if your idea of a long session is watching season four of 'The Wire.'"


I've heard it alot from older runners (and triathletes) that the present crop just don't do the right training, and don't know how to suffer.

Given these people still place so highly in races despite being "nearly dead" I'm inclined to agree with them.

Have we gotten soft? In every sense of the word.

Kurt Godel

There's a large part of me that doesn't care, if some people want to complete events and collect medals and praise without pushing themselves too hard, let 'em on. However, when the balance of power of races gets tilted towards the needs of inclusiveness at the expense of competition, that's a real worry. Non-swimmers wanting triathlon medals means swims are more likely to be curtailed or cancelled. Stupid rules being enforced to appease have-a-go tail-enders who whine on radio. Long-established road races being bought up by corporate entities who then eliminate top-end prize structures in favour of entertainment along the race route.

Smaller, club races; thank god for them.

bryangiggsy

tunney wrote: »

Yes its about America but it does seem to apply here alot.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324807704579085084130007974.html?dsk=y

"Many new runners come from a mind-set where everyone gets a medal and it's good enough just to finish."

"If you're going to get just as much praise for doing a four-hour marathon as a three-hour, why bother killing yourself training?" asked Robert Johnson, a founder of LetsRun.com, adding that, "It's hard to do well in a marathon if your idea of a long session is watching season four of 'The Wire.'"


I've heard it alot from older runners (and triathletes) that the present crop just don't do the right training, and don't know how to suffer.

Given these people still place so highly in races despite being "nearly dead" I'm inclined to agree with them.

Have we gotten soft? In every sense of the word.

I know a guy who runs 2000kms every year and runs the same marathon time every year (circa 3.30) Too many people think just training and staying in their comfort zone is enough to make improvements. In reality its just junk training.
I include myself as a person who used to think like this.

BTH

The article refers to marathon running. There is clear evidence that this is the case there. But there is a thread over on the Jogging forum for that if you want to discuss that.

As for Triathlon, records aren't as good for races back in the 80s here in Ireland, so I don't know if thats the case. I've been involved in triathlon only 4 years, and in my opinion the standard and the depth at the pointy end of the field have increased quite a bit in that time. And course records have fallen in a lot of races this year (its been Kevin Thornton everytime though!!)

tunney

BTH wrote: »

The article refers to marathon running. There is clear evidence that this is the case there. But there is a thread over on the Jogging forum for that if you want to discuss that.

As for Triathlon, records aren't as good for races back in the 80s here in Ireland, so I don't know if thats the case. I've been involved in triathlon only 4 years, and in my opinion the standard and the depth at the pointy end of the field have increased quite a bit in that time. And course records have fallen in a lot of races this year (its been Kevin Thornton everytime though!!)

Yes you are right. It does refer to marathons, I was extrapolating to multi-sports however. I don't think there is any doubt as to running but as you say thats a different thread.

Kevin is great and all but he is really just replacing Brian Campbell as the fastest age grouper behind Gavin Noble as top dog pro.

I don't see any change at the top end really domestically - just the old guard stopping and taking time to be replaced.

tunney

tunney wrote: »

Yes you are right. It does refer to marathons, I was extrapolating to multi-sports however.

As in saying as a generation of endurance "athletes", are we soft?

Much like we have changed the socially acceptable norms of weight (What was once normal is considered skinny, what was fat is now normal, what was skinny now results in an intervention, and so on).

Are we going easy on ourselves is what I am asking? Obviously some aren't but in general is it too much patting on backs and not enough work.

tunney

Just looked at AR, done to death there. Oh well too slow. Might as well let this one die here....... (or delete it)

BTH

tunney wrote: »

Yes you are right. It does refer to marathons, I was extrapolating to multi-sports however. I don't think there is any doubt as to running but as you say thats a different thread.

Kevin is great and all but he is really just replacing Brian Campbell as the fastest age grouper behind Gavin Noble as top dog pro.

I don't see any change at the top end really domestically - just the old guard stopping and taking time to be replaced.

When I said the pointy end, I meant the top 10-15 in NS races. I know I kind of confused that by mentioning Kevin. You have a point about the old guard stopping though. Seems to be a common enough thing in Tri. The likes of Kevin Keane doesn't seem to have raced a tri in two years, Aodh O'Neill, Mike Yelverton, guy who were winning all round them only 2 years ago have disappeared.

But I don't believe that the standards of that top 5% in triathlon here in Ireland is falling. Average finish times may be dropping as races try to cram in more and more people (which is another topic completely), but there seems to be some new faces popping up every year to push the standards on a bit.

sconhome

Just 2c worth.

I think with the vastly increased numbers of people participating in sports then there is naturally going to be a broadening of abilities across the board. Naturally there is a diminishing percentile of the population which has the focus, talent and ability to be in the top group which means the vast majority of the sweling ranks are at the middle to bottom of the pyramid.

As I said over on the darkside, motivation comes from you, within. The medals, shirts etc are just tangible reminders.

sconhome

BTH wrote: »

When I said the pointy end, I meant the top 10-15 in NS races. I know I kind of confused that by mentioning Kevin. You have a point about the old guard stopping though. Seems to be a common enough thing in Tri. The likes of Kevin Keane doesn't seem to have raced a tri in two years, Aodh O'Neill, Mike Yelverton, guy who were winning all round them only 2 years ago have disappeared.

But I don't believe that the standards of that top 5% in triathlon here in Ireland is falling. Average finish times may be dropping as races try to cram in more and more people (which is another topic completely), but there seems to be some new faces popping up every year to push the standards on a bit.

Cream always rises (unless its homogenised)

Mike is injured this season. Was involved in an accident early in the year I believe.

MrCreosote

It's total bullsh*t. This guy has just made the usual mistake of comparing two completely different groups. Back then the average runner was male, worked fewer hours, earned more (relatively speaking), probably had wifey looking after the kids at home, and came from a trained athletics background. There were also far fewer of them, despite the numbers running in the big city marathons.

Find someone like that nowadays and I suspect they'd be doing similar or better times.

These old codgers are just pissed off because they feel like their ancient glories are somehow invalidated by the numbers taking part now. Really, if you're not at the very front, who the hell cares about your times/positions apart from yourself?

sconhome

Last month, Competitor Group Inc. announced it would no longer pay appearance fees for professional runners to compete at its Rock 'n' Roll marathon and half-marathon series in the U.S. CGI still pays travel expenses and more for the elite.

This stands out in the article for me. As a commercial enterprise R&R have obviously recognised that having professional atheletes at their events has absolutely no bearing on the majority of the field.

Save their overheads, invite some local or national elite runners at a much lower cost, let them win the prize money and have the benefit of the more tangible "he's one of ours" type of brand loyalty.

Similarly Irish elite Sean Hehir, beat the imported professional at the Charleville half on Sunday.

tunney

MrCreosote wrote: »

These old codgers are just pissed off because they feel like their ancient glories are somehow invalidated by the numbers taking part now.

Would agree with you bar the "old codgers" I was referring to would still crush most across a range of distances. When I grow up I want to be like them (actually being serious the attitude to sport and lifestyle is inspiring)

MrCreosote wrote: »

Really, if you're not at the very front, who the hell cares about your times/positions apart from yourself?

Valid point. Although as AKW pointed out the average fun runners (whats the triathlon equivalent? Age grouper? ) doesn't care about the pointy end.

I suppose more of just a discussion of sport in general.

hypersonic

Surely with improving equipment, bikes, wetsuits, drafting :P etc improving times should be a given?

mloc123

After seeing the Videos from the 80s where they were racing 4hr HIMs on road bikes, you have to wonder how accurate courses were.

I would imagine the top of the field these days are quicker than 20 years ago, but the mid pack and fat triathletes drag the overall average well down.

Oryx

There are more people taking up individual sports like running and tri than ever before, and many haven't done anything training related since they gave up school sports after leaving cert. So naturally, if you get a lot of untrained, non sporting 30-50 year olds entering races, the overall standard is going to fall. This does not effect the top end of the races, which still has the old guard and the 'serious' people competing.

Yes, there are plenty who will enter and leave tri quite quickly, just doing it to tick a box or come away with the 'I am a triathlete' tag. Same for one time marathoners. They've always been there, but the current popularity of such sports means there are more of them right now. (They say running is a recessionary sport - when you cant afford any other hobby, you run)

I came late to the sport, so I am loathe to point fingers. And I do love a good medal. But rather than seeing this influx as damaging, I see it as entirely positive. Because for every 10 that come in, do a slow race and never do another, there will be at least 2 who stick at it, improve, and become competitive. A more visible sport brings in more junior members, and so the sport grows. Yes, part of that growth will mean more 'back-of-packers', but for every premier league you have 1000 five a side local kickabouts.

I've heard it alot from older runners (and triathletes) that the present crop just don't do the right training, and don't know how to suffer.

This I do agree with though. We are a lazy generation, with most of the general population eating too much and never breaking a sweat in their day to day lives. Because of this, many feel that getting off the couch and doing something, anything, is good enough, or maybe they feel happy with a mediocre standard because they came from such a low start point. People are soft, and are used to never feeling pain, or putting their bodies under strain. That transfers to training, where the minute it gets hard, they walk, or whinge. Its taken me a long time to understand the htfu mindset, I belong in the lazy generation too!

RedB

My take on it (and this applies to lots of things other than sport) would be "why do we do what we do?" and I think its down to validation. You can get that internally or externally. If you get that internally (even if it involves fooling yourself) then you determine the acceptable level of suffering. If you get it externally then you accept the required level of suffering. Either way the payback has to be worth the effort.

Maybe there's just a natural continuum in people's ability and mindsets from the hardcore to the softcore and that's just the way of the world. I don't doubt that we wouldn't have come down from the trees without the ability to push ourselves but we can also mentally balance the 'return on investment' and decide where we want to be on the suffer scale. We're complex creatures and there's no definite right or wrong. I think with increasing participants, the law of large numbers will show what 'normal' for the herd is but there's always going to be extremes at either pointy ends of the curve.

Of course we should be trying to improve ourselves and enduring the suffering involved to do that but when that involves dis-improving other aspects of our lives then it becomes an individual trade off of the best mix for each person to select imho. Live and let live and do the best you can.

BennyMul

the problem with the statement "slow generation" is far too vague.

there are individuals out there who exercise and enter races just for the social aspect, this is better than sitting on the couch costing me money in medical bills in the future with health issues.

so what is slow?
based on Olympic standards then we are all brutal slow.:P

is there a difference in two individuales competing at their maximum genetic ability even is there is a vast difference in finishing time?

tunney

BennyMul wrote: »

is there a difference in two individuales competing at their maximum genetic ability even is there is a vast difference in finishing time?

No but that is the point, not that we are genetically sh1t but that we just are telling ourselves that mediocre is great, and sh1t is average (or great) because we don't try. Oryx, in my opinion, said it perfectly.

Oryx wrote: »

This I do agree with though. We are a lazy generation, with most of the general population eating too much and never breaking a sweat in their day to day lives. Because of this, many feel that getting off the couch and doing something, anything, is good enough, or maybe they feel happy with a mediocre standard because they came from such a low start point. People are soft, and are used to never feeling pain, or putting their bodies under strain. That transfers to training, where the minute it gets hard, they walk, or whinge. Its taken me a long time to understand the htfu mindset, I belong in the lazy generation too!

Izoard

You can't really look at the averages to guess the health of the sport at the sharp end.
For example:
2011 analysis of marathon finishers (521,000 sample) in the US:

Men: 59% of finishers, ave age 40.5, ave (median) time 4hr 26.
Women: 41% of finishers, ave age 37, ave (median) time 4hr 52.

This is the reality - whether you choose to measure yourself or the general health of the sport against these numbers is a different issue.

RedB

tunney wrote: »

No but that is the point, not that we are genetically sh1t but that we just are telling ourselves that mediocre is great, and sh1t is average (or great) because we don't try. Oryx, in my opinion, said it perfectly.

+1 and she also highlighted the growing numbers participating in sport.

I think there are (at least) two simultaneous things happening. The first thing is that the general western population is definitely having an easier life (and as a result probably getting lazier and more unhealthy) due to increased labour saving devices, technology, lifestyle changes etc. There is a tendency to use that opportunity to sit and conserve energy (while watching tv and filling up on sugar). The second thing is that growing numbers are using the opportunity to take up sport so we are seeing growth. Unfortunately the tendency does seem to be that the laziness factor outweighs the participation factor