Steve Jones Interview

TRR_the_turd

link here

Really interesting interview as always. Some highlights below for me and the kind of thing a lot of people looking to get around a marathon don't like to hear!

How has running changed?

Mass participation has hurt the sport, in my mind. It’s made a lot of people a lot of money. I have to be careful what I say because I get called out on it sometimes, but I don’t believe that starting and finishing a marathon makes you a marathoner. I don’t believe that. If you’re racing it to go as fast as you can, that’s completely different than being part of an event and just wanting to get from point A to point B. Like I said, I’m a purist. That’s not to say I dismiss people who are doing it.

What bothers you about running today?

people just want to be part of the event. I think it’s great in many ways, but the competitive sport hasn’t grown. The pinnacle hasn’t gotten higher or sharper because of these events and you would have thought after all this time that it would have. But the focus has changed and now there are absurd headlines, and I have to say, you are just as guilty, publishing articles like ‘5 Weeks to a Faster 5K’ or ’10 Weeks to a Marathon PR.’ It’s bull****. It’s just selling magazines or it just caters to people who are running 4 hours for a marathon or 25 minutes for a 5K.

Myles Splitz

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

link here

Really interesting interview as always. Some highlights below for me and the kind of thing a lot of people looking to get around a marathon don't like to hear!

How has running changed?


What bothers you about running today?

Saw this article pop up during the week.

I can see where he is coming from. Mass participation events are great for getting people started but there needs to be guidance to funnel this mass into the sport as a whole.

Perhaps it is the NGB's and clubs not targetting this market and not putting structures in place to funnel these people into sport in order to really push on the overall standard.

After discussions actually last night regarding particular races it got me thinking should there be more qualifying standard style races ( Armagh 5k, Boston, Fukuoka etc) put in place to really have people chasing improvement and to put focus beyond the idea of just completing events?

This probably comes across as elitist but to be honest I think that the two could complement each other. It is not a case of alienating anyone but rather have certain races open to all and ones to have people really evaluate there training in order to get the best out of themselves in order to qualify for these events.

Notwork Error

Notwork Error

Funnily enough, I was reading about Charlie Spedding the other day and all the questions he gets asked about his running, he says they are nearly always about his diet or shoes but no one asks him about his training.

yaboya1

I think cut offs/qualifying standards in races are a good idea (was only saying it to PM yesterday).

Being swept up in a race, or not being quick enough to enter in the first place should (I believe) have you striving to achieve the required standard.

Obviously many more agree with me, as the Boston Marathon is more popular than ever. A BQ for my age group is now five minutes faster than it was 4/5 years ago, and in recent years you've had to beat it by quite a bit to guarantee your place. A 3:02:33 wouldn't have been enough to get into 2016's race for me, despite the qualifying time being 3:05. I for one, am a big fan of a challenge like that and would never have run in Boston in my lifetime if I didn't legitimately qualify. Id have felt like a complete fraud/cheat.

pconn062

I think mass participation has both helped and hurt the sport. Because of mass participation we are able to get 400 people to run our club race, the funds of which we then pump back into the club to help our junior athletes. But it also means that the overall standard of the race drops and we have answer questions about medals, t-shirts, goodie bags.

However, I totally agree with him regarding the difference between competitive runners and "finish the course" runners. I hate this bull**** that you see posted "a 12 minute mile is still the same distance as a 6 minute mile". Yeah they are the same, but one is better than the other no matter what spin you put on it. Same way a 4 minute mile is better than a 4.30 mile, it's disrespectful to people who train hard to improve their performances.

28064212

Mass participation has hurt the sport

I don't think this part is true. I don't think mass participation has really affected the elite level at all. There's no-one out there currently happily running a 25 minute 5k that "could have been a contender", if only mass participation events hadn't tempted them away.

The average times of most races have increased significantly, but average times don't really mean anything in the context of the production of elite athletes. Which is the better 5k race from an elite viewpoint, an average time of 25:00 and 20 runners under 15 minutes, or an average time of 20:00 but only 5 under 15 minutes?

RayCun

28064212 wrote: »

Which is the better 5k race from an elite viewpoint, an average time of 25:00 and 20 runners under 15 minutes, or an average time of 20:00 but only 5 under 15 minutes?

Or an average time of 25:00 and only 3 under 15 minutes?

Races with pre-qualifying times sound like a good idea, if only to funnel the better runners into the same races. That's one of the great things about Charleville, from reports on here, that you will get a good group of fast runners doing it.

Chivito550

Mass participation could be a good thing if it was used properly. Why aren't AAI putting flyers or other things in goody-bags to encourage fun runners to come attend the Nationals in Santry, indoor Nationals in Athlone? Why don't the AAI tap into this market with information booklet given in these goody bags about which clubs are available to join and in what areas? Our governing body seem happy to keep fun running and track and field as 2 different sports. Consequently we have fun runs which are buzzing with atmosphere, but is mainly recreational, and we have track events like AAI Games which is high on talent but a fairly miserable experience for athletes, and the few spectators (coaches, family) who bother to attend.

wgtomblin

28064212 wrote: »

I don't think this part is true. I don't think mass participation has really affected the elite level at all. There's no-one out there currently happily running a 25 minute 5k that "could have been a contender", if only mass participation events hadn't tempted them away.

The average times of most races have increased significantly, but average times don't really mean anything in the context of the production of elite athletes. Which is the better 5k race from an elite viewpoint, an average time of 25:00 and 20 runners under 15 minutes, or an average time of 20:00 but only 5 under 15 minutes?

I tend to agree.

There are already plenty of national and regional races (track, XC, road) that are not mass-participation. They're open to AAI club runners only. There's no cut-off, but fair to say that they are competitive events. However, there's a growing number of people that are interested in running, and improving their times, but little to no interest in competing in Track & Field or XC for example. There's a disconnect there.

The likes of high profile , famous Boston and Fukuoka marathons can at least afford to have selective entry conditions because they still easily sell out. In Ireland, some races like Charleville attract a stronger field at the front end because they offer free entry, accommodation etc.. for elites and decent prize purse, but they are open to everyone. There's no qualifying criteria. At least these races are attracting more competition at the front, but it's debatable if they are improving the overall standard in any way. Top 100 Finisher in Ballycotton may be a better example - there's a tangible incentive there. I'm surprised that other big races haven't done something similar.

I think that it's more of a question of how to get people, particularly youngsters interested in athletics, and then developing and nurturing talent through proper coaching and facilities, be that through schools or athletic clubs.

Sacksian

I think that if times aren't improving at the top, then the problems are inadequate recruitment into the talent pool at an early age (or inadequate development and retention thereafter), not mass participation by middle-aged people.

There was some great talent on display at the Dublin juvenile cross-country league races at the weekend, and I know personally of a couple of kids finishing in the top positions whose parents got into the sport through the mass participation/Fit4Life angle.

Overall, I don't see how people running marathons in 4 hours or 5ks in 25 minutes has any effect on the times of people at the very front but if it gets people involved in the sport, then surely it's a good thing? As others have said, it's more a question of how mass participation and competitive athletics can work together in the best interests of the sport, rather than pitting the two against each other.

Clearlier

Sacksian wrote: »

I think that if times aren't improving at the top, then the problems are inadequate recruitment into the talent pool at an early age (or inadequate development and retention thereafter), not mass participation by middle-aged people.

There was some great talent on display at the Dublin juvenile cross-country league races at the weekend, and I know personally of a couple of kids finishing in the top positions whose parents got into the sport through the mass participation/Fit4Life angle.

Overall, I don't see how people running marathons in 4 hours or 5ks in 25 minutes has any effect on the times of people at the very front but if it gets people involved in the sport, then surely it's a good thing? As others have said, it's more a question of how mass participation and competitive athletics can work together in the best interests of the sport, rather than pitting the two against each other.

To be fair to Steve Jones when you read the full article he isn't against fun runners at all. He talks about appreciating the pain that someone is going through

I get emotional when I’m watching a marathon and see people after three and a half hours finishing a marathon. You start to cry, because you know what they’re going through. The guys at the sharp end go through the same thing as well. They want to stop after 20 miles or they have a blister on their foot or they hit the wall and are weaving all over the place. That’s the best part about all of this: you experience what the runners up front are doing.

The issue he has is that he think that industry run the sport rather than the sport running the sport.

The industry is huge, and the industry is running the sport now, not the sport running the industry.

Bear in mind here that he's based in the US where Nike are dominating the sport and there have been a number of allegations of unsavoury behaviour by Nike employees as well as allegations of inappropriate influence in a race resulting in the disqualification of an athlete that many saw as absurd.

He also seems to draw a distinction between the sport of running and mass participation.

Mass participation has hurt the sport, in my mind. It’s made a lot of people a lot of money.

I think that what he's saying here is that time, money and effort is put into promoting mass participation that could more usefully be directed towards the development of the elite end of the sport. I get what he's saying but it's shallow (this is a magazine article not an in-depth interview) so I don't know if he think that they're mutually exclusive which would be mistaken in my view or just that the sport of running hasn't taken proper advantage of the boom in mass participation about which he might have a point. Again it's worth bearing in mind his location here as some races in the US have stopped promoting elite athletes via prize money and expenses which previously they used to do.

RayCun

My impression (mainly from posts on here) is that the club system is much weaker over there. There are school teams, followed by college teams, followed by the Nike training camps, so more of a division between the elite runners and everyone else

RuMan

Chivito550 wrote: »

Mass participation could be a good thing if it was used properly. Why aren't AAI putting flyers or other things in goody-bags to encourage fun runners to come attend the Nationals in Santry, indoor Nationals in Athlone? Why don't the AAI tap into this market with information booklet given in these goody bags about which clubs are available to join and in what areas? Our governing body seem happy to keep fun running and track and field as 2 different sports. Consequently we have fun runs which are buzzing with atmosphere, but is mainly recreational, and we have track events like AAI Games which is high on talent but a fairly miserable experience for athletes, and the few spectators (coaches, family) who bother to attend.

This is very true. I'd argue that the "mass participants" should be encouraged to do cross country , but there's no publicity about them. You've people spending crazy amounts on commerical adventure races instead. The AAI could have come up with something like Parkruns and used it as a means to get people into clubs.

RayCun

these threads always end up as "why won't the AAI wipe my arse?":rolleyes:

'Mass participants' can't run the Novice cross country, they have to be club members. Why is it the job of the AAI to convince club members to run the Novices? Isn't that what clubs should be doing? (and my own club didn't, btw)

'Mass participants' can run in the Autumn Open XC, which is organised by the AAI

Lots of people are scared of the idea of cross country races, or track races, so just telling people the races are on won't do any good. And the reason people are scared of them is that they're afraid they'll come last. Which shouldn't be something to be scared of, but if you are worried by it, you're completely right to avoid XC and track because the standard is higher. You can run a road race or a park run and finish in the top half with people around you, but that performance will see you trailing in a few minutes after most of the field in the Dublin Novices. The problem is not advertising.

As for advertising clubs in recreational races... my local parkrun is Tymon. Why is it the job of someone in AAI to go out to the parkrun and tell people about Brothers Pearse? (And who should they be telling people about - BP or Tallaght?) It's my job to tell people about my club, at a road race or a parkrun

Sandwell

RuMan wrote: »

This is very true. I'd argue that the "mass participants" should be encouraged to do cross country , but there's no publicity about them. You've people spending crazy amounts on commerical adventure races instead. The AAI could have come up with something like Parkruns and used it as a means to get people into clubs.

I agree that cross-country could be promoted better but I'm not sure this is an either/or scenario. A huge chunk of the multi-sport/obstacle race market would not have the slightest interest in your average cross-country race. They're attracted to these races by the novelty of a spectacular location or by the various non-running components. Cross-country isn't going to compete with that.

There is the perception, possibly due in part to experiences in school trials etc., that cross-country is only for 'fast' runners. This undoubtedly scares off some people who would regularly take part in Parkruns and other mass-participation events.

RayCun

a lot of the mud-based events aren't races, everyone who gets around is a winner. You're not going to be tossing a coin deciding whether to do a mud run or your county senior XC race.

Myles Splitz

RayCun wrote: »

these threads always end up as "why won't the AAI wipe my arse?":rolleyes:

'Mass participants' can't run the Novice cross country, they have to be club members. Why is it the job of the AAI to convince club members to run the Novices? Isn't that what clubs should be doing? (and my own club didn't, btw)

Have to agree with this point.

If you look at some of the bigger clubs especially for Cross Country they manage to field numerous teams of varying levels in competitions (take Crusaders and Donore as examples at the weekend - both with 20+ runners competing with abilities ranging from the race winner in the womens to last in the mens)

It's the clubs that need to dispel these beliefs and encourage people to try not the AAI. This ties back in with the point of mass participation vs competitive racing. The comfort of anonymity is one of the big reasons while despite running in this country havae dramatically increased, competitive Athletics (including Road Racing, Track, XC) standards have not improved on par with these. You can argue that the marathon revival etc but these have no correlation with this increase and this is down to targeted initiatives by the AAI.

Sacksian

I think part of the reason why some clubs can get a lot of their members to do xc and/or track championships comes down to the senior coaches and club culture. My club is a cross-country club and a lot of the history of the club is about its cross tradition. From the way the coaches and some of the really old school guys talk about it, it's easy to get the sense you're missing out on a big part of the sport by not doing xc, particularly the championship aspect.

Anyway, 86 in the women's novice and 105 in the men's in Dublin at the weekend, that's pretty good. And a lot of the older guys, including myself, were 'mass participation' graduates!

p.s. And I actually think T&F standards are on the increase in recent years in events that Ireland is not traditionally associated with i.e. most things <1500m, but particularly some good young sprinters.

RayCun

its always a real struggle for us because of the marathon
We've had teams in the Intermediate more often, and we're grand for the Masters, but in October no-one wants to risk it

Sacksian

RayCun wrote: »

its always a real struggle for us because of the marathon
We've had teams in the Intermediate more often, and we're grand for the Masters, but in October no-one wants to risk it

Well, isn't that a good example of a mass participation event ruining championship athletics?!

Bros Pearse seemed to be very well represented at the Juvenile xc league on Sunday, and up the front of the races I saw, so at least the future's bright!

pconn062

RayCun wrote: »

its always a real struggle for us because of the marathon
We've had teams in the Intermediate more often, and we're grand for the Masters, but in October no-one wants to risk it

+1, always a struggle to get people to run XC races in October (and the 1st few weeks in November) as they are running the marathon or recovering from the marathon. Our senior XC is always the Sunday after DCM Monday which is a disaster.