Ballycotton 1987 - 2017

RayCun

Running in Cork had an interesting analysis of the top 100 in each race

1) In 2017, three men ran under 50 minutes. In 1987, it was fourteen.

2) The time for the 50th finisher in 2017 was 57m 45s. In 1987, the 50th person was 54m 08s. The time for 50th place in 1987 would have finished in 16th place in 2017.

3) The time for the 100th finisher in 2017 was 59m 50s. In 1987, the 100th person was 56m 46s...roughly 3 minutes faster. The time for 100th place in 1987 would have finished in 42nd place in 2017.

As for why the times were so much faster back then? Basically, it mostly due to the fact that in 1987, most of those in the top 100 were young men who ran a lot. The age profile of the average runner now is older.

(The top 100 this year had 13 M40, 9 M45, 2 M50, 1 M55, and 1 F40, 2 FS, compared to 3 M40 in 2017)

28064212

There's an element of cherry-picking going on in selecting 87: it was an unusually fast year. If you add in the comparisons for 86 and 88:

1) In 2017, three men ran under 50 minutes. In 1987, it was fourteen. In 1986, it was seven. In 1988, it was nine

2) The time for the 50th finisher in 2017 was 57m 45s.
In 1987, the 50th person was 54m 08s. The time for 50th place in 1987 would have finished in 16th place in 2017.
In 1986, the 50th person was 55m 31s. The time for 50th place in 1986 would have finished in 27th place in 2017.
In 1987, the 50th person was 55m 19s. The time for 50th place in 1988 would have finished in 25th place in 2017.

3) The time for the 100th finisher in 2017 was 59m 50s.
In 1987, the 100th person was 56m 46s. The time for 100th place in 1987 would have finished in 42nd place in 2017.
In 1986, the 100th person was 58m 47s. The time for 100th place in 1986 would have finished in 70th place in 2017.
In 1988, the 100th person was 58m 42s. The time for 100th place in 1988 would have finished in 69th place in 2017.

Now, there's still a noticeable slow-down, but certainly not as much as the 87 comparison suggests. I also think it's much too simplistic to assign the cause to a single issue like higher age profile. It's undoubtedly contributory, but there's a number of other factors:

• 1987 had a whole bunch of runners from Exeter, Wrexham and Clayton-Le-Moors in the top 50. 2017 had only one non-Irish/non-Irish-club-associated runner in the top 50
• More crowded race calendar
• I think Ballycotton itself has a lower relative profile, partly due to the more crowded race calendar

Krusty_Clown

Speaking of cherry-picking, another point for discussion: given the vastly more substantial race calendar, there are enough events for the top runners to target events where they are more likely to win/place - as opposed to more competitive events where they are more likely to run a better time, but not necessarily win/place. I'm not suggesting for one moment that this is about material gain, but rather as runners, we need some level of reinforcement/affirmation that can come with a win or significant placing. A confidence boost on the road to our primary goal.

Looking at the 1987 results (back when the Ballycotton race had no pedigree at all), the top 15 is full of big names, who were there to race each other, without due care about outcomes. These days, you'll get 3-4 top class runners targeting a big event. You can almost guess who is going to finish where, in the top 5, but I'm guessing that that wouldn't have been the case in those earlier races.

Sacksian

I wouldn't be convinced that there are many top runners cherry-picking races but it seems - despite the greater opportunities to race - the top guys are racing against each other much less than was the case historically.

I was wondering if it might be a combination of:

a) greater specialisation (our middle distance guys seem to have ceded the road to the marathon runners but even though Mick Clohissey runs (and wins!) almost everything on the road, I can't find a 5k result for him in the top lists for 2014-2016.

or b) a training emphasis which prioritises workouts over races? (for both psychological and physiological reasons).

Any misty-eyed memories of days of yore I've listened to has everyone racing everything from 800m to marathon every weekend but that no longer seems to be the case.

Look at our top lists from 2014-2016 (from 1500m up) - http://www.athleticsireland.ie/competition/statistics/ - and I'm wondering how many times those guys have raced each other directly over those three years? There are practical reasons why that is the case, but still...

Obviously, there is still one race where you'll see a large proportion of them racing each other (the toughest race in Ireland!)...the national xc is great to watch but it's a shame there aren't more opportunities to see the top guys in the country go head-to-head.

youngrun

Agree with the older age profile being a major factor . many clubs in the west and also road race age profiles here are now well 40+ . You just cant run as fast as you could at 20-25. The running boom is well over and there are few coming through and the road runners who took it up/returned to the sport of 2007-2012 era for eg are fading away /getting on and/or battered from road racing, myself and a good cohort of buddies included.. Top young athletes are still there but track and XC are focus from mid teens till mid 20s
I think its a real issue for athletics in Ireland and the AAI, as well as clubs. Need to attract the 20-35 bracket somehow and/or draw back those who left at 14/15

rom

In 1987 how many of those had a job behind a desk tapping on a computer 8 hours a day, possibly commuting to work 1 hour each way to go home and watch their satellite tv/ netflix etc?

I throw this at you.
In 1987
10%+ more or the population in agriculture
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/employment-in-agriculture-percent-of-total-employment-wb-data.html

10%+ more of the population unemployed
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/unemployment-rate

No Internet/satellite tv etc
People didn't generally travel long distances for work.
Your big supermarket was the same size as your normal centra is today.
Food choice was bland.
People eat out rarely

http://www.thejournal.ie/changes-in-irish-employment-2228465-Jul2015/
There are loads of factors. You could probably run similar numbers against any other high profile race in the UK or Ireland.

Tombo2001

rom wrote: »

In 1987 how many of those had a job behind a desk tapping on a computer 8 hours a day, possibly commuting to work 1 hour each way to go home and watch their satellite tv/ netflix etc?

I throw this at you.
In 1987
10%+ more or the population in agriculture
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/employment-in-agriculture-percent-of-total-employment-wb-data.html

10%+ more of the population unemployed
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/unemployment-rate

No Internet/satellite tv etc
People didn't generally travel long distances for work.
Your big supermarket was the same size as your normal centra is today.
Food choice was bland.
People eat out rarely

http://www.thejournal.ie/changes-in-irish-employment-2228465-Jul2015/
There are loads of factors. You could probably run similar numbers against any other high profile race in the UK or Ireland.

However, against that - I would make the following argument. In 1987, the leading Irish road runner would have been far fitter than the leading Irish gaa player or rugby player; they would have been training far far harder. I don't think that's the case any more. Other sports have moved on in a positive way, road running has clearly not done so, at the elite level.

For example, I was at the Ireland England womens rugby international last week. My sense is that these are far better trained athletes than what I might see at a national championships in Santry.

It was interesting to see Shona Heaslip saying the training she did to win the national cross country was not nearly as hard as the training she had been doing as a top class Irish dancer.

Itziger

Tombo2001 wrote: »

However, against that - I would make the following argument. In 1987, the leading Irish road runner would have been far fitter than the leading Irish gaa player or rugby player; they would have been training far far harder. I don't think that's the case any more. Other sports have moved on in a positive way, road running has clearly not done so, at the elite level.

For example, I was at the Ireland England womens rugby international last week. My sense is that these are far better trained athletes than what I might see at a national championships in Santry.

It was interesting to see Shona Heaslip saying the training she did to win the national cross country was not nearly as hard as the training she had been doing as a top class Irish dancer.

Not sure I agree. Yes the rugger, soccer and GAA fellas have improved but their base was awful. You used to see plenty of fat lads playing all 3 sports up to and including decent levels. Our elite and sub elite runners would all be doing 7 day a week schedules when not injured. Obviously some would be doing 2xday sessions and then you add in a bit of gym work or core exercises and so on. Don't know if the other sports mentioned would be doing that much work.

As for dancers..... this I do believe!!!! Our daughter, who's not yet 14, finishes at 9.30 on Thursday nights, 8 on Fridays and has two sessions on Sat at the conservatoire. She has no classes on Tuesdays and Sundays!!

Tombo2001

Itziger wrote: »

Not sure I agree. Yes the rugger, soccer and GAA fellas have improved but their base was awful. You used to see plenty of fat lads playing all 3 sports up to and including decent levels. Our elite and sub elite runners would all be doing 7 day a week schedules when not injured. Obviously some would be doing 2xday sessions and then you add in a bit of gym work or core exercises and so on. Don't know if the other sports mentioned would be doing that much work.

As for dancers..... this I do believe!!!! Our daughter, who's not yet 14, finishes at 9.30 on Thursday nights, 8 on Fridays and has two sessions on Sat at the conservatoire. She has no classes on Tuesdays and Sundays!!

I'd say that in terms of facilities, the teams they have around them, nutriotional focus, all those things - I'd say the likes of the Dublin GAA team are ahead of our leading athletes.

I've seen the set up in Glasnevin for the Dublin GAA teams, the facilities, the trainers the equipment, people recording and analyzing every step they make on the training pitch never mind the game. I've seen Mark English training in Santry, doing 300s, there is no comparison - I have no doubt he has an excellent coach but in terms of support structure, as far as I could see anyway, it was a whole different world. And he is the very best of our athletes.

RayCun

But now you are comparing how expensive the support structure is to how hard someone is training, not the same thing at all.

And a GAA or rugby player might have very visible training effects - ie bulked up - when an athlete could be training more and harder without effects that you will see on their bodies.

Tombo2001

RayCun wrote: »

But now you are comparing how expensive the support structure is to how hard someone is training, not the same thing at all.

And a GAA or rugby player might have very visible training effects - ie bulked up - when an athlete could be training more and harder without effects that you will see on their bodies.

Ok point taken.

Over the 30 year period
Gaa / Rugby players are training far harder than they did
The coaching methods, training facilities and support systems have improved tremendously. Unrecognisably even.

Over the 30 year period
Leading athletes.....I wouldn't say they are training less hard. But there are probably far fewer of them; which has its own knock on effects for training.
For example, coghlan as I understand it had several, even dozens of training partners in Dublin. I would doubt for example that John Coghlan has same. And the another knock on effect in terms of competing against each other.
Coaching methods probably haven't changed much. Is there a big focus on diet for example?

RayCun

Yes, people are much more aware of the importance of diet, strength and conditioning, and so on. Some would say at the expense of hard training!

Also, if you compare rugby players to athletes, the rugby players are professional, the athletes usually have jobs or studies to fit in. Which makes it easier for the ball players to catch up.

Chivito550

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Ok point taken.

Over the 30 year period
Gaa / Rugby players are training far harder than they did
The coaching methods, training facilities and support systems have improved tremendously. Unrecognisably even.

Over the 30 year period
Leading athletes.....I wouldn't say they are training less hard. But there are probably far fewer of them; which has its own knock on effects for training.
For example, coghlan as I understand it had several, even dozens of training partners in Dublin. I would doubt for example that John Coghlan has same. And the another knock on effect in terms of competing against each other.
Coaching methods probably haven't changed much. Is there a big focus on diet for example?

I have said this time and time again, and will say it again. We are winning more medals these days than we did in 70s and 80s. There has just been a shift in where those medals are won to sprints, hurdles, 800m and walks. There is more to athletics than long distance running. The glorification of the 80s is tiresome. Yes we had splendid milers and distance runners back then, but now we have guys like Mark English, Thomas Barr, Rob Heffernan and in the recent past Derval O'Rourke, David Gillick, Paul Hession, Olive Loughnane, excelling in disciplines we were piss poor at back when we excelled at distance running.

Tombo2001

Chivito550 wrote: »

I have said this time and time again, and will say it again. We are winning more medals these days than we did in 70s and 80s. There has just been a shift in where those medals are won to sprints, hurdles, 800m and walks. There is more to athletics than long distance running. The glorification of the 80s is tiresome. Yes we had splendid milers and distance runners back then, but now we have guys like Mark English, Thomas Barr, Rob Heffernan and in the recent past Derval O'Rourke, David Gillick, Paul Hession, Olive Loughnane, excelling in disciplines we were piss poor at back when we excelled at distance running.

Yes, absolutely you are right.

I think that needs to be qualified to some degree.

Firstly, there are more championships than there used to be. Eg World and European Indoor. We have not won that many outdoor track medals or field medals. When was the last time we had an track & field medal at a World Championships or Olympics? Sonia in 2000?

(We could be the only country with more athletics medals at worlds/ Olympics from road races than track race events? I can think of 5 medals across walk and marathon - 4 in track races?).

Second, your comment pre-supposes that we are doing something dramatically different in sprint events to what we did 30 years ago. Perhaps we are. I watched the senior national championships two years ago. In women's hurdles, only 4 people started the final (there was no semifinal). Two of them fell, so that only 2 finished the race. There was no bronze medal, not enough people finished. That doesn't look like strength in depth to me. So I would question whether having 2 outstanding hurdlers is a random event, or something that is the result of strategy, plan, resources etc.

And that's where I would see the difference. Yes we get good athletes. And yes that will happen because there are more tartan tracks. Mark English comes from Letterkenny, and Letterkenny has a running track. Ferrybank, Tullamore, Shercock, Tallaght - these places will produce athletes. But we lack strength in depth. Perhaps mens 400m running being the exception, and womens 100m.

Whereas thirty years ago, we very much had strength in depth in middle distance running. Although to argue against myself, strength in depth mightnt have meant much if those athletes were spread across 10 different universities in the US.

Chivito550

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Yes, absolutely you are right.

I think that needs to be qualified to some degree.

Firstly, there are more championships than there used to be. Eg World and European Indoor. We have not won that many outdoor track medals or field medals. When was the last time we had an track & field medal at a World Championships or Olympics? Sonia in 2000?

(We could be the only country with more athletics medals at worlds/ Olympics from road races than track race events? I can think of 5 medals across walk and marathon - 4 in track races?).

Second, your comment pre-supposes that we are doing something dramatically different in sprint events to what we did 30 years ago. Perhaps we are. I watched the senior national championships two years ago. In women's hurdles, only 4 people started the final (there was no semifinal). Two of them fell, so that only 2 finished the race. There was no bronze medal, not enough people finished. That doesn't look like strength in depth to me. So I would question whether having 2 outstanding hurdlers is a random event, or something that is the result of strategy, plan, resources etc.

And that's where I would see the difference. Yes we get good athletes. And yes that will happen because there are more tartan tracks. Mark English comes from Letterkenny, and Letterkenny has a running track. Ferrybank, Tullamore, Shercock, Tallaght - these places will produce athletes. But we lack strength in depth. Perhaps mens 400m running being the exception, and womens 100m.

Whereas thirty years ago, we very much had strength in depth in middle distance running. Although to argue against myself, strength in depth mightnt have meant much if those athletes were spread across 10 different universities in the US.

Oh for sure, the depth is rubbish in those events. We have 5 great athletes, and we usually have around this many. The difference is now these are spread across various disciplines while in the past they were more concentrated in one area (distance running), with the exception of Nick Sweeney in the early 90s.

I posted this about 5 months back. Will copy it in here.



I think this is relevant given the amount of talk we tend to have about how everything was better in the 80s. I took a look at the senior medals won by Ireland in the Olympics, World outdoor, indoor and XC and European Outdoor and indoor. I've left Euro XC out because it only started in 1994.

The World Indoors started in 1987 and the World Outdoors started in 1983 and was every 4 years in the 80s compared to every 2 years now. To compensate for this I have grouped medals won in 1978 and 1979 as part of the 80s total.

Number of medals won:

1978-1989 : 14
1990-1999 : 16
2000-2009 : 19
2010-2016 : 10 (14 if we win medals at same rate for rest of decade).

Very simplistic measure I agree, but one could argue we are more successful now than we were back in the so called "glory days", and in a more competitive era (East Africans, Jamaicans, sport becoming truly global, Africans running for European countries). There's just been a shift from long distance success to short distance, along with the emergence of race walking in this country, but the overall success is greater these days.

Think I'll mention this the next time some oul lad harps on about how much better things used to be!

El Caballo

Isn't this thread bemoaning the lack of depth in local distance running rather than athletics as a whole? Ireland may well win more medals now but the downturn in quality of distance running is pretty obvious. Should this be ignored just because we have got stronger in other events to offset this?