Are we getting soft or what?

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I read the post about the Big Sur marathon, and looked at
the results web page. Hmm, 2863 finishers, but the top
times seemed pretty slow for such

a

Quoted message said:

large race.

So I looked at the results of the Humboldt Redwoods
marathon, circa 1981, when I ran a 2:42 (crashed and
burned at mile 20), and came in 14th.

There

Quoted message said:

were 398 finishers.

Here are some stats:

'04 Big sur under 2:50: .002% 8 runners out of 2863 '81
Humboldt < 2:50: 5% 21 runners out of 398

'04 Big Sur under 3:00 .006% 19/2863 '81 Humbolde < 3:00
12% 21/398

'04 Big Sur top 1% time: 3:03 '81 Humboldt top 1%
time: 2:31

What gives?

A very hot or windy day, perhaps?

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see putting other people
down constantly."

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I read the post about the Big Sur marathon, and looked at
the results web page. Hmm, 2863 finishers, but the top
times seemed pretty slow for such

a

Quoted message said:

large race.

So I looked at the results of the Humboldt Redwoods
marathon, circa 1981, when I ran a 2:42 (crashed and
burned at mile 20), and came in 14th.

There

Quoted message said:

were 398 finishers.

Here are some stats:

'04 Big sur under 2:50: .002% 8 runners out of 2863 '81
Humboldt < 2:50: 5% 21 runners out of 398

'04 Big Sur under 3:00 .006% 19/2863 '81 Humbolde < 3:00
12% 21/398

'04 Big Sur top 1% time: 3:03 '81 Humboldt top 1%
time: 2:31

What gives?

--Dan

Dan, this has been going on for a while. Every year just
about every running website and magazine laments the dearth
of American men running sub
2:20.I am guessing that in addition to fewer fast runners,
the number of marathons has increased since 1981 (I
have only a guess since I have never seen stats) so
that the few fast runners are spread amongst more
marathons.

It would be better to me to compare the times of the same
marathon since courses can make a difference (albeit 30
minutes in this case is a big difference). You might be
surprised that some marathons are probably faster (like
Chicago for instance!).

Dan Stumpus said:

I read the post about the Big Sur marathon, and looked at
the results web page. Hmm, 2863 finishers, but the top
times seemed pretty slow for such a large race.

So I looked at the results of the Humboldt Redwoods
marathon, circa 1981, when I ran a 2:42 (crashed and
burned at mile 20), and came in 14th. There were 398
finishers.

Dan, I assume you're trying to make a point about slower
marathon times now vs then, but with my limited knowledge of
the two courses, I think it's a little bit of apples and
oranges so added the most recent Humboldt results so they
could be compared with the 81 Humboldt results.
redwoodsmarathon.orgfull overall.htmlOpen ↗

Course profiles: I think Humboldt is relatively flat while
Big Sur has a few more hills in it and has a reputation of
being a little tougher course, from what I've heard.
Hence, I would expect slower times there, but probably not
that slow.

redwoodsmarathon.orgprofile.htmlOpen ↗ biggest
hill about 100 ft

bsim.orgframe.htmlOpen ↗ biggest hill about 400 ft

Quoted message said:

Here are some stats:

'04 Big sur under 2:50: .002% 8 runners out of 2863 '81
Humboldt < 2:50: 5% 21 runners out of 398

'03 Humboldt <2:50 1% 2/211

Quoted message said:

'04 Big Sur under 3:00 .006% 19/2863 '81 Humbolde < 3:00
12% 21/398

'03 Humboldt 5/211

Quoted message said:

'04 Big Sur top 1% time: 3:03 '81 Humboldt top 1%
time: 2:31

'03 Humboldt top 1% time: 2:48 (out of 211 runners, it
would be #2)

Aside from the point that I think you're trying to make
and the obvious differences in courses, the following
questions arise:

What else might be going on at same or similar time
(marathon would take min of 2 wk taper and another 1-2 wk
recovery for most) that the better runners might be
attracted there? In particular the drop in size of Humboldt
caught my eye - unless there's an entry cap or there's a 2nd
page of results that I couldn't find. Are there management
issues? or a more popular race nearby? people wanting to run
on hot city streets instead of beneath the redwoods? I
dunno, but it's very uncharacteristic for a scenic marathon
to shrink in half. Oct 17 this year - is that near the MCM,
NYCM, Chicago cluster? although I would think anyone wanting
to run Humboldt wouldn't be interested in the others.

Weather issues? - hot, cold, windy, rainy, etc.

What is the clientele of the races? In particular, Humboldt
seems to have slow times for a not-too-difficult course -
unless there's something I'm not seeing. Winning time 2:47.
That's just a tad faster than winning times for Equinox
marathon up here - but equinox has almost 4000ft of
elevation change (4k up / 4k down) and is mostly on trails
and about the time of first snowfall. BTW, the guy that wins
Equinox a lot
(2:45-2:59 range) ran 2:3x (maybe 2:32, iirc) at Chicago in
2002 to give some type of comparison.

Big Sur has a 5.5 hr time limit, Humboldt had 7.5 hr
finishers. The
3.5-hr cutoff suggests that Big Sur didn't have a bunch of
charity run-walkers. The small size of Humboldt suggests
they didn't have charity run-walkers either. I was
expecting that to skew results. Note: I do not intend any
offense to charity run-walkers since I think they are a
major part of today's marathons, but they can skew pct
results like this when comparing percentage results 23
years apart. [As a side note, the reason this catches my
attention is I don't like to be in crowds. With a normal
running race, I'll be near the back in the wide open
spaces; with walkers, I'm likely to get crunched in their
crowds. But I've also noticed this has a huge skewing
effect on times.]

I didn't try to find old Big Sur results for comparison so
don't know how their times compare across the years, but
that would be another piece of the story.

While Equinox seems to be a little slower now vs 20 yr ago
when the course record was set, a lot of that can be weather
related, esp. with snow on a hilly course and a windy ridge
(I watched the 2002 version). Winning times in mid 80s
aren't a whole lot faster than now. It's also a relatively
old marathonn (40+ years) run mostly by locals.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(...) '04 Big Sur top 1% time: 3:03 '81 Humboldt top 1%
time: 2:31

Quoted message said:

What gives?

1) There are more "semi-major" marathons now, but the number
of "semi-elite" marathoners is the same or smaller - as a
result you´ll find fewer (in absolute numbers) of them in
any single marathon.

2.) The marathons draw a much large number of participants
these days and the increase consists entirely of "fast
to slow joggers" - as a result the top percentile
includes a much larger number of runners, most of whom
aren´t "semi-elite".

3.) The numbers possibly reflect the same trend that has
been observed in Finland: while marathon gains in
popularity, the "quality" marathoners become fewer _in
absolute numbers_. For instance, in 1981 there were (IIRC)
500 sub-3 runners out of
4.000 marathoners - and in 2003 300 out of 11.000!

It is a subject of debate and a small mystery why this
is so: were there more 25-39-year old men then, were
there more guys who _wanted_ to go sub-3, are the guys
who *could* do it now involved in other sports or not
seriously involved at all, were the guys so much
tougher then, have the younger guys have had it all
handed to them which has made them too soft or is it
that the damands of the workplace are so much larger
now etc etc?:-)

Anders

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Re: Are we getting soft or what?

Quoted message said:

What gives?

flabby americans.

- k i t z - "yeah, she wakes me up in the middle of the
night just to tell me everything will be alright..."
spinning_plates.tripod.comspinning_plates.tripod.comOpen ↗

You're joggers.............you've always been soft.

David said:

A very hot or windy day, perhaps?

It was hot the day I ran it, and it was a rolling course
with a mile+ long hill at mile 12, similar to Big Sur.

Last year's winning time on that race was 3:01! (I *hope*
the course has gotten harder in the intervening years!)

--Dan

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I am guessing that in addition to fewer fast runners, the
number of marathons has increased since 1981 (I have only
a guess since I have never seen stats) so that the few
fast runners are spread amongst more

marathons.

There are more marathoners, and paradoxically, fewer fast
runners. You'd think that with lots more competitors that
the same number (if not %) would be fast, say sub 3:00. But
that's not the case.

I did train very diligently--95 mile weeks, with typically 2
speedwork sessions and a 5k-10k race on Saturday and a hilly
20 miler on Sunday. No one who posts his workouts on this
list (excepting Andy, who's sub 2:30) trains with this
combination of volume and intensity.

Quoted message said:

It would be better to me to compare the times of the same
marathon since courses can make a difference (albeit 30
minutes in this case is a big difference). You might be
surprised that some marathons are probably

faster

Quoted message said:

(like Chicago for instance!).

The winning time in 2003 for Humboldt Redwoods was 3:01! It
was 2:27 in '81 with 4 people running 2:31 or better.

--Dan

Wrong. The reason runners are running slower today is
because people EAT MORE and eat a lot more fatty foods.
Therefore, when they weigh more they have gravity holding
them back. Then if you asked them to go on a diet, they
think they are going to die if they miss just one meal. 90
out of every 100 runners I see today is overweight. That was
not the case at all in the 60s and 70s.

Secondly, you have all these self-proclaimed brainless
idiot gurus out there preaching to people how to run and
train. So what you get are these writers who have taken
up jogging for a year or two and then write a book about
it thinking that they are world experts and really know
all there is to know about running. And then all you
blind jerks in this group and every do nothing but follow
the deaf, dumb, blind and ignorant. You all would make
perfect parrots. And you ask why people can't run today?
It's no wonder.

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<b-
[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message -"]news:[email hidden]-
arthlink.net...

Quoted message said:

I read the post about the Big Sur marathon, and looked
at the results web page. Hmm, 2863 finishers, but the
top times seemed pretty slow for such

a

Quoted message said:

large race.

So I looked at the results of the Humboldt Redwoods
marathon, circa 1981, when I ran a 2:42 (crashed and
burned at mile 20), and came in 14th.

There

Quoted message said:

were 398 finishers.

Here are some stats:

'04 Big sur under 2:50: .002% 8 runners out of 2863 '81
Humboldt < 2:50: 5% 21 runners out of 398

'04 Big Sur under 3:00 .006% 19/2863 '81 Humbolde < 3:00
12% 21/398

'04 Big Sur top 1% time: 3:03 '81 Humboldt top 1%
time: 2:31

What gives?

--Dan

Dan, this has been going on for a while. Every year just
about every running website and magazine laments the
dearth of American men running sub
2:20.I am guessing that in addition to fewer fast runners,
the number of marathons has increased since 1981 (I
have only a guess since I have never seen stats) so
that the few fast runners are spread amongst more
marathons.

It would be better to me to compare the times of the same
marathon since courses can make a difference (albeit 30
minutes in this case is a big difference). You might be
surprised that some marathons are probably faster (like
Chicago for instance!).

Anders Lustig said:

It is a subject of debate and a small mystery why this
is so: were there more 25-39-year old men then,

that would be about the right age for baby boomers
wouldn't it?

"Anders Lustig" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]-
nk.net>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(...) '04 Big Sur top 1% time: 3:03 '81 Humboldt top 1%
time: 2:31

3.) The numbers possibly reflect the same trend that has
been observed in Finland: while marathon gains in
popularity, the "quality" marathoners become fewer _in
absolute numbers_. For instance, in 1981 there were
(IIRC) 500 sub-3 runners out of
5.000 marathoners - and in 2003 300 out of 11.000!

It is a subject of debate and a small mystery why this
is so: were there more 25-39-year old men then, were
there more guys who _wanted_ to go sub-3, are the guys
who *could* do it now involved in other sports or not
seriously involved at all, were the guys so much
tougher then, have the younger guys have had it all
handed to them which has made them too soft or is it
that the damands of the workplace are so much larger
now etc etc?:-)

Roger thinks the running is due to some morality drop and
he may be partially correct. We are a materialist society
and serious running provides nearly zero financial rewards.
Why only run when you can combine running with some other
sport and like baseball, basketball, football, soccer, etc.
and have a future. A future that provides personal
accomplishments and food on the table at the same time.

Running is growing with people looking for healthy
lifestyles. Health is long way from speed. Serious running,
at least in the USA, is dead, like it or not and I see
nothing for the future.

Look at out own Andy. Let's assume he has the talent and not
just a better than average runner. He gets married foregoes
having children, put his education on hold, put off getting
a job and she supports support him for NO years while he
strives for a few years of possible money. This is the type
of decision runners have to make. Maybe I'm in the morality
depraved group but that is one sucky future. Running has the
same popularity as 9 inch black and while television is a
sports bar or flat chested woman in Hooters.

--
Doug Freese
[email hidden]
(Remove the NOBS)

Dan Stumpus said:

The winning time in 2003 for Humboldt Redwoods was 3:01!
It was 2:27 in '81 with 4 people running 2:31 or better.

What's changed at Humboldt that it's size has shrunk in half
as well as seemingly slow times? 3:01 wouldn't win a
marathon with almost 4k elevation change mostly on trails up
here (about 1/3 road).

Your description of Humboldt and Big Sur profiles didn't
seem to match what I dug up, assuming I've got the right
races. (see my comments in other post)

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

On 11 May 2004 23:46:15 -0700, [email hidden] (macelroy)

Quoted message said:

Wrong. The reason runners are running slower today is
because people EAT MORE and eat a lot more fatty foods

Secondly, you have all these self-proclaimed brainless
idiot gurus out there preaching to people how to run
and train.

Macelroy, we are kindred spirits, you and I. We troll from a
deep sense of despair at the pit into which our beloved
sport has fallen.

In your usual obtuse way, you make complete sense. IIRC,
there was one fat child in my year at High School. His name
was Neil Manuel. He was tormented so cruelly that - whatever
delight was on offer in the dining hall - the rest of us
only had to look at the humiliation endured by Neil for our
greed to disappear. Somewhere over the past twenty years,
that perspective changed. It became 'ok' to be tubby and to
avoid sports. Fat was no longer viewed as 'lazy' or
'incompetent'. Fat became what it is today - an acceptable
lifestyle choice.

I also find myself in complete agreement with your outlook
on 'running gurus'. With the possible exception of Fixx -
who managed to convey a genuine affection for running - most
authors of running literature are either compete numpties or
ex-marathoners out to cash in on a 'marathoners lifestyle
manual'. They are cynically written to exploit the
gullibility of the newbie who then has the greatest of
difficulty in moving away from this trivia towards a deeper
understanding of real athletic competition. Hi, Oz.

Even those who simply run for enjoyment find themselves
sucked into the commercial hype surrounding our sport. NO -
and I repeat - NO magazine provides unbiased advice on
running shoes. The only way you'll get that is by talking to
shoe company reps or trade insiders. 'Coolmax' and similar
fabrics are hyped as ideal summer wear. Really? Does cotton
not actually do a better job of keeping you cool at temps of
between 20C-35C? (This was illustrated in a study performed
in 1997 by one major clothing company but not published.
Why? They make fat profits of their 'Coolmax' range and see
no reason to upset the apple cart.)

Dan, nothing's 'gone wrong' with running. Things 'went
wrong' with society. Chronological progress and progress in
humanity aren't always the same thing. Social commentators
are now beginning to mumble that we may have wandered up
something of a blind alley since the '60's in terms of
genuine social and personal development. A re-interpretation
- not a return - to some of the social values of discipline,
hard work, real competition, self denial, and an
appreciation of the importance of community are being
proposed by some of the forward-looking social
anthropologists working in both the US and Europe.

The decline in the quality of running fields is merely one
indicator of our skewed social values. After all, isn't
everyone's a winner? So why bother to try and win?

Caroline.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:08:16 GMT, "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Roger thinks the running is due to some morality drop and
he may be partially correct.

He may be completely correct. He usually is.

Quoted message said:

Look at out own Andy. Let's assume he has the talent and
not just a better than average runner. He gets married
foregoes having children, put his education on hold, put
off getting a job and she supports support him for NO years
while he strives for a few years of possible money. This is
the type of decision runners have to make. Maybe I'm in the
morality depraved group but that is one sucky future.

A 'sucky' future? One when you have the opportunity to find
your limits? Where you can - for probably the only time in
your whole life - give *everything* you've got in pursuit of
a dream? Where you KNOW your wife supports you
wholeheartedly? Where you step aside from the rat race in
favour of a real race?

Many moons ago I made a similar choice. Unfortunately, I
lacked innate ability, yet I NEVER regretted the decision to
try. How else would I have known what I could (or, more
accurately, couldn't) achieve?

Quoted message said:

Running has the same popularity as 9 inch black and while
television is a sports bar or flat chested woman in
Hooters.

D'ya know, the inhabitants of 'sports bars' are probably
immune to the educational or informative effect that ANY
sort of TV could provide, and flat-chested wimmin can still
rock your world - trust me on this.

Caroline. Flat-chested, but one hot babe.

Dan Stumpus said:

There are more marathoners, and paradoxically, fewer fast
runners.

In fact there are more casual joggers and fewer fast
runners. There are more people than ever who do casual
running for fitness, but very few who are willing to put
in serious training for competition. I finish in the top
1-2% of most local races, but I was not that high up in
elementary/high school races. That suggests to me that
most of the really gifted athletes do not take up
competitive running.

Also, the marathon boom possibly pushes a lot of people into
the stresses of marathon training before it's in their
interests to pursue it. Club or college competition
schedules may pressure runners to race all the time instead
of shooting for a few key goal races. The result of this
could be that lower level competitive runners don't get in
very good training.

Also, while most people at least put a reasonable effort
into marathon training, few train nearly as hard or
carefully for middle distance races. The common mindset is
that a marathon performance takes 6 months of preparation
while the middle distance performance only involves basic
maintenance training. I think this is in part due to the
misguided (IMO) hype surrounding marathons.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

I did train very diligently--95 mile weeks, with typically
2 speedwork sessions and a 5k-10k race on Saturday and a
hilly 20 miler on Sunday. No one who posts his workouts on
this list (excepting Andy, who's sub 2:30) trains with
this combination of volume and intensity.

Keep in mind that most of us aren't as fast as you were.
Karen ("joe positive"😉 frequently runs 70 mile weeks, at 8-9
minutes/mile or slower. That's a lot of time on the road --
same duration as 80-95mpw at 6:40 pace.

I ran several 60 mile weeks and a 70 last cycle (most of
this at about 7:30 pace) -- and I was training for middle
distances (my first half marathon was in March). Any week
under 60 (except the peak phase) included 2hrs+ cross
training. Most of this was at about 7:30 pace so in terms of
road time I consider this half-respectable volume for
someone who's primarily interested in 1 mile to 10k times. I
don't do 20 milers, I don't think they're relevant to my
training goals at the moment. I was doing 3 speed workouts a
week in the hard phase of my cycle.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

"Dot" <dot.h@#att.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus said:

The winning time in 2003 for Humboldt Redwoods was 3:01!
It was 2:27 in '81 with 4 people running 2:31 or better.

What's changed at Humboldt that it's size has shrunk in
half as well as seemingly slow times? 3:01 wouldn't win a
marathon with almost 4k elevation change mostly on trails
up here (about 1/3 road).

Maybe all the tough guys moved north!

Quoted message said:

Your description of Humboldt and Big Sur profiles didn't
seem to match what I dug up, assuming I've got the right
races. (see my comments in other post)

I recall that Humboldt was a bit less rolling than Big Sur
back then, which jibes with what you've dug up about the
current courses. My recollection of the long hill may be
tainted by "recovered memory syndrome", maybe it was just a
30 foot overpass, and not the mile-long killer I
remember....I do know that racing (and vanquishing) an
opponent up that hill is what caused the wheels to fall off
at mile 20...

--Dan

"caroline" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 11 May 2004 23:46:15 -0700, [email hidden]
(macelroy) wrote:

'Coolmax' and similar fabrics are hyped as ideal summer
wear. Really? Does cotton not actually do a better job of
keeping you cool at temps of between 20C-35C? (This was
illustrated in a study performed in 1997 by one major
clothing company but not published.

I know Roger is a troll, but is there any truth to this
statement? I have anecdotal evidence (the experiment of one)
to suggest that cotton is preferable at least in the high
desert summer.

Matthew

"caroline" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Dan, nothing's 'gone wrong' with running. Things 'went
wrong' with society. Chronological progress and progress
in humanity aren't always the same thing.

Truer words were never writ. How many centuries after the
fall of Rome did it take until cities had running water and
sewage systems?

Quoted message said:

Social commentators are now beginning to mumble that we
may have wandered up something of a blind alley since the
'60's in terms of genuine social and personal development.
A re-interpretation - not a return - to some of the social
values of discipline, hard work, real competition, self
denial, and an appreciation of the importance of community
are being proposed by some of the forward-looking social
anthropologists working in both the US and Europe.

Most of the serious runners I know and knew are very hard
workers outside of running. Most are quite wealthy, run
successful businesses, or have advanced degrees in the hard
stuff (math, engineering, medicine). Success is the residue
of hard work.

Quoted message said:

The decline in the quality of running fields is merely one
indicator of our skewed social values. After all, isn't
everyone's a winner? So why bother to try and win?

Running is cruel -- one is forced, in the crucible, to face
up to one's own limitations. Yet it also teaches us that we
can, to some extent, neutralize natural advantages through
hard work and sacrifice.

--Dan