Can american distance runners ever be the best?

[Daisy]

When this video picks up the action...Foster is in the lead.

Maybe this is how I remember him. I guess when i say i don't think of him as fast i should be saying I don't remember him having a kick. I'm guessing that is why he was at the front to try and sap the kickers. Remember Julian Goater? He was another i remember that struggled off a slow pace and had to try and take it out every time.

Speaking of Goater. Some interesting views from him on this topic at http://www.valleystriders.org.uk/ccol0203.htm from 2002

"It’s the System" cries Goater. Quoting Mike McLeod – AW, January 9th – he traces the problem back to schools "and a society which produces fat unfit kids raised on a diet of junk food", but he then goes on immediately to "but don’t blame the kids, there is an abundance of talent out there. It is our "system" which is destroying it. The Government, Sport England and UK Athletics could be doing so much more to tackle the problem".

Several of the earlier writers had criticised runners for not training hard enough now, but Goater maintains that that is not all. "I accept that today’s athletes are training and racing as hard as they think they can, but many of them should be training harder". He continues "I don’t believe this would provide the complete answer. I believe that it is the basic psychology of most of today’s top British runners which is so different when compared with 20 years ago".

[Dutra]

I have to say, I had never really thought of Brendan Foster as fast. Maybe i was too young to appreciate his feats?

He was also 5th in the 1500m in 1972.

Really! I never knew that. I guess we were spoiled by all the elite middle distance runners in the early eighties and those exploits got lost in the excitement.

When this video picks up the action...Foster is in the lead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Ud-UCM ... L&index=41

[AthleticsInBritain]

Well in the 50s only 1 in 10 families owned cars and we still had food rationing so I can probably guess where that 50s runner was coming from! :lol:

I think the general consensus over here is, yes, we've caught the Western disease of too much consumption (of everything), too much sitting down in the day, and too much riding in cars. Oh, and the slow decay of competitive schools in sports and selling off the school playing fields to housing developers.

Someone recently made the point that the years of running around the streets, or cycling and playing football from the age of being able to walk and doing it day in, day out, all day, every day, builds up a background 'base' of aerobic fitness that just isn't there in most kids these days.

And of course, that probably our best T&F athletes are sucked into football (soccer) or rugby (for the throwers).

Did I miss anything guys?

All these things I should imagine apply equally to the States and other Western countries.

[Daisy]

I have to say, I had never really thought of Brendan Foster as fast. Maybe i was too young to appreciate his feats?

He was also 5th in the 1500m in 1972.

Really! I never knew that. I guess we were spoiled by all the elite middle distance runners in the early eighties and those exploits got lost in the excitement.

I recall the statement of a top overseas distance runner, reported in the pages of T&FN.
"Americans will never be good at distance running because they eat too much and ride [in cars] too much."
An indictment of our current lifestyle? Maybe. But this comment was by a British runner, said and reported in the 1950s. Some things in America are constants, apparently.

....and the British issue would be?

Beer and chips? On the other hand that didn't stop Dave Bedford or Alf Tupper.

Possibly more kids are going into football?

[Dutra]

But BillVol never said Americans were not scoring in the NCAA.

No, he didn't. It was an inference he made:

"This is why I disregard the distance races at the NCAAs among the men. They really shouldn't even count in the scoring."

What is "this" in relation to?

1. "not even one US-born man will ever medal in the distances again."

He's making an association between the NCAA and US-born men, medaling and distance racing.

That's not how I read Bill's post at all. All he said was the American distance runners are not very good in international terms and therefore the NCAAs are not a competition of any importance in these events.

It's kind of bizarre reading a debate between two posters in attempting to interpret the posting of another poster but I agree with the above take.

I thought it an odd comment. So I suppose the NCAA should eliminate all events in which the US is likely to struggle internationally?

[Dutra]

I recall the statement of a top overseas distance runner, reported in the pages of T&FN.

"Americans will never be good at distance running because they eat too much and ride [in cars] too much."

An indictment of our current lifestyle? Maybe. But this comment was by a British runner, said and reported in the 1950s. Some things in America are constants, apparently.

....and the British issue would be?

[gh]

I recall the statement of a top overseas distance runner, reported in the pages of T&FN.

"Americans will never be good at distance running because they eat too much and ride [in cars] too much."

An indictment of our current lifestyle? Maybe. But this comment was by a British runner, said and reported in the 1950s. Some things in America are constants, apparently.

And I suspect critics of the current state of Brit affairs would say they have succumbed to the same disease! (as has the rest of Western Europe)

[Dutra]

And we're talking sub 3:35 and it applied to guys from the 70s and 80s with guys like David Moorcroft and Brendan Foster having fast (for the time) 1500 times (3:35 and 3:37).

I have to say, I had never really thought of Brendan Foster as fast. Maybe i was too young to appreciate his feats?

He was also 5th in the 1500m in 1972.

I still think of Moorcroft more as a 1500m/miler guy.

[EPelle]

Powell, I don't see things from your perspective, so I'll stop on this point rather than going on picking apart words; you have taken issue with wondering what a list was supposed to prove about international successes. It wasn't meant to prove anything of that nature, rather to illustrate that, based on the NCAA part of the statement, one can have overlooked the successes enjoyed by Americans at that meet.

He didn't state that the NCAAs are not a competition of any importance in these events, he stated the distance races should not even be scored.

[Powell]

But BillVol never said Americans were not scoring in the NCAA.

No, he didn't. It was an inference he made:

"This is why I disregard the distance races at the NCAAs among the men. They really shouldn't even count in the scoring."

What is "this" in relation to?

1. "not even one US-born man will ever medal in the distances again."

He's making an association between the NCAA and US-born men, medaling and distance racing.

That's not how I read Bill's post at all. All he said was the American distance runners are not very good in international terms and therefore the NCAAs are not a competition of any importance in these events.

[Mighty Favog]

I recall the statement of a top overseas distance runner, reported in the pages of T&FN.

"Americans will never be good at distance running because they eat too much and ride [in cars] too much."

An indictment of our current lifestyle? Maybe. But this comment was by a British runner, said and reported in the 1950s. Some things in America are constants, apparently.

[EPelle]

But BillVol never said Americans were not scoring in the NCAA.

No, he didn't. It was an inference he made:

"This is why I disregard the distance races at the NCAAs among the men. They really shouldn't even count in the scoring."

What is "this" in relation to?

1. "not even one US-born man will ever medal in the distances again."

He's making an association between the NCAA and US-born men, medaling and distance racing. The table, which demonstrated that 67% of 5.000m runners are American-born, simply suggests that the inference is made off of a faulty assumption. Winning the NCAA's as an American won't produce world medals any more or less than they will for Africans or Irish-born athletes who win a collegiate championship.

[Powell]

I pointed out that at the NCAA's, the place BillVol implied that the Americans are not scoring (part of which somehow HE linked to future international competitions), he would be surprised to find the numbers as high as they are.

But BillVol never said Americans were not scoring in the NCAA.

[EPelle]

I had the impression Bill was talking about American runners' lack of international success, not whether they were winning NCAA titles.

BillVol states that there is "No way" that Americans will succeed at the top. He goes so far as to identify "no way" as being "Never". Further, he stated that there is "Not even one US-born man [who] will ever medal in the distances again."

Speaking of distances, he then stated that "This is why I disregard the distance races at the NCAAs among the men. They really shouldn't even count in the scoring."

I pointed out that at the NCAA's, the place BillVol implied that the Americans are not scoring (part of which somehow HE linked to future international competitions), he would be surprised to find the numbers as high as they are. I am not linking NCAA and international competitions.

[AthleticsInBritain]

And we're talking sub 3:35 and it applied to guys from the 70s and 80s with guys like David Moorcroft and Brendan Foster having fast (for the time) 1500 times (3:35 and 3:37).

I have to say, I had never really thought of Brendan Foster as fast. Maybe i was too young to appreciate his feats?

I do remember Moorcroft nearly breaking 13 min at Bislett, that was amazing, although a solo run, so no need for any speed at the end.

Well, 3:37 was pretty quick in 1974 wasn't it? He ran that a month before I was born according to GBRathletics.