Where Have All the Milers Gone?

New York Times reports on the decline of the American middle-distance runner.

It has been 32 years since an American man has won an Olympic gold medal in a middle-distance track event. The American record in the mile, 3 minutes 47.69 seconds by Steve Scott, has stood for 22 years. In the middle distances, defined as the 800 meters and the 1,500 meters, there has not been an American man ranked No. 1 in the world since 1980. In the last 20 years, fewer than a dozen Americans have cracked the world's top five at either distance.

Similar problems at the Marathon level. Here's what just one writer/runner (Lee Fidler in Running Journal) has to say: 

When looking at Track and Field News recently, I discovered that my best marathon times from 1975-1980 would have ranked me higher in 2003 than they did when I ran them. Wouldn't you assume that performances would improve over time?

In 2003 the top American times wer 2:10:03, 2:12:47, and 2:12:51. In 1983 three U.S. citizens broke 2:10 in one race, and another went under in December. My best time (2:15:04) ranked 30th in 1980. Last year, it would have ranked fifth.

Fidler implies that maybe present-day marathoners are not working hard enough:

During the period from 1972 thorugh 1983, I averaged 100 miles per week, and it seems most of my contemporaries logged a similar volume. We may have run well in spite of our training instead of because of it, but there seems to be some positive correlation between high mileage and marathon success. My suggestions for the elite may be a good take-home message for anyone who hopes to run or race marathons.

Some blame money. Runners in the 1970s (Shorter and Rodgers, etc) were amatuers (OK so they got shoe and clothing deals) but they didn't make a living off race winnings. Rules prohibited winning much more than a cheap medal. Today, many races offer prize money. My brother, no slouch at the running game, once speculated that many great runners were gravitating to the shorter road races. Shorter distances mean quicker recovery which means more chances to make money.
 
What to do?

• Some have called for American-only events. The Twin Cities marathon announced this tactic for the upcoming October 2004 event, but later changed their mind after Minneapolis civil rights officials began to condier legal action.
• I tend to favor a return to more miles. You can't take the money out of the sport, and you shouldn't. Like most sports, most athletes only have a few good years. I don't begrudge them the chance to make a living (at least a chance to support themselves while they are training sometimes twice a day for many hours).
• In the end, marathoners will have to want it bad enough. It's a big risk. You train for months, and it can take months to recover from each race. The runner only has a few good marathons "in them" each year. Will someone take that course over running (and making money) in shorter races several times a month?