I noticed that the rag had a new editor, and that it was a better read over the last two issues than had been the case for quite a long time. For example, Kenny Moore wrote about Oslo's stadium in the last issue -- a writer and a topic that appeal to a more "hard-core" audience. There's still fluff, but there's a wider variety of articles than had been the norm.
>I resolved that I would never again
>read a single word of a single article in Runners
There is a picture of the girl who won the Toronto Marathon in the local rag today(actually in a time that would impress a bunch of people that I was arguing with on another thread). But here's the thing. She has various and sundry audio
visual equipment on her head.
As limited as the print magazine's coverage of the elite end of the sport was , the RW online website is a real contribution to the sport. I hope it continues at the same level. Marty Post deserves our thanks for it.
No Name, you certainly do not antagonize me, but be careful in talking about "joggers vs. walkers."
Those millions( well, multi thousands )of recreational runners out there, many of whom are seriously busting their rear ends 5 days a week, are not joggers. They are serious recreational runners that just do not happen to have the ability and/or the youth to run 32 minute 10k's. But there are humping it to run their 6, 6:30, 7 minute, or even slowerpaces. Cut 'em some slack and give them some respect. They ARE "runners."
MJD and TAFNUT, I draw the line between the 2 at an ever-slower pace, amazingly paralleling a pace slightly slower than what I am able to do. It used by 7's, now it's 9's !!!
But really,there is no definitive dividing line. All those people killing themselves to prepare for 10k's, 1/2 M's, or the full boat, at whatever pace below 10's, do not consider themselves joggers so I say give them the respect their efforts deserve. Spoken by someone that has not run a yard in 6 months so I am not talking about myself here.
>My official dividing line is 8 minute pace (let's
>say a 3-mile run) for joggers vs. runners. When I
>go out for a run and can't break 24, I really do
>feel like I'm jogging, not running.
Mine's kind of a complicated calculation based on MVO2 max and what % of both your current and potential measurement is you are propelling your self forward at. A world class miler could be jogging at a 3 hour marathon pace but someone else could be running their ass off at a 6 hour pace. I find the latter kind of hard to believe but it is possible.
My classification of runners and joggers is not based on time at all. If you look at my post, I said absolutely nothing about time.
A runner is anyone who takes the sport seriously, busts his ass and does everything he can with the tools he's been given.
To me, it does not matter if the person is a 4, 8 or 12 minute miler (although I'd venture a guess that someone who takes the sport seriously can break 12 ).
I ran at a DIII school and there was a miler on my team who could barely break six minutes -- obviously not a great time for any level of college, high school or even middle school competitive running. But he worked as hard as he could every single day and did the best with the limited ability he was given.
To me, he was as much of a runner as El G and Geb are.
Time is not relevant to my definition of a real runner.
My rule of thumb for what constitutes a runner or a jogger was this hypothetical: "If you could win an Olympic gold medal, but the price you would have to pay is that you could never run or race for pleasure again, would you take the deal? You could run while playing tennis, soccer, or any other sport, but you could never again 'just go for a run', let alone race. Would you do it?" Invariably, the people who considered themselves competitive runners (regardless of how good) would say yes, and the joggers would say no.
<My rule of thumb for what constitutes a runner or a jogger was this hypothetical: "If you could win an Olympic gold medal, but the price you would have to pay is that you could never run or race for pleasure again, would you take the deal? You could run while playing tennis, soccer, or any other sport, but you could never again 'just go for a run', let alone race. Would you do it?" Invariably, the people who considered themselves competitive runners (regardless of how good) would say yes, and the joggers would say no.>
I used to believe this, until I had to make a decision on whether to have major surgury to my pelvis and never race again, or risk permanent injury and continue to race. I was competitive (4:11, 14:50, sub 2:30 marathon) as hell, but when the decision is real and not hypothetical it's a tougher call. I opted for the surgury in 2000 and have not broken 20 minutes in a 5k since, but I can still do those 15 milers Sunday mornings with my friends, so what the hell. Don't regret the decision. I miss the racing, but I can't tell you how much I missed running while injured even more. I susupect many competitive runners are so good not because they are competitive, but because they LOVE running so much (and do it so much) that they can't help but get fast - doesn't mean they would give it up for a medal.
>My rule of thumb for what constitutes a runner or
>a jogger was this hypothetical: "If you could
>win an Olympic gold medal, but the price you
>would have to pay is that you could never run or
>race for pleasure again, would you take the deal?
>You could run while playing tennis, soccer, or
>any other sport, but you could never again 'just
>go for a run', let alone race. Would you do
>it?" Invariably, the people who considered
>themselves competitive runners (regardless of
>how good) would say yes, and the joggers would
By this definition I've always been a jogger then.
Possible I suppose.
Once in the early eighties in Boulder a group of us were doing repeat 800's on a residential street. A few of us were averaging 2:20 or so and Stan Mavis and Alan Sharsu were running under 2:10. During the middle of one a kid who had been sitting on the sidewalk, suddenly screams "you guys are the fastest joggers I have ever seen!".
Thank you for that link. What a wonderful column! (Yes, there are totally sedentary track nuts out there and I'm proud to be among them, but I normally keep my pride to myself because I know I'm going to be drowned out by the chorus of runners-joggers who want to either dis me or convert me.)
What I don't understand is why everyone, when learning of my interst in track, asks if I was ever a competitive runner. If I were an ice hockey fan, would people ask if I ever played hockey? I doubt it--where I grew up and still live, nobody plays hockey. NFL stadiums are filled every Sunday, mostly by people who've never donned a football helmet. So why do track fans have to be runners?
I'm afraid that the answer, by the way, is that to most people here in the US, track is so out of the mainstream that people cannot imagine any other reason why anyone should follow the sport. I confess that if I met someone who was an avid fan of a really minor sport like fencing, I'd just assume that they once fenced. Sad to think that this is the state of our sport.
At any rate, whether or not you are a runner/jogger, read the column linked above and know that she speaks for many of us.
"See, I cover athletes for a semi-living. And most of you people don't look anything like them."
is that we look a whole lot more like athletes than the rotundities that deride us. Every gut I see hanging over a belt, every flabby arm and thigh, every love-handle, every butt dragging in the sand, convinces me more and more that I shall run till I die, and if that is to be in a Fixxian pool of sweat, so be it.