Steve Jones on running today

RunningAntelope wrote:

No pacers, no epo, no altitude tents back then. Just grit and determination.

blah, blah, blah, "all my old heroes were clean, there was no doping then"

Believe it. Page 72. (74 in digital file)

http://issuu.com/competitormagazine/docs/102015

RunningAntelope wrote:

pitch a tent wrote:

You don't need a tent when you are staying at altitude.

His point, and the correct one, is that Jones wasn't simulating sleeping and living at 12,000' while training at sea level. Makes a big difference.

Simluating 12,000 feet altitude makes a big difference? Yes and an unhelpful one at that. You won't recover, you won't be able to train as hard and you won't get the extra red blood cells that you are convinced are the key to running faster.

HRE wrote:

They might not be any faster but they also wouldn't likely be any slower. The point is that people now worry too much about peripherals like eating and drinking and not enough about running.

This is a false dichotomy. Runners should pay attention to eating and drinking so that they can train better. The same for massage, physical therapy or chiro. The objective is to recover better for the next workout.

If Jones got away with Diet Coke, good for him. But saying other people do not need sports drink because he didn't is preposterous. He gives no reason other than "I didn't need it." Well, what if Bikila had said " I didn't need shoes to win the Gold medal. That means no one needs shoes." Why did Jones wear shoes if Bikila didn't need a pair?

RunningAntelope wrote:

pitch a tent wrote:

You don't need a tent when you are staying at altitude.

His point, and the correct one, is that Jones wasn't simulating sleeping and living at 12,000' while training at sea level. Makes a big difference.

By a difference you must mean it slows them down. Nobody has broken his record.

Everything I've seen about sports drinks says they are no better than chocolate milk, juice, beer, and junk food as replacement drinks but that's not the point. Sure, you want to recover better for your next run but you should be able to tell if you've recovered. If sports drinks, massage and the like really are important why were guys like Jones, Hill, Rodgers, Foster, etc., able to run faster than without them than almost anyone now who uses them can? Shoes are a different matter, mostly one of personal comfort. I can run in shorts and t-shirt comfortably in weather that most people need a sweatsuit. But again, there's nothing wrong with sports drinks, massages, altitude tents and so on. There is something wrong with a mindset that thinks these sorts of things are necessary to run at your best.

I think he means too many people worry about everything that is involved in being a runner and sometime forget the main thing, running. Also when he says "to people who are running 4 hours for a marathon or 25 minutes for a 5k. and that's not running in my mind." He doesn't think it is running if you do it just to say you did it. He thinks it is real running if you just go out there and do your best and push yourself to the limit.

Just another old fart runner who is pining for the "glory days." It's sad if it's a parent living through his kid and just as pathetic here.

Things change. Get over it. You think the runners of the 50s/60s would complain about jones and his advantages?

There is this glossed over nostalgia for the late 70s/early 80s running.

People forget little to no drug testing. Runners were barely paid.

Of course he lives in the trendy "running"

community now.

Ok, so you all like his lack of a filter. Fine. But where is the prize money going to come from to sponsor elites so they can train? I understand that our brave Welshman managed much of his career on an RAF mechanic's salary, but how does he think sponsorship is going to work when we rid the marathons of all those heathen slow pokes?

I do agree. A similar sport/activity such as bicycle racing has two types of events. One a race, which has a limited number of participants and for which one needs a racing license. The other is a mass type charity ride open to all. It would serve running well to follow that model. Also wheel chairs do not belong in a race.

GoodwinRunner wrote:

I think he means too many people worry about everything that is involved in being a runner and sometime forget the main thing, running. Also when he says "to people who are running 4 hours for a marathon or 25 minutes for a 5k. and that's not running in my mind." He doesn't think it is running if you do it just to say you did it. He thinks it is real running if you just go out there and do your best and push yourself to the limit.

Right. Not sure why so many others are having trouble figuring this out.

Ca$hclay wrote:

From "Competitor" mag interview:

Q: What bothers you about running today?

A: The industry is huge - it's running the sport now, not the sport running the industry. There are absurd headlines, and I have to say you are just as guilty, publishing articles like "5 weeks to a faster 5k or 10 weeks to a marathon PR." It's bull$hit. It's just selling magazines - or it caters to people who are running 4 hours for a marathon or 25 minutes for a 5k. And that's not running in my mind.

Last two sentences are gold.

No problem. Steve can set up elite-only marathons and ban sponsors and anyone else who isn't elite.

Oh, but I guess he'd be OK with the peasants and hobby joggers showing up to cheer and bow down to the masters of the running universe..

kiss off........mate.

The famous "Why I sucked in Univesity" say Rojo or Wojo ran workouts too hard

Steve jones say run hard workouts

running is a simple activity but we don't know what to do

You can tell no one is reading the interview, because the rest of the quote says this, about the 4 hour marathoners:

"That’s not to say I dismiss people who are doing it. I have tremendous admiration for people who do that. I get emotional when I’m watching a marathon and see people after three and a half hours finishing a marathon. You start to cry, because you know what they’re going through. The guys at the sharp end go through the same thing as well. They want to stop after 20 miles or they have a blister on their foot or they hit the wall and are weaving all over the place. That’s the best part about all of this: you experience what the runners up front are doing."

Sorry, but this is one of the many cases of just because you were once the best in the world at this particular thing doesn't mean you have the right opinion about that particular thing.

Running is running. Sorry, but if you run a marathon (even if it is at what would be a jog for a world class marathoner), you are a marathoner. I'm not about to call someone who walks the whole thing or the majority of the thing a marathoner, but if you run it, you are a marathoner.

AND, let's not forget that MASS PARTICIPATION is part of what has made the 2:07-2:08 from Steve Jones' day old hat now.

He's just wrong about this. Perhaps a little silly articles like "5 weeks to a 5k PR" or whatever it was, but that's just where the audience is. Take almost anyone who runs a little bit and races a couple times a year and actually make them TRAIN for 5 weeks...you just might get a faster 5k for them. There is no money to be made from writing an article that is supposed to help someone get from 2:09 to 2:06.

Anyway, running is running...that's the main point. I once "ran" a marathon with a friend because he wanted to run one and he wanted company. He trained for half a year 9and he had been a runner before that, so this was just targeted training). He was stick thin, so this was not a fat issue. We ran that marathon and finished in 5:07, and trust me, he ran every step of that marathon, and also, if you are in shape to run about 3:20 (which is about where I was that day) and you slog through a 5:07, man that's tiring.

I disagree with the criticism of Jones. He makes it clear that he is not against people who are just there to participate rather than compete. He's just making a distinction - there are runners who train hard so that they can race hard, and there are "participant" runners who just show up and try to finish. And a whole spectrum in between, I would presume. Come on! There IS a difference. Anyone who has trained hard for a marathon and run it as hard as they could, knows it is fundamentally different than just training enough to hopefully be able to finish. That's not to say there is no honor in taking the latter course, but that doesn't mean it's the same thing. It would be like 2 guys tossing a football back and forth, thinking that that meant they were basically doing the same thing as guys who play in the NFL.

And whining about how 25 minutes is not that easy when you're 60, or whatever, is just a desperate attempt to be offended no matter what. What do you want him to do - add caveats to cover every possible scenario? Say "not that there is anything wrong with 4 hour marathons or 25-minute 5Ks if you are over such-and-such age, or if the course is extremely difficult or at high altitude". If you are truly running with an inner fire and competitive spirit, you'll know it and won't need some magazine article to spell it out for you.

pitch a tent wrote:

Doclove wrote:

Not in a tent

You don't need a tent when you are staying at altitude.

Really, would you not get a bit cold?

Bobby1 wrote:

I do agree. A similar sport/activity such as bicycle racing has two types of events. One a race, which has a limited number of participants and for which one needs a racing license. The other is a mass type charity ride open to all. It would serve running well to follow that model. Also wheel chairs do not belong in a race.

i disagree that there should be two races. part of the appeal for many "hobby joggers" is that they get to run the same "race" as the elites. plus, given the corrals and staggered starts, nobody who doesn't belong in the front is going to impede the elites. that being said, i do hate when races start walkers first and then they impede the runners.

These are all good points as it relates to running. And although I certainly can't speak for Jones, the point of my OP was that running is not racing . Never has been, never will be.

People who stand at the front of the starting line, sprint for 150 meters and then block faster traffic behind them are not racing.

Most (not all) people who run a 5K in over 25 minutes are not racing. Yes, it's an arbitrary time and does not factor in age, gender and physical ability, but there isn't a single racer out there who can't identify with that mark as slow relatively speaking.

And most (but certainly not all) people who toe the line in a mare simply to "finish" it have not raced it. This does not diminish the guts and determination it may take for someone to simply finish an event, but it is not racing.

None of it makes racers better than the runners or changes the fact that mass participation in the sport, in the end, helps promote and fund those who are gifted enough to race. But running is not racing. Never has been, never will be.