Which is more important, place or time?

gafd wrote:

Time. To me the best runners aren't the ones that win, they are the ones with the best PRs. .

This is a joke right? I mean when you get beat in a race do you still think you are the better runner because you might have a better PR?

The idea is to compete! You race whoever is there. If you win the race in a slow time it doesn't matter- you are still the winner!

If Hall wins the Oly gold, but runs a 2:10 does that really matter? It's a competition not a time trial.

This thread just goes on to prove that a big portion of the running community are nothing but a bunch of pu ssys and not fit to play any other sport.

MJ is not poplar because he had the biggest vertical leap, it's because he won championships.

Joe Montanta didn't have the strongest arm, but he won 4 SB rings.

Next time you are at a big meet or road race and the guy that wins your event wins in a time slower than your PR go up to him and tell him that, see who comes off looking like a tool.

"Hey I know you won today but my PR is 12 seconds faster than what you ran, so there!"

I'd say if you're good enough to think that you'll ever win a major race (NCAAs, USA, WC, OLY) then you worry about just trying to win. You could even throw in district and state titles in high school or even city championships, then conference in college.

However, beyond college and even in college if you're not on the level to win your conference then you're goal has to be to improve your times. In college you still may have place goals at a conference meet, but certainly beyond college you're just trying to get the very most out of your talent. Very few people win races but if you go from being a 4:15 college miler to running 4:05 then you've done what you were aiming to do. You never really had ideas of winning anything, just getting as fast as you could.

............. wrote:

Any athlere who says time is not a true competitor.

The goal is to win every single time you line up. You do that, everything else will take care of itself.

Who's career would you rather have had, Emil Zatopek or Sandor Iharos who had the WR for a little while after Zatopek?

Thats what I thought.

I think it's great that you are in this to win races, I really do but speaking for "the other side", as it were, I am not trying to be a "true competitor". I honestly don't even know what that means. I'm trying to run fast. That's why I run. To go fast. If I do THAT then everything will usually take care of itself as well. Most of the time, I couldn't care less who is in the race with me.

I don't know much about Iharos. If he only ran fast a few times then I would would want to be Zatopek. While running as fast as you can is good, it wouldn't be nearly as satisfying if you only got to do it once or twice. On the other hand if he ran very fast many times, I would want to be Iharos

Ball&Chain wrote:

This thread just goes on to prove that a big portion of the running community are nothing but a bunch of pu ssys and not fit to play any other sport.

MJ is not poplar because he had the biggest vertical leap, it's because he won championships.

"

Are you saying you run to be popular?

You don't know anything about Ilharos because he didn't do anything. He ran fast like a million other guys.

Zatopek won championships like very few other people. There are hundreds of people who've run faster than Zatopek now, 99% of whom aren't nearly as famous.

I bet Wilson Kipketer would rather have an Oly gold medal than the 800m WR, which will eventually be broken. He will never be a great champion, just one in a line of former record holders.

............. wrote:

You don't know anything about Ilharos because he didn't do anything. He ran fast like a million other guys.

Zatopek won championships like very few other people. There are hundreds of people who've run faster than Zatopek now, 99% of whom aren't nearly as famous.

I bet Wilson Kipketer would rather have an Oly gold medal than the 800m WR, which will eventually be broken. He will never be a great champion, just one in a line of former record holders.

True on all points. I think it really boils down to what you're looking to get out of running. What motivates you to run? For some it's fame, championships or at least wins over other runners.

jizzmo wrote:

This is a joke right? I mean when you get beat in a race do you still think you are the better runner because you might have a better PR?

The idea is to compete! You race whoever is there. If you win the race in a slow time it doesn't matter- you are still the winner!

If Hall wins the Oly gold, but runs a 2:10 does that really matter? It's a competition not a time trial.

The final time of a given race isn't all that important. Wether or not it's as fast as they could have run that day is.

I have won my age group a few times and honestly was happier about that than my PR's (which were much faster).

Last year I finished 2nd and felt great about it despite my time being pretty slow.

However, most of the time I am going to run for a fast time since for me competition is harder to judge. I am rarely going to be in the position to win a race so I aim for time.

At the elite level, every athlete I have talked to want to WIN. Have you ever heard an athlete win an Olympic or World championship medal and then complain that they really wanted the record?

The point is they are famous athletes because they won. Not because they threw for a bunch of yards, or lead the league in scoring every year, or had the highest vertical.

When the game was on the line these guys performed.

As a runner going out and running fast in Podunk 5k is all nice, but being able to RACE is another skill altogether.

I am not saying I don't like to run fast. OF COURSE if I am not in contention to win then the next most important thing for me is my time.

jizzmo wrote:

The point is they are famous athletes because they won. Not because they threw for a bunch of yards, or lead the league in scoring every year, or had the highest vertical.

When the game was on the line these guys performed.

As a runner going out and running fast in Podunk 5k is all nice, but being able to RACE is another skill altogether.

I am not saying I don't like to run fast. OF COURSE if I am not in contention to win then the next most important thing for me is my time.

I totally understand and respect that. I've had times in my life when I felt that way. But not now. Not everyone runs for the same reasons. So when you ask me who I'd rather be, telling me about the fame that such people achieved, who they beat, or what different skill set they had really doesn't mean anything to me because it's not why I run races.

Mostly I'm surprised that those who run for place have such disdain for those who run for time.

But I'm beating a dead horse now. If I'm a pussy, so be it.

Ball&Chain wrote:

Next time you are at a big meet or road race and the guy that wins your event wins in a time slower than your PR go up to him and tell him that, see who comes off looking like a tool.

"Hey I know you won today but my PR is 12 seconds faster than what you ran, so there!"

This is bunk. I won a small 1mi road race last fall and I knew I wasn't the best runner there. I beat a guy who less than two months earlier had ran 4:03. I won in over 4:20...

I may have bettered him that day, but there's no way my pr of 4:14 touches him...

I was, and always am, out there to see how fast I can run, hoping to improve along the way. Medals & cash are nice, but I really just want to see how fast I can run before I'm too old to hang with the college guys.

Runner friends = time is more important

Non Running Friends = Place is more important

the bottom line....Time is more important to me. Screw the medals if a I can't run the fastest I can possibly run. I can live with a fast time and finish last but I can't live with the fact I ran a tactic race and lost because I didn't have the balls to run my race. I think most runners today are scare to run their own race because of the medal factor. Tactic racing and running has become a joke and hard to watch. The best runs/races today are non championship events.

Most have the same excuses for losing to, I didn't run my race! Then they feel like SHIT because they did all that training to run fast but let the MEDAL FACTOR suck them into the slow tactical race which not only cost the them the race but a fast time. A DOUBLE WAMMY! Run you're own race and the medals will take care of themselve.

I'm a pot hunter not a clock watcher.

Obama 2008 wrote:

"Hey I know you won today but my PR is 12 seconds faster than what you ran, so there!"

This is bunk. I won a small 1mi road race last fall and I knew I wasn't the best runner there. I beat a guy who less than two months earlier had ran 4:03. I won in over 4:20...

I may have bettered him that day, but there's no way my pr of 4:14 touches him...quote]

OK so you won the race over a better runner. If he had come up to you and tossed his time in your face don't you think he'd look like a d ick?

Again, this is more about winning a race, especially a big race, over settiung a PR. If I'm running Boston I'd rather have a fast time. Whether I finish 200th place, or 300th place is of little or no consequence. So at that point, yes, I agree that time is more imporant.

Now if we are talking about winning Boston in a slow time or coming in the top 10 with a fast time, I'll take the slow win.