So where do you folks draw the line?

top this letsrun wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) Attitude isn't the defining thing.

2) Mileage isn't the defining thing.

3) Intensity of the miles run isn't the defining thing.

4) What is the thing? Do you TRAIN and RACE and try to improve? That's pretty much it.

I agree with 2 and 3 but attitude is a big part of it as well...isn't #4 an attitude thing?

Ah grasshopper, you are so close. #4 isn't JUST attitude. It is ACTION geared toward a GOAL -- that's what makes it THE thing. All the attitude in the world means nothing if you don't actually try to accomplish something.

So you're saying some guy or gal makes a bet with their drinking buddy that they can run the NYC Marathon and actually does it in oh say 6 hours and 25 minutes.....

Now a year later the same bet is on except this time the guy actually runs once or twice a week for the four weeks before the big event and he does it again in 6 hours and 15 minutes, stopping for a few beers along the way I might add....

That's a serious runner???????

1) Attitude isn't the defining thing.

2) Mileage isn't the defining thing.

3) Intensity of the miles run isn't the defining thing.

4) What is the thing? Do you TRAIN and RACE and try to improve? That's pretty much it.[/quote]

Isn't that just a combination of attitude and intensity? (I agree with you, but I'm not sure it was necessary to knock the consensus just to restate it as if no one else has a clue

You're a serious runner if you purposely don't engage in any pleasurable activities of the body in the 2 days before a race.

Warrior Revolution wrote:

Isn't that just a combination of attitude and intensity? (I agree with you, but I'm not sure it was necessary to knock the consensus just to restate it as if no one else has a clue

1) Having an attitude isn't training or racing.

2) Running with intensity isn't training and racing.

3) Training requires a specific plan of attack that incorporates attitude and intensity, but other things as well -- easy runs, long slow runs, rest, charting of progress and goal setting and target setting. Then when the training is complete (or as you continue to train) you race, and you train some more and you race some more -- all to get faster. That's what defines a serious runner. That runner could be running 48 minute 10ks or 31 minute ones.

And, I'm not sure no one had a clue, but no one proved that they did. People were talking about attitude and intensity. No, that's not it.

I know how many of you think here, and in my example above most will not agree that a 48-minute 10 runner could be considered a serious runner but just about all of you will agree a 31-minute 10k GUY would be. I'm not sure why that is. 31 minutes gets you NOTHING in professional racing. It just seems fast compared to most of you (and fast for me too as my 10,000 PR is 32:25). There are lots of people out there who train and race and eat well and read about running and do everything they can to get faster and then run a 48 minute 10k. That might seem slow to many here, but if you were Bekele, 31 minutes would seem slow.

My criteria for a serious runner is correct.

I think that after reading the responses, you guys are right to say that it's an attitude thing. For instance, I was running 80 mpw last summer, which would seem to denote someone serious about running, but I don't think I was really running to improve--I was just running because I liked running. Now that I'm a bit less keen in running, I've been doing 30 mpw or so, and the only real consideration I'm taking into account is its effect on my weight (which, surprisingly, has been a positive factor, as I've lost more weight due to less dietary needs). I think when I was writing the OP, I was thinking of myself as transitioning from serious runner to casual runner, but I think that it's probably right to say that I've been casual all along.

So yeah, successful thread!

A serious runner gives a f***

A casual runner doesn't give a f***

Hello.

I am a pretend scientist, and I have been conducting extensive research on this very question, which I have termed The Runner/Jogger Conundrum (RJC). I conceive of the ultimately binary RJC as founded upon one primary and several secondary continua. The secondary continua are only necessary for those positioned near the center or toward the torpid terminus of the primary speed continuum. For such a subject, an aggregation of the subject’s positions on the several continua is employed to determine whether the subject is a runner or a jogger.

PRIMARY CONTINUUM

Speed

SECONDARY CONTINUA

Age

Attire

Attitude

Body Build

Courage in the Face of Inclement Weather

Experience

Inseam Length

Motivation

I emphasize that strict binary compartmentalization is at the very essence of the RJC. I look forward to peer review of my work.

Sincerely,

Pretend Scientist