Races should only be for FAST people

mopak,

I came on bit strong at first and while things have mellowed, the truth is shining forth a bit clearer now. What I mean to put forward is not necessarily winning per se, but the idea of progression and improvement ( be it linear or curvilinear, it doesn't matter)

The confusion I think stems from the fact that both instances coincide in my case. If I continue to improve, or at the very least remain as fit as I am ( well, now two months ago), the winning takes care of itself! Cause where I live it's not 1985 Melbourne, Australia

It's all relative,

Thanks for the data point. I looked him up. But I don't know if that adds fuel to the opposing argument or rather detracts from it. Turns out that James Mutuse has never run slower than 16:24, and that was years ago. It might even be a hilly course given that his next slowest time, 16:04, was in the same race. If he chooses or can't train to be at peak fitness all the time, he's still a freakin' stud on his worst day. The fact that he's averaging somewhere in the low to mid 15's in the 5K, even at 31 years of age, is not what I would call detraining. He's probably in the same position to win as many of the same races he used to win, but perhaps now with less margin for error.

Le Burf,

I was going to offer my critique of your statements but it was answered already in the post above to mopak.

But let me ask you a question because you come from a segment of the population that interests me a great deal when it comes to this topic.

You are a former collegiate runner, having raced in the NCAA championships, and were not good enough to crack the top 100. But, correct me if I'm wrong, you were still running within the 29:00-30:00 range? 30:00-31:00 maybe?

Have you stopped running and/or racing since? If so, why did dominating the local scene or trying to get faster into your late 20's not appeal to you? If you haven't quit, are you in better or worst shape than before? What drives you now?

Look at his place in most those races. He is not first in nearly any off them, but if he trained, he would almost always be first or at least vying for first. That's the point.

its all relative,

OK, fair enough. But, remember, I think we have to look at the big picture in Mutuse' case. His drop off is still like 30-40 seconds. Maybe by bringing this example up you've revealed one of my pre-conceived biases. Perhaps was disturbs me most is dropping off the map of respectability so severely. Mutuse' 16:24, and for all we know that may be an aberration because nothing else comes close to it, is just a hair outside of his best. He can jump in another race a month or two later and be ripping it up again if he chooses.

Jack, In Order:

Yes I was in that range, running at 5 min. pace at my best for a 10K.

I didn't comtinue to train hard after college OR try to dominate the local scene. Mediocre college runners are in a weird spot, middle of the pack against good competition, able to dominate eveyrone else. Neither are particularly appealing after knowing you have reached, or nearly reached your physical peak.

I still run occasionally, and run in races occasionally, but don't train seriously for them, mostly just as friendly bets or competition with friends. Kind of a "how fast can I go without training ever?" But I don't think that mentality fits with generally "slow" runners. People like measuring themselves against others, no matter what level. Other people want to feel apart of something, even if that means they run a VERY slow marathon. like I said goals can be big or small.

I think you should be looking at his year-to-year variability more than his drop off. FYI-He was closer to 14 minutes 5K at his peak (it doesn't show up in these stats) and I know for sure that he ran 8:53 3k Steeplechase in college, as a reference point. The point is that he doesn't let the fact that he isn't in his "best" shape keep him from just going out there and competing. He brings what he's got regardless of whether he's in peak condition or not.

you know body a long distance race without joggers is nothing nobody is going to a 10k just too see a group of 10 elite runners the beauty of a 10k run is the people that run in the back (joggers). this people do train every day just like you, so wake up and have some respect to runners who make sacrifices too day by day to get in shape and finish a race.

Thank you Le Burf,

I find it interesting that for all your talent, all it's come down to now is just an occassional race involving a few buddies. I know thay your times were mediocre for a college runner, but I'd kill to be able to run that fast. You see, its just a matter of perspective, or as a professor of philosophy used to say, a set of HORIZONS that each of us brings to the table.

I never competed in college or for that matter ever finished in a race higher than say 50th ( large city half-marathon).

mopak,my fault actually. I should have put quotations around "calling" to refer to your use of "perceive" but erroneously put them around wanker to detract from its popular impact. The poster's handle may have catalyzed this interpretation. His thinking patterns are both refined and comprehensive... Well, would it be a good guess to say the thread title should have been:"Races should be ESPECIALLY for FAST people?" With some thought given to the concept of FAST and how it might be subdivided you'll get a large following on this board. But wait, isn't this already happening? Fast runners at the front, slower ones at the back...Jack: the reference to Anorexia came to me because of the diet and self image themes that emerged earlier in this thread as related to the struggle with performance betterment. In much the same way that I believe that psycho-implosive behaviour is not specific to web forums but can easily emerge on one.

We'll call this fella Johno. He ran a 2.19 marathon but got injured. He did make a decent comeback of sorts and ran 2.24. More injuries and he was soon just a midpacker. He's still racing now on the wrongside of 50, running and racing are in his blood. He enjoys the race regardless of the result.

There are many Johno's out there.

wilfredo...wrote:

Now if there were 1200 professional runners in the united states, what time do you think the 1200th person would be running in the 5k?

===========================================================

I think you are making a point that I've had in mind. 15 is fast for a 5k because it puts one in a relatively small group of runners at the top in the US. According to Atheletic.net (outdoor 2009), only 724 college runners ran faster than 15:00. Add to this the top 13 runners on the USTAF 2009 list faster than anybody on the college list and you have just 737 runners faster than 15:00 in the US (on these list). Now, we'll need to add the post-college runners who are still running 15 or better. That's difficult to know. But I doubt that there are more than 500 runners (post college) nationally, actively racing, who run 15 or better?? So your 1200 figure would probably have the 15 min runners at the bottom? As you point out, a baseball player in that group of 1200 , is not just any old baseball player and neither are the football players on the list of 1900+ NFL players just any old football player. They're the best of the best.

After 30 years of racing at the local level, I'm left with the impression that 15 is really fast locally. The OP did put this issue in the "local race" context. My goal was to break 16 and I was in awe of the runners with 15 min speed. Not to drag this on, but 16 speed is kinda fast too...locally.

I think age group racing matters. Bill Rodgers does this. There is Ed Whitlock who does this. I know in my local scene there are actually heated rivalries between masters and age groupers. It is exciting to watch a geezer gutting it out with another geezer.

The alternative is to become a hobby jogger. This sucks. Beating somebody feels good. Winning your age group is good. Training hard is good.

Out.

ilgore...wrote:

I think age group racing matters.

===============================================

Of course AG racing matters! You're racing the same guys you were in your prime quite often. Compitition never need end. It's also a challenge to resist the aging process.

It's fun and fullfilling to be ranked as high as possible among those in your AG too.

mopak,

Johno is not a good subject for our current study. Because when Johno lines up to race, he knows that he's giving it his best. Not much you can do about injuries. Plus, by being on the wrong side of 50, he's also way past his prime.

Now let's say Johno ran a 2:19 marathon at age 26. He trains less due to other committments and comes back with a 2:38. The race he ran and won last year is now out of his reach. He can't defend his crown. He's only 27. Now that's gotta suck.

datapoint -richie bouletonce 3:53 miler, he doesn't train at nearly as a high a level as he used to (he could train at a much higher level if he so desired). he jumps in 5ks from time to time - doesn't necessarily win themthere you go

call me jack wrote:

mopak,

Johno is not a good subject for our current study. Because when Johno lines up to race, he knows that he's giving it his best. Not much you can do about injuries. Plus, by being on the wrong side of 50, he's also way past his prime.

Now let's say Johno ran a 2:19 marathon at age 26. He trains less due to other committments and comes back with a 2:38. The race he ran and won last year is now out of his reach. He can't defend his crown. He's only 27. Now that's gotta suck.

hrunner,

The datapoint you provide is incomplete. How old is richie? He's a 3:53 miler but how long ago? Where did he have most of his success? Why did he stop training as hard?

I don't know much about the guy, but i have the feeling that he was world-class by posting that sort of time, which automatically nullifies his relevance to our discussion here. He would never care about winning some local race because he's obviosly a class, or two, or three above that.

"Now let's say Johno ran a 2:19 marathon at age 26. He trains less due to other committments and comes back with a 2:38. The race he ran and won last year is now out of his reach. He can't defend his crown. He's only 27. Now that's gotta suck."

It shouldn't be quite that simple. Assuming Johno's (or Jack's) additional commitments are chosen and lead to a better (more full) overall life, then the race should simply be approached with a different set of expectations. If you chose (for the better) to live a lifestyle that makes it unrealistic to train at the same level you once did you are basically setting a new baseline for your capabilities.

Hypothetically speaking, which would suck more for Johno

a) Running that 2:38, well off the still winning time of 2:19, because he simply decided he'd rather only run 70 mpw instead of 110 this year - despite the fact that his overall life was basically the same (ie he didn't have a higher commitment base)

b) Before entering the same marathon, he finds out the RD has added 10 paid elites and that has attracted a large number of other sub-elites (ie better PR's than Johnos's). He shows up at the race in the exact same shape as when he won with a 2:19, runs the exact same time, but ends up back in about 20th place.

In either case, he likely would go in knowing he probably would not win.

Jacques,

this will go no further than it has gone. Say the last word, sign off and kill it.

People have been really helpful and provided lots of scenarios, stimuli, suggestions. You have benn challenging, well versed and entertaining.

My own best&biased suggestion within LRC would be to join us on DYRT II thread and start describing your running today.

You are thinking too much and, possibly, not running enough?

Describe your running. Today.