Runningart2004 wrote:
A couple things....
I know a lot of people with college degrees not making $40k.
Is working while running fast too '80s? Wasn't Rogers a teacher when he first ran Boston?
Alan
Yeah. Once Rodgers started making money from running,he quit that job. He said that no one working a full-time job would beat him in a marathon.
On the one hand, I've often wondered about the "fringe" runners, who probably stand very little or no chance of breaking thru, pressing on with full time running. And while I'm someone perfectly willing to judge, my wonder was/is of a non-judgmental type - kinda like "Geez, that's too bad (that they'll struggle for little and possibly no pay-off).
But to read some of the jerky comments here judging these folks is annoying. First off, don't pretend that it's ANY sort of objective truth that pursuing a low/non-paid "pipe-ish" dream for a good handful of years after college is "stupid." It's not, it's a perfectly defensible decision.
Moreover, these "I'm so smart and pragmatic (and yes, materialistic) about life" types also display how little they really know about how lives can and do play out. The fortunate reality is that one can endure a whole bunch of "lost years" (financially speaking) in your 20's (and probably often into your 30's), and still enter middle age in fine professional/financial shape. Line up some number of thoroughly comfortable 50 year olds and their trajectories to getting there will vary a lot. Life is plenty long enough to be thoroughly un-materialistic in your twenties (poorly-returning time in grad school included) and still wind up perfectly fine.
Oh, and lastly, I think that we're largely talking about 2-teens type talents wondering if they can go 2-ten or under....NOT 2:30 types who MIGHT be 2:19 types. Most serious runners would kill for that talent, but it's still not relevant to this discussion. Sorry, some of you "tough" and insensitive guys.....
Yes, you are arrogant and have a problem with simple reading comprehension. Good luck with that.
Arrogant Subjectivity wrote:
On the one hand, I've often wondered about the "fringe" runners, who probably stand very little or no chance of breaking thru, pressing on with full time running. And while I'm someone perfectly willing to judge, my wonder was/is of a non-judgmental type - kinda like "Geez, that's too bad (that they'll struggle for little and possibly no pay-off).
But to read some of the jerky comments here judging these folks is annoying. First off, don't pretend that it's ANY sort of objective truth that pursuing a low/non-paid "pipe-ish" dream for a good handful of years after college is "stupid." It's not, it's a perfectly defensible decision.
Moreover, these "I'm so smart and pragmatic (and yes, materialistic) about life" types also display how little they really know about how lives can and do play out. The fortunate reality is that one can endure a whole bunch of "lost years" (financially speaking) in your 20's (and probably often into your 30's), and still enter middle age in fine professional/financial shape. Line up some number of thoroughly comfortable 50 year olds and their trajectories to getting there will vary a lot. Life is plenty long enough to be thoroughly un-materialistic in your twenties (poorly-returning time in grad school included) and still wind up perfectly fine.
Oh, and lastly, I think that we're largely talking about 2-teens type talents wondering if they can go 2-ten or under....NOT 2:30 types who MIGHT be 2:19 types. Most serious runners would kill for that talent, but it's still not relevant to this discussion. Sorry, some of you "tough" and insensitive guys.....
I have plenty of life experience to feel the way I do and it is a fact that a college grad who passes up a good employment offer/career starting position to try to run for a living will be dead in the water career wise. It's virtually impossible to get back what you missed once you enter your 30s. Lie to yourself all you want but most should not think they will be the exception. Again, I'm not insisting one should not follow their dreams. What I'm saying is you know deep inside if you have what it takes early on and if you don't have it then you are stupid to give up a great opportunity to work at a shoe store and run high mileage for a living trying to place top 3 in crappy road races. The same goes for the 2:12-2:20 crowd. You know you are always only inching closer to that 2:10 but the reality is it will likely not come. Most understand what they're up against but keep telling themselves they will improve fast. Look at Jeff Eggleston. It took this guy a lifetime to get close to 2:10. He's still making peanuts as a runner. Money is not the most important thing in life but growing up and maturing are up there.
Arrogant Subjectivity wrote:
On the one hand, I've often wondered about the "fringe" runners, who probably stand very little or no chance of breaking thru, pressing on with full time running. And while I'm someone perfectly willing to judge, my wonder was/is of a non-judgmental type - kinda like "Geez, that's too bad (that they'll struggle for little and possibly no pay-off).
But to read some of the jerky comments here judging these folks is annoying. First off, don't pretend that it's ANY sort of objective truth that pursuing a low/non-paid "pipe-ish" dream for a good handful of years after college is "stupid." It's not, it's a perfectly defensible decision.
Moreover, these "I'm so smart and pragmatic (and yes, materialistic) about life" types also display how little they really know about how lives can and do play out. The fortunate reality is that one can endure a whole bunch of "lost years" (financially speaking) in your 20's (and probably often into your 30's), and still enter middle age in fine professional/financial shape. Line up some number of thoroughly comfortable 50 year olds and their trajectories to getting there will vary a lot. Life is plenty long enough to be thoroughly un-materialistic in your twenties (poorly-returning time in grad school included) and still wind up perfectly fine.
Oh, and lastly, I think that we're largely talking about 2-teens type talents wondering if they can go 2-ten or under....NOT 2:30 types who MIGHT be 2:19 types. Most serious runners would kill for that talent, but it's still not relevant to this discussion. Sorry, some of you "tough" and insensitive guys.....
Aussies wrote:
Ron Clarke had a full time gig plus his training. Why don't you get an office job and do it that way. It's not that hard.
Yeah Ron Clarke was hugely inspiring. So is this Japanese guy Yuki Kawauchi who works full time and ran 2h 08 in the marathon. Amy Bersagel also works full time as lawyer. Distance running would in fact become more interesting again if it just went back to being a purely amateur sport. You would see more complete and inspiring human beings at the top of the sport who the everyday runner could relate to and this in turn drive more interest into the sport.
hokaintheknow wrote:
I heard Hoka pay good salaries even to fringe runners. Eric Avila is apparently on a base salary of $40k plus the kit and x amount towards travel etc. Hanson Brooks are generous as well, especially with their incentives.
Re;Hanson. But no dating other Hanson runners...
Guess this is a example of living as a pro
not all decisions are financially based - if i had a chance to do something extraordinary with my life but I passed it up to work 9-6 in an office...not sure I'd be ok with that on my deathbed.I mean you are right that these people will have some career issues, but it's not terminal. I wasted my 20s on stupider stuff than pro running and I did ok.
RealityCheckTheRealOne wrote:
I have plenty of life experience to feel the way I do and it is a fact that a college grad who passes up a good employment offer/career starting position to try to run for a living will be dead in the water career wise. It's virtually impossible to get back what you missed once you enter your 30s. Lie to yourself all you want but most should not think they will be the exception. Again, I'm not insisting one should not follow their dreams. What I'm saying is you know deep inside if you have what it takes early on and if you don't have it then you are stupid to give up a great opportunity to work at a shoe store and run high mileage for a living trying to place top 3 in crappy road races.
The same goes for the 2:12-2:20 crowd. You know you are always only inching closer to that 2:10 but the reality is it will likely not come. Most understand what they're up against but keep telling themselves they will improve fast. Look at Jeff Eggleston. It took this guy a lifetime to get close to 2:10. He's still making peanuts as a runner. Money is not the most important thing in life but growing up and maturing are up there.
Arrogant Subjectivity wrote:On the one hand, I've often wondered about the "fringe" runners, who probably stand very little or no chance of breaking thru, pressing on with full time running. And while I'm someone perfectly willing to judge, my wonder was/is of a non-judgmental type - kinda like "Geez, that's too bad (that they'll struggle for little and possibly no pay-off).
But to read some of the jerky comments here judging these folks is annoying. First off, don't pretend that it's ANY sort of objective truth that pursuing a low/non-paid "pipe-ish" dream for a good handful of years after college is "stupid." It's not, it's a perfectly defensible decision.
Moreover, these "I'm so smart and pragmatic (and yes, materialistic) about life" types also display how little they really know about how lives can and do play out. The fortunate reality is that one can endure a whole bunch of "lost years" (financially speaking) in your 20's (and probably often into your 30's), and still enter middle age in fine professional/financial shape. Line up some number of thoroughly comfortable 50 year olds and their trajectories to getting there will vary a lot. Life is plenty long enough to be thoroughly un-materialistic in your twenties (poorly-returning time in grad school included) and still wind up perfectly fine.
Oh, and lastly, I think that we're largely talking about 2-teens type talents wondering if they can go 2-ten or under....NOT 2:30 types who MIGHT be 2:19 types. Most serious runners would kill for that talent, but it's still not relevant to this discussion. Sorry, some of you "tough" and insensitive guys.....
You ever run 2:10 and know the balls it takes? Guessing not. When your on your deathbed I imagine what matters most are the best days of laying all out there. You must be a non-athlete. Don't mess with Jeff like that again, very insensitive lacking general compassion.
Sorry, but you know very little about running, or Jeff. Jeff's effort is no different than a 2:15 marathoners effort. Jeff's ability allowed him to run 4:59 per mile for the marathon and a 2:15 marathoner did the same effort, just not as fast. For you to not understand that is mind boggling at best. Good luck with whatever it is that you do and don't look for a raise anytime soon.
Desert Rat wrote:
You ever run 2:10 and know the balls it takes? Guessing not. When your on your deathbed I imagine what matters most are the best days of laying all out there. You must be a non-athlete. Don't mess with Jeff like that again, very insensitive lacking general compassion.
What does a shoe company pay a non-runner guy with a masters in marketing to work in what ever position you would hire a masters in marketing for?
What do they pay a non-runner just off the shelf college grad for a marketing position?
What kind of job description goes with a just out of school marketing position? What would it be for a guy with a masters?
I just want to get a feel for what the industry pays for a worker.
It takes a lot of balls to sac up and mature. However, I'm not arguing about balls, I'm saying a lot of these sub-elites are not making smart decisions. Jeff is a perfect example of someone who has given up a good career and now almost 10 years after college only has a 2:10 next to his name. No major wins, no sponsor, no substantial prize money, no national champ, no ncaa champ, no Olympic team or medal. Sorry but that's a bit of a waste.
Ovett just invested wisely apparently.
RealityCheckTheRealOne wrote:
It takes a lot of balls to sac up and mature. However, I'm not arguing about balls, I'm saying a lot of these sub-elites are not making smart decisions. Jeff is a perfect example of someone who has given up a good career and now almost 10 years after college only has a 2:10 next to his name. No major wins, no sponsor, no substantial prize money, no national champ, no ncaa champ, no Olympic team or medal. Sorry but that's a bit of a waste.
Well, maybe he will make the Olympic team next year. Who knows?
Brian Sell was 46th in NCAA Cross Country in 2000 (that was his highest finish). Eight years later, he was an Olympian. He would have never discovered how good he could become if he had quit after college.
RealityCheckTheRealOne wrote:
It takes a lot of balls to sac up and mature.
What does maturing have to do with whether or not one pursues a professional running career?
not much
I haven't run 2:15 yet (only 2:16 high), but you better believe a 2:11 or 2:10 is at a totally different level than a 2:15! Probably worth atleast 2 notches higher.Jeff has shown some really smart training and an amazing progression. The guy knows what he's doing. I've met him before in Boulder and at Boston this year and he's a super nice guy as well. Brian Sell worked his tail off to run 2:10 (160 miles a week for a few months in a row and lots of 140-150mpw). He also worked in the Hansons Running stores (at least when I was there with him). Regardless of what he makes, he gets to travel the world (Gold Coast, Europe, etc) and do what he loves. He lives in Boulder (not a very cheap standard of living anymore), and trains in Arizona sometimes were it's sunny and warm in the winters. He seems very content and happy. "It's not the critic who counts..."
Reality Rat wrote:
Sorry, but you know very little about running, or Jeff. Jeff's effort is no different than a 2:15 marathoners effort. Jeff's ability allowed him to run 4:59 per mile for the marathon and a 2:15 marathoner did the same effort, just not as fast. For you to not understand that is mind boggling at best. Good luck with whatever it is that you do and don't look for a raise anytime soon.
Desert Rat wrote:You ever run 2:10 and know the balls it takes? Guessing not. When your on your deathbed I imagine what matters most are the best days of laying all out there. You must be a non-athlete. Don't mess with Jeff like that again, very insensitive lacking general compassion.
I think you MISSED the poster's point Sage, totally. If a runner breaks 2:11 and another runs 2:15, that doesn't mean that the 2:11 runner is necessarily working any harder, he's just better.Case in point. If you ran the same amount of miles that Sell did when you were there, does it mean you'd have broken 2:11 as well? The answer is no. You worked as hard as you could and broke 2:17 & Brian broke 2:11, he had the ability to break 2:11, you didn't. Correct me if you want, I'm sure you will, but I'm pretty sure that was the point of the poster.No it's not the critics that count, but reality does. You'll never be a 2:10 marathoner no matter who does or doesn't criticize you, which I am not. You simply don't have the talent to run that fast and there are not many that do.
S. Canaday wrote:
I haven't run 2:15 yet (only 2:16 high), but you better believe a 2:11 or 2:10 is at a totally different level than a 2:15! Probably worth atleast 2 notches higher.
Jeff has shown some really smart training and an amazing progression. The guy knows what he's doing. I've met him before in Boulder and at Boston this year and he's a super nice guy as well. Brian Sell worked his tail off to run 2:10 (160 miles a week for a few months in a row and lots of 140-150mpw). He also worked in the Hansons Running stores (at least when I was there with him).
Regardless of what he makes, he gets to travel the world (Gold Coast, Europe, etc) and do what he loves. He lives in Boulder (not a very cheap standard of living anymore), and trains in Arizona sometimes were it's sunny and warm in the winters. He seems very content and happy.
"It's not the critic who counts..."
Reality Rat wrote:Sorry, but you know very little about running, or Jeff. Jeff's effort is no different than a 2:15 marathoners effort. Jeff's ability allowed him to run 4:59 per mile for the marathon and a 2:15 marathoner did the same effort, just not as fast. For you to not understand that is mind boggling at best. Good luck with whatever it is that you do and don't look for a raise anytime soon.
No, in Sell's case he actually was outworking everyone at Hansons. Talent may come in durability and/or things like Vo2max (or even Running Economy etc.). I didn't work as hard as I could in the marathon and am not at my peak yet I don't think (also, Hansons was a far from ideal environment for me, but I was lucky to get any support though coming out of college so..).Ha ha, I know I could never crack 2:14 probably and will never make the Olympic Team in the marathon (I'm still just trying to make the Trials again!). Thanks for putting me in my place. But I didn't miss the poster's "point." Totally.
Comprehender of all Things wrote:
I think you MISSED the poster's point Sage, totally. If a runner breaks 2:11 and another runs 2:15, that doesn't mean that the 2:11 runner is necessarily working any harder, he's just better.
Case in point. If you ran the same amount of miles that Sell did when you were there, does it mean you'd have broken 2:11 as well? The answer is no.
You worked as hard as you could and broke 2:17 & Brian broke 2:11, he had the ability to break 2:11, you didn't. Correct me if you want, I'm sure you will, but I'm pretty sure that was the point of the poster.
No it's not the critics that count, but reality does. You'll never be a 2:10 marathoner no matter who does or doesn't criticize you, which I am not. You simply don't have the talent to run that fast and there are not many that do.
S. Canaday wrote:I haven't run 2:15 yet (only 2:16 high), but you better believe a 2:11 or 2:10 is at a totally different level than a 2:15! Probably worth atleast 2 notches higher.
Jeff has shown some really smart training and an amazing progression. The guy knows what he's doing. I've met him before in Boulder and at Boston this year and he's a super nice guy as well. Brian Sell worked his tail off to run 2:10 (160 miles a week for a few months in a row and lots of 140-150mpw). He also worked in the Hansons Running stores (at least when I was there with him).
Regardless of what he makes, he gets to travel the world (Gold Coast, Europe, etc) and do what he loves. He lives in Boulder (not a very cheap standard of living anymore), and trains in Arizona sometimes were it's sunny and warm in the winters. He seems very content and happy.
"It's not the critic who counts..."
Wasn't ripping on you at all Sage. I actually subscribe to your blog and watch all of your videos. But...I never would have guessed that you would say that Brian outworked everyone at Hanson's, not in a million years. I assumed that you were trying as hard as you could like everybody else. You are talented for sure and I wasn't trying to put you in your place, just saying that if you worked your butt off (I assumed you did) and ran 2:16:52 after so many years, then a sub 2:11 is not in your genetic make up. I was not a personal jab and if you took it that way, I sincerely apologize.
S. Canaday wrote:
No, in Sell's case he actually was outworking everyone at Hansons. Talent may come in durability and/or things like Vo2max (or even Running Economy etc.).
I didn't work as hard as I could in the marathon and am not at my peak yet I don't think (also, Hansons was a far from ideal environment for me, but I was lucky to get any support though coming out of college so..).
Ha ha, I know I could never crack 2:14 probably and will never make the Olympic Team in the marathon (I'm still just trying to make the Trials again!). Thanks for putting me in my place.
But I didn't miss the poster's "point." Totally.
Comprehender of all Things wrote:I think you MISSED the poster's point Sage, totally. If a runner breaks 2:11 and another runs 2:15, that doesn't mean that the 2:11 runner is necessarily working any harder, he's just better.
Case in point. If you ran the same amount of miles that Sell did when you were there, does it mean you'd have broken 2:11 as well? The answer is no.
You worked as hard as you could and broke 2:17 & Brian broke 2:11, he had the ability to break 2:11, you didn't. Correct me if you want, I'm sure you will, but I'm pretty sure that was the point of the poster.
No it's not the critics that count, but reality does. You'll never be a 2:10 marathoner no matter who does or doesn't criticize you, which I am not. You simply don't have the talent to run that fast and there are not many that do.