Steve Jones on running today

[sigh] Please try to read and comprehend.

1) Here is what he said, "I don’t believe that starting and finishing a marathon makes you a marathoner. I don’t believe that." Well, again, as I said earlier, if you RUN the whole thing, then you are a marathoner. He then disparages 4-hour marathoners. Trust me, there are a LOT of RUNNER who have to race that thing to run a 4 hour marathon. I guess he doesn't believe in the definition of words.

2) I never said he made a distinction between fast and slow. I AM saying that should be the distinction. You are either a fast marathoner or a slow one. HE wants it to be marathoner or not. He's wrong. Run a marathon, then you are a marathoner.

3) Doesn't matter if there's a difference between running it just to finish or running it to race it. The definition of marathoner is "one who takes part in a marathon." or for another one, "A runner who competes in a marathon." And, for the record, "competing" can mean a lot of things...competing to finish, competing to run it in 5 hours, etc. Steve Jones doesn't know how hard every person who runs one in 4 hours has to work to run it in 4 hours.

Finally, what would YOU call someone who runs the whole way and finishes in 4:13? Would you seriously not call them a marathoner? What about a 78 year old guy who runs 4:43? Is he not a marathoner?

I can see the after party now -- "ok, all of you who ran [some arbitrary time] go over to this side of the room. You are all 'marathoners'. The rest of you stand over there. You are not marathoners. I don't know what to call you, but you are not marathoners."

Really too bad his need to have this made up elitism when just by the nature of his times, he was already elite.

HRE wrote:

Yes, running is running. But not all running is racing and there is a difference between entering a race just to finish and entering one to run as fast as you can and finish ahead of as many other runners as possible. But as someone else pointed out, Jones isn't asking to ban slow runners or even non-racers from events. He's just pointing out that they're doing something different from what really competitive runners are doing. Even Joe Henderson has made a similar point. Whether you call a 6 hour marathon finisher the same thing as you call a 2 1/2 hour one is kind of your own business.

I am not saying they are the same thing, but they are still both marathoners by definition. You can call one a FAST marathoner and one a SLOW marathoner, but they are still marathoners. Last I knew, Steve Jones didn't work for Merriam Webster and doesn't have the power to change the definition of words.

And if there's a problem with racing vs. running, then say that some raced it and some ran it. Both are marathoners.

A treasured photo. Tampa 1994, I was on holiday and planned to run Gasparilla 15K. Peter Maher (2:11), the guy in the back was an Irish Canadian Marathoner who lived on that golf course there, so I was lucky to run with him, Steve Brace (2:10), Steve Jones (2:07), Bruce Raymer (2:24) and Chris Bloor (2:18) I asked Steve Jones how I could run 2:07 and he said "Stop at 20 miles"

He also pulled my shorts down while on a run along the highway ;-)

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii151/naftalimphotos/Steve%20Jones_zpspg2gmml2.jpg

I guess Jonsey thinks that guys like Ed Whitlock should have given up running decades ago.

There is nothing wrong with trying to run, and there is nothing wrong with trying your best and trying to improve. That is what the sport is about.

However if someone can walk faster than you over a said distance then you have to ask yourself the question whether you really truly raced that distance as a runner.

Here are the world records for speedwalking over a range of distances:

1500 m 5:12.0+

1 mile 5:36.9

3000 m 10:47.11

2 miles 11:47.02

5000 m 18:05.49

5 km 18:21

10000 m 37:53.09

10 km 37:11

15000 m 57:47.0+

15 km 57:35+

20000 m 1:17:25.6

20 km 1:16:36

25000 m 1:41:10.3+

25 km 1:42:10+

30000 m 2:01:44.1

30 km 2:01:13+

35000 m 2:31:10.5

35 km 2:21:31

40000 m 2:55:54.0+

40 km 2:51:13+

50000 m 3:35:27.20

50 km 3:32:33

100 km (track) 9:16:32.2

100 km (road) 8:38:07

1 hour 15,577m+

2 hours 29,572m+

24 hours (track) 216.621km

24 hours (road) 228.930km

Flagpole wrote:

3) Doesn't matter if there's a difference between running it just to finish or running it to race it. The definition of marathoner is "one who takes part in a marathon." or for another one, "A runner who competes in a marathon."

Good to know that all I have to do is "compete" in a marathon or "take part" in a marathon to be a marathoner. I don't even have to finish to be a marathoner.

Jonesey Wisdom wrote:

I guess Jonsey thinks that guys like Ed Whitlock should have given up running decades ago.

Don't guess. It makes you look bad. Whitlock's achievements are not part of that interview.

BS. First of all, speedwalking is bogus to the nth degree and ALL of them actually are running (both feet off the ground). The rule is that to the naked eye it must appear that one foot is always on the ground.

Cheat! -

Even so, there are for sure some speedwalkers who can legitimately cover a mile in 6:00, but just because that is so, that doesn't mean a person who has to run to cover the same distance in 8 minutes isn't a runner.

Some of you runners are really silly. I don't understand why you can't get how hard it is for some people (even thin and generally fit) to run a 9 minute mile pace for even just a few miles. It's really the same concept as an elite runner to where many of you are. Do you know how easy it is for a world class miler to run a mile in 4:40? Yet, a high school kid who strains to run 4:40 certainly considers themselves a runner.

At the start of the first running boom in the 70's the overwhelming majority of marathoners worked hard at it and raced.

Today the overwhelming majority work just hard enough to finish.

We only need to look at the depth of performances to see this.

Jonesey is talking about this mentality and approach to the marathon race that has changed and I agree with him that this has lessened marathon racing.

He is not being critical of "slower runners" who are making the effort. I know that because I have stood beside him while he encouraged the slowest of the slow.

His remarks are a lament about the decline of performance and the new mentality that has led to it.

I blame it on the millennials.

Hodgie-san wrote:

At the start of the first running boom in the 70's the overwhelming majority of marathoners worked hard at it and raced.

Today the overwhelming majority work just hard enough to finish.

We only need to look at the depth of performances to see this.

Jonesey is talking about this mentality and approach to the marathon race that has changed and I agree with him that this has lessened marathon racing.

He is not being critical of "slower runners" who are making the effort. I know that because I have stood beside him while he encouraged the slowest of the slow.

His remarks are a lament about the decline of performance and the new mentality that has led to it.

Bob,

If he had said what you just said, I would not have a problem...but that's not what he said. He agrees with what you just said, but he ALSO agrees that if you are not racing a marathon that you aren't a marathoner. THAT statement of his is what I have issue with. He is simply wrong about that...that is not an opinion; that is deferring to the definition of a word. He is wrong.

so what you are saying is that if one starts a marathon, but doesn't finish it, then that person is a "marathoner?"

I run a 25 minute 5K.

not Bob wrote:

So what you are saying is that if one starts a marathon, but doesn't finish it, then that person is a "marathoner?"

Technically by definition, yes. [But, to be clear, do know that I didn't create and define that word. I just know that words have meanings and proper uses.]

Imagine, if you will, a television reporter doing a news story about a runner running in their first marathon. This runner became dehydrated to the point they had to stop at 21 miles and be taken to a local hospital.

TV Reporter [undoubtedly smokin' hot]: "A marathoner in the Punk A$$ Marathon collapsed at the 21 mile mark today and was transported by ambulance to Punk A$$ Hospital in Punk A$$. The suspected cause of the collapse is dehydration, and the runner is expected to make a full recovery."

Completely acceptable usage of that word given the definition of the word.

Now, would it be a bit lame for any runner who enters a marathon but doesn't finish it to call THEMSELVES a marathoner? Yes. It would still be technically correct though. Finally, what should be crystal clear to anyone (without someone like me needing to point out the definition of the word) is that someone who runs a marathon to its completion gets to be called a marathoner, no matter if they ran it as hard as they can or not.

To Steve Jones' point, what about the marathoner who is winning by a wide margin and basically jogs the last 500 meters or so to wave to the crowd or slap hands with the crowd like Ryan Hall famously did in his Olympic Trials Marathon win? Since they didn't race the whole thing, are they not a marathoner? What about someone who is only trying to get top 3 and doesn't need to race to their full potential to do that?

Just too many scenarios to consider when trying to change the meaning of a word. That's what modifiers are for. He is a FAST marathoner. She is a SLOW marathoner. He is a middle-of-the-pack marathoner.

Jesus....it was a one page magazine article, not a PhD thesis. Probably a chat over a tape recorder and the journo summarised it. How many cycles of rewriting and review and rethinking of that sentence did you think he could afford to go through?

Stop splitting hairs. Racing hard is like pornography: hard to define, but we all know it when we see it.

Solid relic pic! Thx for sharing. Also good to see this thread getting a bit more traction even if it is only Flagpole posting. Cheers all.

Flagpole, if he doesn't want to have the same definition of marathoner as you do or anyone else does that is his business.

Maybe we can redefine as marathoner & marathon distance completer.

i had former non exercising relatives work at it and complete a marathon

it was beautiful, awesome , heart breaking

OK, you're on a semantic rant. No worries. I do those from time to time myself. It's the language that's failing here because it hasn't created a distinction between runners who race, and not just in marathons, and those who are there just to finish are doing. It's a difference in the sport that nearly all of us who have been around it a long time recognize and we probably need some sort of wording that draws a distinction. But the trouble with that is that as you see on this thread alone, many if not most of the people who would be described by whatever word we came up with to describe the "just finish" get very touchy about being included in that category.

There's a running club in Boston, can't think of the name, maybe Hodgie knows who I'm thinking of, whose slogan is "to have a good time rather than to run a good time." There's nothing wrong with that and having been around Jones a few times and talking with people who know him, I can't imagine he'd have a problem with that outlook either. But as that sort of approach to the sport has spread we've seen a tremendous loss of depth near the front of western distance running and that's what he's commenting on.