Steve Jones on running today

This thread is descending into idiocy. As someone said a couple of posts ago, it's all about semantics. I read the Steve Jones interview, and he wasn't disparaging at all towards slower runners.

Look, if you run 13-minute miles and want to call yourself a "runner", fine! If you do a 6-hour marathon, fine! You quite possibly might even still be a decent human being. Just don't act like doing a 6-hour marathon is the same thing as a 2:07. Don't act like doing a little bit of jogging here and there, and showing up on race day to shuffle along for as long as it takes to finish, is exactly equivalent to training day-in and day-out with a single-minded focus on pushing yourself as hard as you can in a 26.2 mile run.

And let's skip the part about "but some people aren't blessed with the talent to run 2:07 - maybe they can only run 5:07 no matter how hard they try". That is surely true, but it doesn't change the fact that the 5:07 marathon runner is doing an activity that is completely different to a 2:07 marathoner. A person who runs 5:07 is doing something more like survival, whereas a 2:07 runner is pushing the limits of human fitness. Note: that does not mean the 5:07 runner is "bad" or "inferior"; it just means they aren't and can't be doing the same thing as the 2:07 runner.

And there has to be some recognition that some people are putting in a stronger effort than others. If we start slipping into the "everybody out there is trying just as hard" mentality, then not only are we flat-out wrong, but we also take away a large part of what made distance races interesting in the first place - i.e. seeing who was the fastest, and seeing how fast the fastest runners could run.

You are clearly overthinking this whole thing.

I think there needs to be some clarification here:

COMPETITIVE RUNNING vs. CASUAL RUNNING.

Your absolutely correct in that there is NO COMPARISON between someone who is running to push themselves to the absolute limit and someone on a survival run to check off the bucket list. My point is that if you participate in the sport of running you are in some way, shape and form pushing yourself. Maybe not to run a 2:07 marathon but still pushing yourself to a predetermined goal of a 5:00 marathon. The one thing about running is that you can't hide from the pain or discomfort no matter how fast or slow you run. I now run 4-6 miles a few times a week and some of those runs feel like my 8 mile tempo runs at 5:00 min pace I did 20 years ago.

HRE wrote:

If you expand the list you still have only one name there who ran faster than Jones did and we have no idea what he ate or drank and it doesn't matter what any of them ate or drank because it's running that makes the difference.

Jones might have run faster than Hall and Dos Santos with better nutrition and hydration. But he is too afraid of thinking about that possibility, because that would mean he did not reach his full potential. Well, no one ever has and no one ever will. There will always be better ways to train and recover. 30 years from now, people may be scratching their heads, wondering why the runners in 2010s didn't do this or that. But that's okay. You do what you can do under the circumstances. But that does not mean everyone should follow your example just because you were the most successful of your generation.

KudzuRunner wrote:

There's nothing wrong with scientific advances. There IS something wrong when an extractive capitalist (yes, I used the word) economy leverages "scientific advances" to convince gullible Runner's World folk that only if they "hydrate" with certain "replenishing" drinks will they achieve "maximal results." What gets lost is the guts, heart, and soul: the inspired, spirit-driven discipline of running. Again: there is such a thing as scientific progress. But there's also such a thing as spiritual devolution.

But that's not what Jones is saying, is it?

He is saying you are less pure as a runner if you cared about sports nutrition, or you used massage, physical therapy and chiropractic for recovery and injury prevention. If you have guts, heart and soul, you don't need anything else to train hard. Well, tell that to Meb or Deena. Maybe they couldn't care less whether Jones thinks they are gutless or not. They were just interested in running faster and winning medals.

No, he's not saying anything like that. He said he ran what he did without those things which shows they aren't necessary. There's nothing in his interview about having guts, heart soul or who is gutless and who isn't. That you believe that he's saying that stuff says loads more about you and your beliefs than it does about Jones'.

And yes, maybe he'd have run faster had he eaten raisins or drunk Gatorade rather than Mars Bars and Diet Coke. Maybe he's have run faster if he'd left the RAF sooner or if he'd not left the RAF at all. Maybe he 'd have run faster if he'd moved to somewhere at higher altitude than Boulder, or maybe if he'd not moved to altitude at all. Maybe if he'd signed with a company other than Reebok he'd have run faster because he'd have had shoes that performed better than the ones he ran in. Maybe if he'd had rabbits like today's marathoners have he'd have been faster. you can play the "maybe if it had been this and not that" thing forever and when you're done all you KNOW is what actually happened and what happened is that he ran faster than any recent western runner did.

HRE wrote:

There's nothing in his interview about having guts, heart soul or who is gutless and who isn't.

"And that’s what all of these gadgets try to show you is some kind of easier way of training. But there isn’t one. I ran without heart-rate monitors, without sports cords or yoga or chiropractors or physical therapists or massage therapists. I’m a purist at heart."

"All it’s doing is teaching runners to run within their limits so there is no ability to run to their pain threshold or several other thresholds. Distance running is all about stress and coping with stress. All these gadgets and gimmicks, they take the stress away from it."

Yes. He is saying that you are not as pure as he was if you used those "gadgets and gimmicks." And he is saying that you can't run to your pain threshold and cope with stress if you used those "gadgets and gimmicks."

Oh Jonsey wrote:

Just another old fart runner who is pining for the "glory days." It's sad if it's a parent living through his kid and just as pathetic here.

Things change. Get over it. You think the runners of the 50s/60s would complain about jones and his advantages?

There is this glossed over nostalgia for the late 70s/early 80s running.

People forget little to no drug testing. Runners were barely paid.

Of course he lives in the trendy "running"

community now.

Barely paid? Jones paid 100 grand to get out of his RAF contract. Where do you think he got that?

The only advantage Jones had over Hill etc. was slightly better shoes.

Jones might have run faster than Hall and Dos Santos if he had raced them.

No, he is not saying that. You are interpreting his comments to fit what you want them to mean. But he's right. Those gadgets can take away some of the stress from running an substitute feedback from a gadget for learning to read the information your body is giving you.

Steve Jones makes the point that the simple sport of running was different in his era much more captivating and dramatic.

ABC used to air full network coverage of the New York marathon in its entirety. His 1988 NYC marathon win was riveting. Not selected for the British team in Seoul and he was on a mission. Hammering alone after 10 miles and nearly breaking 2:08..

You never see anything like it today. The closest thing similar I recall was watching Sammy Wanjiru in Beijing.

Jones speaking at the 2014 London Marathon about the bad old days, including his run at Chicago. 83 views. This candid interview deserves more:

Jones is a sensible, thoughtful, and generous man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhW9iMwKw_Q

Hodgie-san wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

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.

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

No...see, that's where he (and now you) are wrong. You can't just change the definition of the word to suit your needs. I can't decide that my computer is no longer called a computer. Guess I'll call it a flobbedydo.

And, let's be clear, it is not MY definition. It is THE definition. We don't get to individually decide what words mean. There is no room for debate here. He is simply wrong.

+1

Okay, let's run this up the flagpole.

Being a marathoner to flagpole means...

Being a marathoner to Jonesey means...

Being a marathoner to Oprah means...

Being a marathoner to anonymous peckrrwoods on letsrunemdown means...

Do you see where I am going here?

Flagpole, a marathoner is someone who trains for and runs a marathon to the best of their ability, plain and simple. Jogging while talking, taking stupid selfies, taking walk breaks, etc...is not a marathoner nor is it the way it used to be. Argue all you want, you're not my gospel in any way, shape, or form. I understand Steve's point, you don't and are trying to dig deeper than necessary. Sometimes in life, you're just wrong. For you, this is one of those moments. Accept it and move on.

Flagpole wrote:

Hodgie-san wrote:

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

No...see, that's where he (and now you) are wrong. You can't just change the definition of the word to suit your needs. I can't decide that my computer is no longer called a computer. Guess I'll call it a flobbedydo.

And, let's be clear, it is not MY definition. It is THE definition. We don't get to individually decide what words mean. There is no room for debate here. He is simply wrong.

Flagpole wrote:

Hodgie-san wrote:

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

No...see, that's where he (and now you) are wrong. You can't just change the definition of the word to suit your needs. I can't decide that my computer is no longer called a computer. Guess I'll call it a flobbedydo.

And, let's be clear, it is not MY definition. It is THE definition. We don't get to individually decide what words mean. There is no room for debate here. He is simply wrong.

INCORRECT!

Just so you will be slightly less misinformed, this is a critical difference between the English and Spanish languages.

Educate yourself!