Betting didn't make it a serious sport. All you have to do is see the performances in the first modern Olympics and early 20th century to see how "seriously" people were racing track.
If you look at performances from those Olympics you'll find a lot of sports that aren't contested anymore. Sports in general were not taken as seriously in the 19th and early 20th centuries as they are now and training methods were pretty primitve compared to now. In the ealry 20th century there was a guy who lived in western Connecticut who ran the Boston Marathon every year, can't recall his name, but he placed among the leaders. His training was to leave home a couple weeks before the race and walk to Boston. That doesn't mean he wasn't serious when he raced. Evidently quite a bit was made in 1880 when Walter George became the first person to run a mile under 4:20 and a bigger one a few years later when he got to 4:12 and yes, he was quite serious about his races. He made his living from them in the later part of his career.
What was "serious" a century ago doesn't qualify today. The only thing they had in common was a desire to win. But so do recreational athletes have that. They are hardly "serious" athletes.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
Are steeplechasers really this dumb? To say they "aren't comparable" is to say they have nothing significant in common, that distant past performances are nothing like those of the present.
And here is what I actually said, which anyone with a semblance of education could understand:
"In the early 20th century there was nothing about how athletes engaged in sport that was in any way equivalent to today. That is why their performances aren't comparable."
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Now tell us about the mile time for 17 year olds in 1900 and how much homo sapien evolution occurred in the intervening 60 years that rationalises Ryun's time?
No one was seriously racing track in 1900. You mistake biological evolution for improvements in training, nutrition and equipment. There were huge improvements in much of these - especially training and tracks and shoes - in the half century before Ryun.
So quite literally the very same factors that have improved in the last 60 years.
If you look at performances from those Olympics you'll find a lot of sports that aren't contested anymore. Sports in general were not taken as seriously in the 19th and early 20th centuries as they are now and training methods were pretty primitve compared to now. In the ealry 20th century there was a guy who lived in western Connecticut who ran the Boston Marathon every year, can't recall his name, but he placed among the leaders. His training was to leave home a couple weeks before the race and walk to Boston. That doesn't mean he wasn't serious when he raced. Evidently quite a bit was made in 1880 when Walter George became the first person to run a mile under 4:20 and a bigger one a few years later when he got to 4:12 and yes, he was quite serious about his races. He made his living from them in the later part of his career.
What was "serious" a century ago doesn't qualify today. The only thing they had in common was a desire to win. But so do recreational athletes have that. They are hardly "serious" athletes.
I have no idea why you think you would know how serious runners who have been dead for decades were about the sport. Why would someone like George, whose living depended on being as fast as he could, not be as serious about his sport as a modern runner wanting to get his shoe contract renewed? And why do you think recreational runners aren't serious? Ron Clarke ALWAYS talked about the sport as something he did for enjoyment. He called the guys he trained with "the world's fastest joggers." But those guys weren't serious? Running for me was always recreational but I was a lot more serious about it than I ever was about any of my jobs.
Are steeplechasers really this dumb? To say they "aren't comparable" is to say they have nothing significant in common, that distant past performances are nothing like those of the present.
And here is what I actually said, which anyone with a semblance of education could understand:
"In the early 20th century there was nothing about how athletes engaged in sport that was in any way equivalent to today. That is why their performances aren't comparable."
Your petty insults show your lack of maturity to discuss matters like an adult.
You wrote: "Betting didn't make it a serious sport. All you have to do is see the performances in the first modern Olympics and early 20th century to see how "seriously" people were racing track." That is comparing the two eras. Maybe pay attention to what you say and don't move goal posts so often. You often forget what you write and contradict yourself.
No one was seriously racing track in 1900. You mistake biological evolution for improvements in training, nutrition and equipment. There were huge improvements in much of these - especially training and tracks and shoes - in the half century before Ryun.
So quite literally the very same factors that have improved in the last 60 years.
Thank you. We can end this thread now.
If you think the improvements in the half century after Ryun are comparable to those from the era of Walter George leading up to Ryun you live in fantasy land.
What was "serious" a century ago doesn't qualify today. The only thing they had in common was a desire to win. But so do recreational athletes have that. They are hardly "serious" athletes.
I have no idea why you think you would know how serious runners who have been dead for decades were about the sport. Why would someone like George, whose living depended on being as fast as he could, not be as serious about his sport as a modern runner wanting to get his shoe contract renewed? And why do you think recreational runners aren't serious? Ron Clarke ALWAYS talked about the sport as something he did for enjoyment. He called the guys he trained with "the world's fastest joggers." But those guys weren't serious? Running for me was always recreational but I was a lot more serious about it than I ever was about any of my jobs.
The opportunities for athletes to compete for a living - through running exhibitions - was very limited. Official competition did not permit payment. It was an amateur era. Jim Thorpe was stripped of his Olympics medals for having received payment for a small competition.
You mistake the desire to win - being "serious" about that - which is a subjective and individual state of mind - with the use of "seriousness" to equate to the body of experience and knowledge that has gone into building up a modern -day professional sport. None of that knowledge was present in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The difference in performances then from those of today make it unmistakable how much the sport has developed. You have wandered down a meaningless rabbit-hole and failed to see what is incontestable about how the sport - the world - has changed.
This post was edited 17 minutes after it was posted.
Are steeplechasers really this dumb? To say they "aren't comparable" is to say they have nothing significant in common, that distant past performances are nothing like those of the present.
And here is what I actually said, which anyone with a semblance of education could understand:
"In the early 20th century there was nothing about how athletes engaged in sport that was in any way equivalent to today. That is why their performances aren't comparable."
Your petty insults show your lack of maturity to discuss matters like an adult.
You wrote: "Betting didn't make it a serious sport. All you have to do is see the performances in the first modern Olympics and early 20th century to see how "seriously" people were racing track." That is comparing the two eras. Maybe pay attention to what you say and don't move goal posts so often. You often forget what you write and contradict yourself.
You have a poor command of English. You don't understand what the terms mean, to "compare" things with also saying that in certain respects they "aren't comparable". They are quite separate uses of the terms and in your weak attempt to appear clever you have just shown you don't see that. At any intellectual level, you are out of your depth.
Your petty insults show your lack of maturity to discuss matters like an adult.
You wrote: "Betting didn't make it a serious sport. All you have to do is see the performances in the first modern Olympics and early 20th century to see how "seriously" people were racing track." That is comparing the two eras. Maybe pay attention to what you say and don't move goal posts so often. You often forget what you write and contradict yourself.
You have a poor command of English. You don't understand what the terms mean, to "compare" things with also saying that in certain respects they "aren't comparable". They are quite separate uses of the terms and in your weak attempt to appear clever you have just shown you don't see that. At any intellectual level, you are out of your depth.
Again, you are gaslighting and attempting to belittle other people's intelligence. Typical NPD behaviour. Seek help.
Why don't you start a thread and then do all your serial, repetitive, argumentative, negative posts in that single thread and stop polluting other topics and wasting your fellow readers' time?
You have a poor command of English. You don't understand what the terms mean, to "compare" things with also saying that in certain respects they "aren't comparable". They are quite separate uses of the terms and in your weak attempt to appear clever you have just shown you don't see that. At any intellectual level, you are out of your depth.
Again, you are gaslighting and attempting to belittle other people's intelligence. Typical NPD behaviour. Seek help.
I don't have to belittle your intelligence. You do a fine job of that all by yourself.
Why don't you start a thread and then do all your serial, repetitive, argumentative, negative posts in that single thread and stop polluting other topics and wasting your fellow readers' time?
Perhaps you could ask that of those who insist on disputing every comment and continuing the arguments.
Why don't you start a thread and then do all your serial, repetitive, argumentative, negative posts in that single thread and stop polluting other topics and wasting your fellow readers' time?
Perhaps you could ask that of those who insist on disputing every comment and continuing the arguments.
Do you understand that you do exactly what you're describing?
Yes, of course you're right. How can any of us ever seriously think otherwise? You'd know much better than me about how serious I was about running.
You are using the term subjectively; I was not. You might be "serious" about how you view racing - which is your state of mind - a subjective experience - but a "serious" sport is one that has been developed and is practiced to a high level of knowledge and expertise - which is a professional sport. You haven't understood what I was saying.
Yes, of course you're right. How can any of us ever seriously think otherwise? You'd know much better than me about how serious I was about running.
You are using the term subjectively; I was not. You might be "serious" about how you view racing - which is your state of mind - a subjective experience - but a "serious" sport is one that has been developed and is practiced to a high level of knowledge and expertise - which is a professional sport. You haven't understood what I was saying.
You are using the term subjectively; I was not. You might be "serious" about how you view racing - which is your state of mind - a subjective experience - but a "serious" sport is one that has been developed and is practiced to a high level of knowledge and expertise - which is a professional sport. You haven't understood what I was saying.
Wrong.
So a "serious" sport ISN'T one that has been developed and practiced to a high level of knowledge and expertise. Do you ever have the nagging suspicion you're the dumbest person in the room?
This post was edited 22 seconds after it was posted.