I am new to Let's Run and am fascinated with the forum and its intent of catering to the "serious" runner. So what is the profile of such an individual? In my view "serious" means not fooling around. A runner who has training discipline, sets and achieves improvement goals and strives to keep up to date on sports science, nutrition, equipment, etc.
Interestingly enough such a "serious" runner can come from all levels of physical ability. I am no where near being an elite, basically a mid-packer. However, besides my stats, there is no major difference to how I approach the sport vs. more talented individuals. An analogy would be: Is a Class A baseball player necessarily less serious than a Class AA or Class AAA or Major Leaguer?
Ok, so what's the point you may be asking? As a newbie to the forum I perceive a caste system which sometimes sounds, well, elitist (not all participants mind you). Hot shots looking down on us mortals. I think all should be delighted that running is growing in the masses and urge the talented runners and knowledge leaders to always give constructive feedback, even if the forum participant comes from the plebe.
Discussion please.
What is a "serious" runner?
Report Thread
-
-
Your definition is correct in general about a "serious" runner. But, here is the definition by letsrun.com:
A Runner has talent and aware of his/her talent and seriously consider competing in a higher than average competitor's level. If you know you do not have talent and can never run fast enough to compete in national level by any chance, you are not a serious runner, simply a serious jogger who want to jog faster and become a faster jogger.
So, depends on which definition you want to discuss, it can go different ways. -
This is a great forum for finding self-serious runners. i.e. runners who are convinced that their running is a big deal, that they are the defenders of the sport, or that they belong to a group that should be referred to as "sub-elite." In other words, wankers.
-
"If you know you do not have talent and can never run fast enough to compete in national level by any chance, you are not a serious runner"
Case in point.
Please ... everyone who is not a national-class runner is a jogger. My goodness. -
Well if you're going to create a label, it will obviously have to have a cut-off. If you are running to better yourself, break prs, win an age-group, then you're not a serious runner. You are a casual runner. It's not a bad thing, just don't equate yourself with someone who is more or less training every second of the day. If you want to make a sub-group to include those above the "jogger" level, than go ahead, but then you'll be the jerk who is excluding people because they don't fit your standards. I don't know, man. It just seems like if you're running so that people on the street will stand in awe an proclaim, "There goes a serious runner!" then you are doing it for the wrong reasons.
-
I look at it a little differently. Race times and basic speed aren't as important as the amount of time spent and the sacrifices made. I am never going to break 16 for 5k. I started running at 30, and worked very hard to get to mid-16's within about 5 years.
However, I consider running the most important non-essential priority in my life, and make all the sacrifices I can to achieve my best. I have very little social life because I run fairly high mileage for an "average runner" (90+ in base period, 70+ in race season), often 2x daily, and follow the sport avidly. I consider all of the sacrifice and hard work to be worth it, as training, racing, and everything that goes along with it give me great satisfaction and a sense of purpose in life that my job does not.
I'll run in rain, sleet, snow, and driving winds. I'll run when I am tired and sometimes would rather not, because I know I should - consistency is important in this sport.
For all of the above reasons, I think I'm a "serious" runner. Just not a fast one. -
I agree w/ My Opinion.
Also, since sub-elite means below or beneath elite, all of us non-professional runners are, by definition, sub-elites.
I like it. That's how I am going to start referring to myself. -
My Opinion, you're definitely a serious runner. I would say that there's no fine line, but that term would generally be defined by the degree to which we make running FAST a priority.
-
I agree with that. It's not about how fast your PR's are. A serious runner is someone who works very hard at it and makes sacrafices on a regular basis just so they can get in their daily run/workout. Anyone who has put in enough effort and commitment that they are close to their ultimate potential can be considered a "serious" runner.
I'll never be a "serious" runner because I just can't understand why someone would want to be that committed to something that they aren't that good at. I mean, I hear runners talking about how they don't have a social life because they are so anal about getting in their mileage. I just don't understand that mentality. And that's exactly why the best running achievement I can ever hope for is winning a local fun run. But I'm ok with that. I run 30-40 mpw, do some track workouts, and "compete" in some fun runs here and there. Occasionally I'll win my age group or something and it's a fun saturday for me. But I can't imagine working my ass off every single day and alienating my friends and family just to achieve that. -
cutter wrote:
"If you know you do not have talent and can never run fast enough to compete in national level by any chance, you are not a serious runner"
Case in point.
Please ... everyone who is not a national-class runner is a jogger. My goodness.
That's my point - by letsrun.com concept. Not mine, not general accepted concept. If you are not running sub 14'20" for 5K you are not a serious runner by letsrun.
Serious is relative, if there are millions runners set target and work hard, then, you have to set the bar higher. But, if there are only thousands, the bar will be lower. At letsrun, most can run a 5K under 20', so in this population, the bar is set at 14'20". But, if you go to Runner's world, the bar might get set at 19'30" or even lower. -
i kinda like running wrote:
I'll never be a "serious" runner because I just can't understand why someone would want to be that committed to something that they aren't that good at. I mean, I hear runners talking about how they don't have a social life because they are so anal about getting in their mileage. I just don't understand that mentality. And that's exactly why the best running achievement I can ever hope for is winning a local fun run. But I'm ok with that. I run 30-40 mpw, do some track workouts, and "compete" in some fun runs here and there. Occasionally I'll win my age group or something and it's a fun saturday for me. But I can't imagine working my ass off every single day and alienating my friends and family just to achieve that.
I can't speak for others, but for me, I sacrifice like crazy and all the rest because I have a strong desire to really push myself hard at something, and running suits this urge perfectly. Life has so much more purpose for me when I am very dedicated to something such as running. I think I learn a lot about myself from the hardship and sacrifice I put myself through. -
A serious runner?
Someone who never smiles when running. -
and squints
when its cloudy outside
wears shades
indoors
wears
newtons
to pick up the newspaper
serious, man, serious -
fafasdsadasd wrote:
A serious runner?
Someone who never smiles when running.
so i guess that would mean geb and meseret defar are not serious runners as they are smiling all the time. -
I believe it is all in the train of mind. I call them "Real Runners" and I am one. Only the runner knows if they are a "Real Runner". Some may think they are, but only when they reach an indescribable affection and understanding to the task will they be aware of their difference. So yes, a jogger may think they are a runner, and there is no way for just anyone to tell who is a "Real Runner". "Real Runners", we can normally pick out our own kind.
All that matters is the runner him/herself knows they are what they are.
So many grammatical errors up there, I know it, let them go ^o^ -
LHS, you are either:
a) foreign, b) in junior high, or c) just illiterate.
Which one is it? -
Boricua wrote:
I am new to Let's Run and am fascinated with the forum and its intent of catering to the "serious" runner. So what is the profile of such an individual?
Fair question. I would encourage you to spend more time studying the strange and pervasive nature of this sport. You might ask yourself--before you define the limits of seriousness--what makes one a runner period. How is that something we do defines who we are? I know friends who play basketball several times a week but would never refer to themselves as "players." You are a mediocre newbie--by your own admission--but you can act almost identical to the very best runner in the world. You can wear the same shoes as them, run the same workouts as them and you can even run the same races as them. Thus, your analogies to baseball, or really any sport, ultimately fail since anyone can call themselves a runner.
This equality of our sport (albeit fascinating) is at the root of why we desire to draw a line between the serious and the recreational runner. Because, in short, words matter and we want the word "runner" to still mean something. Our sport was--for so many hundreds of hundreds of years--the essence of sports: it eptiomized the struggle of man against his own limitations. Only very recently, that has been replaced by a bevy of competitions who (although they require great athleticsim) are really games that entertain us. Sports today is really just good reality television. It is damn entertaining but fundamentally lacking in what man sought when he first engaged in sport (both as participant and as observer): something much more spiritual than theatrical.
In the wake of this cultural shift, a new "runner" has emerged who has almost no connection with the past and, even more sadly, has no concern for running as a sport. To the nouvea runner, it is a pastime, a fad, a part of their exercise routine, or diet mechanism. It is wrong to call them middle or back of the packers because the pack is irrelevant. They do not run to test their limitations: to find that precarious line where a man can outrun even his own expectations. The new runner runs for no reason at all--except perhaps themselves. That is why you see this incessant need to separate the one from the other. It is not personal; it is a reflection our deep cultural for something to be sacred again. -
Mundus Vult Decipi wrote:
You are a mediocre newbie--by your own admission--but you can act almost identical to the very best runner in the world. You can wear the same shoes as them, run the same workouts as them and you can even run the same races as them.
Mediocre runners doing the same workouts as the best runner in the world? -
I am an example of a non-serious runner. I used to be...back in the ol glory days. Running ruled my life. Now I care more about other things, like how much beer is in my fridge, and if I can sell my house. I still run. Mostly to get the ants out of the pants of my dog, and to still be a size 6. I follow running alot. I have plenty of college teammates who are still competitive on the national/world level, but running is not the end all, be all of my life like it used to be.
-
A runner without a smile on his face
