Not sure about the conclusions that running took off in the 70s because of economic malaise, but something to read.
Not sure about the conclusions that running took off in the 70s because of economic malaise, but something to read.
Neat, thanks for the link.
Thanks for the link. The author of the article, Cam Stracher, was a classmate of mine in law school, and I remember that he had been a pretty decent miler as an undergraduate at Amherst. I wish I knew the identity of the stoned "world class, 5,000 meter runner" he says he was running with in law school.
This paragraph is shit:
Of course, some people "jog" purely for fitness purposes and hate it. This might explain why the French were recently in an uproar after photos surfaced of President Nicolas Sarkozy in shorts and a T-shirt breaking a sweat in the Tuileries. Running is an American activity, the French press claimed, a fascistic act designed to manage and control the body. Not an intellectual pursuit at all. "It is about performance and individualism," one writer wrote, right-wing values antithetical to everything cherished by the country that gave us foie gras.
more french bashing wrote:
This paragraph is shit:
Of course, some people "jog" purely for fitness purposes and hate it. This might explain why the French were recently in an uproar after photos surfaced of President Nicolas Sarkozy in shorts and a T-shirt breaking a sweat in the Tuileries. Running is an American activity, the French press claimed, a fascistic act designed to manage and control the body. Not an intellectual pursuit at all. "It is about performance and individualism," one writer wrote, right-wing values antithetical to everything cherished by the country that gave us foie gras.
But that's true, there really was an uproar in France about Sarkozy running.
I'm also not so sure that running is cheap, at least once you cross the line from running-for-fitness to running-to-train-for-races. New shoes will run $100 or so every three months; race fees are going to be $30 a pop; and if you marathon, you're looking at probably a $500 "vacation" once or twice a year. Not to mention the convenient-but-unnecessary apparel, watches, sunglasses, etc.
It's cheaper than biking, but probably right on par with a gym or swimming club membership.
British and American journalists like to quote one or two French leftie idiots to support their biases and stereotypes and then say that the French are anti-sport and anti-running. It was no more of a big deal than Obama being a basketball player.
Compared to many, many other hobbies running is dirt cheap. Try comparing wtih skiing, or fishing, or racing cars.
Denver Runner wrote:
I'm also not so sure that running is cheap, at least once you cross the line from running-for-fitness to running-to-train-for-races. New shoes will run $100 or so every three months; race fees are going to be $30 a pop; and if you marathon, you're looking at probably a $500 "vacation" once or twice a year. Not to mention the convenient-but-unnecessary apparel, watches, sunglasses, etc.
And yet somehow, almost all the best marathoners in the world come from families that earn less than $1,000 a year.
There are only two things I hate in this world:
1. Prejudice against the culture of other nations.
and
2. THE FRENCH!
That's only if it's your habit to overspend on your activities, like the epitome of clownish RW/RT readership. I don't spend over $80 (usually $60 or under) for a pair of shoes and still get great quality shoes, I wouldn't spend over $20 on any race shorter than 10k, I sure as hell don't see much point on spending $500 to go to some destination marathon unless it's for a course that will get me to an actually notable standard (OT qual, NC qual) and maybe not even then and not even half that amount. If you ain't that fast and you're spending $500+ twice a year (or more) to run marathons then that's a purely gratuitous, vain expense. I buy almost no new apparel anymore (have too much as it is, much of it free and the rest really cheap) and I still use the same $60 sunglasses and $40 watch that I've owned for a decade or more. Running is cheap unless you're some prissy, self-important fop.
Denver Runner wrote:
I'm also not so sure that running is cheap, at least once you cross the line from running-for-fitness to running-to-train-for-races. New shoes will run $100 or so every three months; race fees are going to be $30 a pop; and if you marathon, you're looking at probably a $500 "vacation" once or twice a year. Not to mention the convenient-but-unnecessary apparel, watches, sunglasses, etc.
It's cheaper than biking, but probably right on par with a gym or swimming club membership.
I just had an amazing run in a park with a view of the sun setting on downtown Boston.
Costs:
$2.20 in shoe usage
less than $0.10 in clothing usage
and less than $4 in transportation.
That's a great evening and it cost me less than $7. I'd say running is pretty cheap. A day of skiing costs me $100+.
A gym membership has the same expenses as the run plus $2 although it's not infinitely less enjoyable.
Message:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver Runner wrote:
I'm also not so sure that running is cheap, at least once you cross the line from running-for-fitness to running-to-train-for-races. New shoes will run $100 or so every three months; race fees are going to be $30 a pop; and if you marathon, you're looking at probably a $500 "vacation" once or twice a year. Not to mention the convenient-but-unnecessary apparel, watches, sunglasses, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet somehow, almost all the best marathoners in the world come from families that earn less than $1,000 a year.
[/Quote]
Well, I guess they must come from the "once a year" demographic.
well.... wrote:
Well, I guess they must come from the "once a year" demographic.
:)
bump
Yes, despite the attempt at transition, the first sentence is utterly unrelated to the rest of the paragraph.
My experience chides with the allegations of the French press, for some of my most deeply-seated political beliefs about the free use of land for recreation and the tyrrany of automotive culture--which might be described as "leftist" although I myself hate the political tendancy to make all of human experience in a binary--stem from my life as a runner. Also, English pedestrian culture has long been tied to political radicalism, as this excellent book explores:
Cheers.
I lived in France for a number of years and I like to poke fun of the french as much of the next guy but, reconsider hating them because of one op ed piece in the WSJ? I dunno.
Though this is all in good fun, this article, and letsrun.com's interpretation and transmission of it is a good example of how people can take tenuous bits of information and stretch them to fit their preconceived notions.
This author paraphrases, without attribution, one author and now another website is declaring that the French hate running?
I understand its all in good fun because were talking about the french and not, say, jews, and running and not say, religion but it still bothers me that people can form opinions based on bad information so easily.
If the French hate running I suppose thats why they regularly host major international championships, blow the united states away in terms of attendance to these events, have track clubs in every town with more than 40,000 people, trail systems up the butthole, their track stars get regular prime time coverage and produce a steady stream of solid distance runners and track athletes despite the fact that there is no high school system and no collegiate system. In France training has to be done with significantly more sacrifice than in the US.
And as far as jogging is concerned there was major interest in the big footrace by where I lived, it was a 12k, with major participation and nearly everyone I met whether they participated or not could tell me the name of the winner and would take positively about the race with community pride.
That said the left's political leaders in France are for the most part, blustery out of touch idiots, which explains why that cant carry an election in such a socialist country. Dont blame the french for the stupid pronouncements of a few misguided political leaders anymore than you wanted them to blame us for Bush's follies.
There is a washington post article that discusses this more thoroughly, in the washington post, but again just quoting a few out of touch politicians, I seriously doubt any public opinion poll would consider Sarkozy's running a disgrace.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070602104.html
Apparently, the French seriously hate running. Check out the following excerpt from a great article that Cameron Stracher wrote in Wall Street Journal on why running was popular in the 1970s (because it's cheap):
"Of course, some people "jog" purely for fitness purposes and hate it. This might explain why the French were recently in an uproar after photos surfaced of President Nicolas Sarkozy in shorts and a T-shirt breaking a sweat in the Tuileries. Running is an American activity, the French press claimed, a fascistic act designed to manage and control the body. Not an intellectual pursuit at all. "It is about performance and individualism," one writer wrote, "right-wing values antithetical to everything cherished by the country that gave us foie gras."
Word.
Remember Michel Jazy? This from Wikipedia: (Born June 13, 1936 in Oignies), a former French middle distance runner who won the silver medal over 1500 metres at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome. The race was won by Herb Elliott in a new world record time. Jazy also set a world record over the Mile in a time of 3:53.6 minutes in Rennes in 1965, a world record over 2000 metres in 4:56.1 minutes in Saint Maur in 1966, and a world record over 3000 m in 7:49 minutes in Melun in 1965. (He also just missed a bronze medal in the 5K in the '64 Olympics, finishing 4th.)
A great runner! He was apparently a famous recluse:
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077363/index.htm
So my question is: Did the French nation appreciate him at the time? Does anyone know?
I'm going to google a little more...
Even better career recap:
CAREER HIGHLIGHTS: Nine world records
Michel Jazy was one of the best athletes that France has ever produced, winning two European titles, and setting seven individual and two relay world records during his career. Although Jazy had finished 10th in the 1500m at the 1958 European Championships, he was still relatively unknown before he won the silver medal in the 1500m at the 1960 Olympic Games behind Herb Elliott (Australia). Earlier that year, on 16 July, Jazy finished third in the mile at the British AAA Championships in London (White City). In 1962, Jazy set his first individual world record of 5min 01.5sec over 2000m on 14 June, quickly followed by a 3000m world record of 7min 49.2sec on 27 June. In September that year, Michel won the gold medal in the 1500m at the European Championships in Belgrade. In the 5000m at the 1964 Olympic Games in Tokyo, Jazy surged away from the field after the bell and opened up a 10 metre lead down the back straight. He was still in front with only 50m remaining, but tied up badly and finished a disconsolate fourth. Jazy bounced back in 1965, embarking on a veritable world record-breaking spree in June of that year. On 9 June, he set a new 1 mile world record of 3min 53.6sec at Rennes. On 23 June, he beat Ron Clarke (Australia) over 2 miles in world record time, setting a new 3000m world record as well on the way. Two days later, he ran the fastest leg on a French 4 x 1500m relay team which set a new world record of 14min 49.0sec. At the 1966 European Championships Jazy was outsprinted in a slowly run 1500m final, finishing second behind Bodo Tummler (West Germany). He avenged this defeat in the 5000m final, where he won the gold medal in 13min 42.8sec. (Ron Casey)