Runners irrationally let their running performance define their self worth

What it means is that the US system really sucks for training and competing as a serious post-collegiate runner. But it shouldn't. Clubs like mine should be available nationwide. It is a huge problem for our sport right now, something USATF really ought to do something about.

The same goes for people who stop playing other sports. That really sucks if they don't want to stop playing competitively. Why should teams for the non-elite suddenly cease to exist or be cool after high-school or college? Being part of a team is fun.

I don't think how other people view the sport is particularly relevant, but then I do this for myself. I don't think there's something wrong with the guy who gets up at 6AM and I don't think there's something wrong with the super obsessed football fan. I think the former is pretty awesome, probably because I can relate, and because he is into his sport and trying to get better and that is cool. The latter might not be as healthy but I don't really see anything wrong with it. I know plenty of football-obsessed superfans and while I can't relate because I don't find football entertaining, I don't think they should stop doing what they're doing if they enjoy it.

I think it's fine to take the sport seriously. Just stay happy (most of the time) and enjoy it (the big picture, at least). Don't let it eat you alive.

jeesus jamin, and a few others are surefire judgemental fools!

I run and compete because I like to. It's that simple.

Well into middle age I still place high at most races and almost always win in the age group category. Do people like or respect me any more for that? To tell the truth, I don't think so. If anything (at least among age group peers and those a little older, some younger) there is a hint of resentment. e.g., I never rub in their face, but when I'm a no show I sometimes have people trash talking. Whatever. I don't compete to impress others here and now. What I like to do is feel the thrill of the moment--let's see what these runners around me have today...--plus a bit of an adrenalin rush. And I also like to see how my efforts would rank in time and space (age group rankings, records and such). But again, I don't expect anyone to jump up and down and want to be my friend because I ran a race at distance Y in X:XX:XX in 20ZZ.

I run to be fit and even if there were no races I'd still put in an hour or so a day, and would probably do some workouts and time trials (even with no one watching, which I do anyway), just for the thrill of it.

But the concept of admiring an age group runner who competes and leaves right way (which I've done on numerous occassions because indeed I'm coach, parent, full time worker, and otherwise a busy person) while denigrating one who sticks around and collects their award. Well that's just stupid and judgmental. In other words, don't be a tool to your own arrogance.

Finally, if running is something that gives you a charge or thrill so what? It's no different that the person who works 15 hours a week to have a perfect lawn, or spends tens of thousands of dollars a year on home improvement projects, or joins a bowling league, plays hours of fantasy football.

There's a huge difference between running and other sports. Running isn't really a game. It's not really that fun to race a flat out 5k when you're not fit, but it's lots of fun to try really hard when playing pickup soccer, even if your first step and first touch aren't what they once were. Competitive running is the process of figuring out what your physical limitations are. That makes it more of an all-or-nothing endeavor.

As for the issue of people being results oriented or process oriented, I don't think the two can be easily distinguished in our sport. The process is defined by results. I structure my training cycles the way I do because such structures have been proven to produce results. Yes, I absolutely enjoy going out there and training, but a big piece of that enjoyment is the knowledge that I'm doing something calculated to produce results. If the results don't come, then it throws the value of the process into question. And, sure, there are moments when I experience pure, intrinsic joy in the activity of running, but that's certainly not the majority of the time.

I submit that nobody runs competitively for purely intrinsic reasons. I don't think this is even remotely controversial. Once you start tweaking your training in order to be faster--something we all do--then to some extent you're compromising your intrinsic enjoyment in favor of extrinsic rewards down the road.

I suppose I'll concede that we might define "results" in running differently. One person might me motivated very much by particular numbers that they're trying to reach. Others might want to get faster, but be more motivated by the subjective experience of flying around a track faster than they've ever done before. I know one guy who really doesn't like racing that much, but who gets really excited about his fast, 10 mile tempo runs. I used to think he got nervous competing, but now I think he just gets a bigger rush out of dropping tons of fast miles in the woods by himself. Maybe this undercuts my entire argument, because in many fields, people who are intrinsically motivated are still willing to subject themselves to processes they don't entirely enjoy, with the knowledge that it will allow them higher quality moments of intrinsic enjoyment later.

I'm amazed at the depth of insight on this thread and how we're all so different, reinforcing the subjectivity of running.

I'm coming from the angle of someone who entered the sport because I wanted to see how fast I could get post-collegiately. After hitting a wall, I questioned whether I wanted to keep "training" for that age-group award.

It doesn't mean we don't love running or competing. It just means that when you can't compete anymore at the level you once competed, your running evolves into something a little more personal and relaxed.

This idea that you can still "compete" and be running mid-pack is foreign to me. I'd like to hear more of you expound on that particular issue.

who o why wrote:

I'm amazed at the depth of insight on this thread and how we're all so different, reinforcing the subjectivity of running.

I'm coming from the angle of someone who entered the sport because I wanted to see how fast I could get post-collegiately. After hitting a wall, I questioned whether I wanted to keep "training" for that age-group award.

It doesn't mean we don't love running or competing. It just means that when you can't compete anymore at the level you once competed, your running evolves into something a little more personal and relaxed.

This idea that you can still "compete" and be running mid-pack is foreign to me. I'd like to hear more of you expound on that particular issue.

What do you think it's like to be a woman at any major race? You have a lot of men in front of you. You can't see the lead pack unless you get a special start. You can race the men, but the guys around you are usually pretty casual runners (some of them try to start conversations with you), and some of the guys in front of you run times that you'll never be capable of.

I usually focus on the other women. Does that mean I'm not competing?

What's any different about focusing on other master's runners, for example?

800 dude wrote:

There's a huge difference between running and other sports. Running isn't really a game. It's not really that fun to race a flat out 5k when you're not fit, ....

Thousands and thousands of slightly overweight, middle aged women would disagree with your opinion on 5Ks.

What is the difference between running flat out when you are in shape and not in shape? PACE.

who o why wrote: This idea that you can still "compete" and be running mid-pack is foreign to me. I'd like to hear more of you expound on that particular issue.

It's really not all that different from winning a local 5K in 15:00 and convincing yourself to feel good about it. Each of us constructs his own meaning and selectively ignores anything outside the frame he has chosen to inhabit. As a 15:00 guy, you define success as running 14:59 and beating the other 15:00 guys. You might be aware that, in a city 100 miles away, some other guy ran 14:00 to win a different race, but that doesn't affect your assessment of your own effort and result.

Similarly, if you're a 45-year-old in 17:00 shape, your goal is to run 16:59 and beat the other 17:00 45-year-olds. In this case, there may be other, faster runners in the very same race you run. But what's the difference between ignoring faster runners in the same race and ignoring faster runners in a different race? In either case, your success is only defined by the parameters you yourself set. I'm not saying age-group isn't running isn't artificial -- I'm saying that ALL running, with the possible exception of Olympic finals, is artificial. The challenge you're facing right now simply is simply adjusting the goalposts from one arbitrary spot to another.

Incidentally, xenonscreams made some good points about how women have to "compete" while running mid-pack. I'd add that the same thing is true even for very good runners if they step up to a bigger stage. The first time I ever finished below the halfway point in a race was in my first trip to the World XC champs. Yes, it's a HUGE adjustment to go from winning or at least being near the front of every race to trying to convince yourself to dig deep to stay in the top 100. Maybe it was experiences like that that forced me to confront my actual place in the pecking order while I was still in my "prime," and made it easier to think in terms of personal goals when I got older.

coach d

...and nobody else cares. That's the part they don't (want to) get.

As I pointed out on that other thread, if you go to track meets as a sprinter and look good in spandex, it doesn't really matter how fast you are. You will get attention. If you go out there looking like a skinny, wimpy little dweeb, it also doesn't matter how fast you are.

When running (or sprinting, or tennis, or anything else) becomes who you are instead of something you do, you need professional help for your addiction disorder(s).

.

And exactly how does, " running becomes who you are"?

Could you give examples of individuals that have this problem?

Is sprinting who or what Bolt is? Is running who or what Farah is?

Does anyone care about what anyone else does? That's to say, are any human performances impressive to anyone other than the performer?

who o why wrote:

I'm amazed at the depth of insight on this thread and how we're all so different, reinforcing the subjectivity of running.

I'm coming from the angle of someone who entered the sport because I wanted to see how fast I could get post-collegiately. After hitting a wall, I questioned whether I wanted to keep "training" for that age-group award.

It doesn't mean we don't love running or competing. It just means that when you can't compete anymore at the level you once competed, your running evolves into something a little more personal and relaxed.

This idea that you can still "compete" and be running mid-pack is foreign to me. I'd like to hear more of you expound on that particular issue.

.

There is a world in which runners past their prime still compete...they are called masters runners. I'm one of these runners.

The completion is not as intense as that of the open group, HS, college or professionals....obviously. But competing is competing. People like to compete. We like to compare our performances to others. And yes, it usually feels good to be in high in status relative to ones's peers. Some folk will deny this though. It simply feels good to feel good. And running is a perfectly fine source for acquiring a good feeling.

Now, some people pretend or don't grasp the specialness in a 50 yo running a 5k in 16 min or even 20 min for example. But 16 min 5k ability at 50+ is impressive and therefore worth doing. I can't do that but I think it's impressive.

As I've gotten older, I still enjoy achieving my running goals. It feels good to do so. I'll admit it was more exciting on the way up to my best performances. But I still enjoy it.

jamin wrote:

There are very few real "closet runners", who train hard at a dawn, show up at the big local road races, get top 3 and then hustle home without saying a word about their success to anyone.

Okay, that's like 95% of the people who visit this website and are over 23 years old. Maybe you should consider trolling runners world or some similar website (look who I'm talking too, you probably already do!).

@ hold the phone:

You said , "All running is artificial, with the exception of the Olympic final".

That statement requires some explaining!

You are aware that the Olympic Games is a social construct? If I win the Olympic final...that shows that I was the best that day in that race. If I win the Firecracker 5k, 55-59 age group , that shows that I was the best that day in that race. How is that artificial? Or less real than winning the Olympic final?

Perhaps you are confusing "value" with "artificial". The Olympic final win is certainly more valuable than the 55-59 ag win. But they are both real.

If my net worth peaks at $70 billion, I' m the richest, but even at $500 million, I'm rich. If I'm at $100k ...well that's not rich.

subfive wrote:That statement requires some explaining!

First of all, don't quote me if you're going to change my words.

If you read my whole post, the point I'm making is that the mere fact of winning a race doesn't make the runner different from those farther back in the pack who are racing against their own goals. In virtually every case, the winner only wins because he chose to run that particular race rather than a different race that would have been faster and more competitive.

The reason I mentioned the Olympics is because that's one of the very few situations where essentially everybody on the planet who is physically capable of winning that race on that day shows up. Of course there are exceptions, like Wilson Kipketer and Daniel Komen having to miss the 1996 Games (despite both being healthy and in record-setting form). But overall, to me winning the Olympics is QUALITATIVELY different from winning any other race. It's not just a question of degree. Winning any other race is winning a battle; winning the Olympics is winning the war.

But that's just my personal view, and is a digression from my main point, which is that for 99.9999999% of us, competition -- even against other runners -- is fundamentally personal, because we've already set the parameters of the competition by choosing which set of runners we compete against. I don't mean this as an insult, though it seems you took it that way, perhaps because of my use of the word "artificial."

running is fun wrote:

800 dude wrote:

There's a huge difference between running and other sports. Running isn't really a game. It's not really that fun to race a flat out 5k when you're not fit, ....

Thousands and thousands of slightly overweight, middle aged women would disagree with your opinion on 5Ks.

What is the difference between running flat out when you are in shape and not in shape? PACE.

I'm still around when those people are finishing, and I've never seen any of them run flat out. Sure, they're happy about running faster times, but midpackers don't really go to the well.

Fitness is of course relative. Even overweight hobby joggers can enjoy running a PR. When I said it's not fun to race flat out when you're not fit, I'm referring to one's own standards of fitness. If you ran a 15 flat 5k a few years ago, you're not likely to enjoy running an 18 minute 5k now.

And yes, I realize that masters runners continue competing, but good masters runners aren't unfit. They're very fit by the standards of what their bodies might be capable of at their present age, and moreover, their times often don't deteriorate all that fast if they keep training.

exactly and well stated

xenonscreams wrote:

What do you think it's like to be a woman at any major race? You have a lot of men in front of you. I usually focus on the other women. Does that mean I'm not competing?

What's any different about focusing on other master's runners, for example?

LRC Welcoming Committee wrote:

jamin wrote:

There are very few real "closet runners", who train hard at a dawn, show up at the big local road races, get top 3 and then hustle home without saying a word about their success to anyone.

Okay, that's like 95% of the people who visit this website and are over 23 years old. Maybe you should consider trolling runners world or some similar website (look who I'm talking too, you probably already do!).

Agreed. I think it's because (as has been discussed frequently on these boards), seriously competitive running is something that most people don't understand. When people ask me how a race went, I'm almost reluctant to say that I won. Winning and losing are entirely about who shows up, and I've won races in times that I was quite unhappy about. I don't want to say that I won but ran badly, because that's a huge humblebrag, but I also don't want to have to pretend like I'm absolutely thrilled.

Also, most serious runners have pretty high standards for themselves. If 75% of the time they'd been hoping to run faster, they're not going to sit around and brag about the fact that they still smashed a bunch of joggers. And if they do run well, they're far more likely to be excited about an absolute time (which is Greek to most people) than the fact that they won a $50 gift certificate for finishing third in a Turkey Trot.

Running, as stated, is not like other sports. I have to say from my biased perspective it is one of the greatest and purest sports. Before I took to racing (in my early 40's), I used to play quite a bit of tennis. One of the basic differences between running and tennis (or other sports) rests in the goals. In tennis the goals are to improve tennis skills. In running, yes the goal is to run faster, but its also really to change your body so that performance improves.

Its a huge difference.

I'd like to respond and give my opinion to a few things that have been said since my last post.

The example of women commpeting mid-pack does not apply here. It is UNDERSTOOD that the first woman who crosses the finish line is the winner. If there were mutants in the race, we'd have a category for fastest mutant, fastest male, and fastest female...there is notable distinction in each. You compete against your able-bodied counterparts.

So what about masters running? That's definitely an artificial contruct. Let's face it, the masters division is basically the 40-44 age group in a competitive field. That's like me being happy that I won the 35-39 age-group.

I agre with 800 dude about how it feels to be physically fit. Being out of shape is not fun. And for a guy who used to run 15 minutes, 18 minutes feels slow. Maybe you have to run that fast to understand it, not trying to be condescending.

To the guy who said running is not a game, you nailed it. Playing tennis is fun for very different reasons that running is fun. Competitive running is about performance even for non-elites.

I think we're fooling ourselves by creating separate "parameters" in a single race. Either you're going for the overall win or you're shooting for a personal best. Everything else is arbitrary. If you're "personal goal" is to stay as fit as possible given natural limitations, then why do you need to race in order to accomplish that? To socialize? To be pulled along by others? To feel that adrenaline rush? But that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about the essence of competing.

Winning the local 5K is not a self-serving, delusional construct. Every race is a universe unto itself, regardless whether there's another race down the street where a 13:30 wins. Winning is winning...unless you're beating little kids on field day.

It does not feel the same to win a race in 15:00 than to run the same time and finish 20th. Why? Because frame of reference does matter.

There's no such thing as "my race"...either you're in the race or you're not. May sound harsh, but we need to get through all the self-defense mechanisms in order to uncover the truth.

and yet you list your half pr in your runnit flair.

Dude brah, if you feel so bad about not being a stud just stop running. Sheesh!