"No other form of physical activity matches the hubris of runners"

I would love it if all I got called was a "fitness freak" or "Speedy Gonzalez". Typically, when I'm yelled at while running it's obscene and derogatory to no end, and usually, the bicep curling meat-heads are the ones doing it. So to say that runners are exempt is ignorant. In fact, I would venture to say that runners are verbally abused more than any other type of athlete because the sport takes place outdoors.

As somebody who runs and rides, I'd say cyclists get abused much, much, much more than runners.

SpeedyG the third wrote:

As somebody who runs and rides, I'd say cyclists get abused much, much, much more than runners.

I agree. Every time we drive by a cyclist my sister has to roll down the window and scream "LANCE." She used to do it for runners, she'd yell "PRE" until I told her to stop, those people are out there training and they don't need any abuse from the outside. She listened to me there since I'm a runner but she didn't listen to the same thing when I said it about cyclists. So dumb. I hate it.

El Jefe wrote:

2:20 is just as far from mediocre as 6:00 is. 2:20 is a minute off of the OT qualifying time, and 6:00 is just atrocious and I'd doubt they're even running (save for the real old people out there).

Point is, both gives you the same credit at the water cooler on Monday morning.

Now if you post a picture of yourself benching 400 lbs on facebook, that easily trumps both.

You're right and it's infuriating. A kid in my school won states in the 3200m and a video of a kid benching 325 got so much more talk.. it's ridiculous. But when the football team and wrestling team, and an individual wrestler, won states it was the talk of the whole school and the track athlete got no attention.

But regardless of public opinion, state champ in a deep field is more impressive then benching 325.

the writer hasn't spent much time in the company of Ironman-distance triathletes

also don't think he really knows what hubris means

all things being equal, bench pressing 400 lbs isn't more impressive than 2:20, as I suspect way more people have benched 400 lbs than ran a 2:20. the time commitment each requires also weighs heavily (no pun intended) towards a 2:20 marathon. you gotta think that the 2:20 marathon would take between 9 and 12 hours a week of running for a few years, plus all sorts of strength and flexibility exercises on a regular basis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progression_of_the_bench_press_world_recordhttp://www.yardbarker.com/all_sports/articles/msn/texas_high_school_senior_matt_poursoltani_lifts_700_pounds_rivals_nfl_bench_press_record_video/13226986

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

El Jefe wrote:

2:20 is just as far from mediocre as 6:00 is. 2:20 is a minute off of the OT qualifying time, and 6:00 is just atrocious and I'd doubt they're even running (save for the real old people out there).

Point is, both gives you the same credit at the water cooler on Monday morning.

Now if you post a picture of yourself benching 400 lbs on facebook, that easily trumps both.

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

I always heard that Vanderbilt was a respectable university. I must have heard wrong.

El Jefe wrote:

You're right and it's infuriating. A kid in my school won states in the 3200m and a video of a kid benching 325 got so much more talk.

That's because we have evolved. Being the skinniest kid on the block (and therefore being a good runner) doesn't buy you anything anymore. Additionally, all the girls these days admire the BUFF kinda guys, Hugh Jackman etc.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

El Jefe wrote:

You're right and it's infuriating. A kid in my school won states in the 3200m and a video of a kid benching 325 got so much more talk.

That's because we have evolved. Being the skinniest kid on the block (and therefore being a good runner) doesn't buy you anything anymore. Additionally, all the girls these days admire the BUFF kinda guys, Hugh Jackman etc.

Actually, the kid is short and decently built which is the funny part. And ehh that's debatable, being that the big meatheads are for the most part void of intelligence and personality.

This is further evidence of the death of journalism. The same writers who criticize the rise of obesity, the lack of health, the dominance of the "culture of convenience" turn right around and criticize those who choose to live their lives differently. Anyone who gets off the couch to live a better life should not be criticized, in fact, if a 13.1 bumpersticker is want it takes, where is the harm. How does the love for our sport interfere with how you live your life? And if you want to talk hubris, why does one think their opinion on the matter is so authoritative that is must be published? I am going to continue running, having fun, and clogging up the road regardless of those who have never dared to get off the couch.

Don't turds like Stafko and now Rouillard see the irony in the fact that they are complaining about other people showing off their underwhelming accomplishments, when that is exactly what they are doing when they write their pathetically constructed opinion pieces?

"Hey, readers!! It's me!! Me, me, me! Andre Rouillard!! You just gotta hear my opinion about some random stuff!! Why? Because I'm so interesting!!! I'm a really profound thinker who deserves to have his writing take up space in this rag! Check this out: I don't like runners!!!! Yippeeeee!! Wasn't that cool?"

What a suck of pus. I can understand finding the stickers mildly annoying, but not to the point of taking the time to write an article (that will actually be read by hundreds of people, poor writing notwithstanding) for the mere purpose of trying to lather up hatred of a group of people who have virtually no effect on my life. Even worse, in Rouillard's case, he's just rehashing the exact same crap written by Chode Stafko a couple of weeks ago. Boring, badly written, and unoriginal. I hope he doesn't plan on being a journalist when he leaves Vandy.

As an added bonus, he's an embarassment to his school. Obviously, student newspapers are almost always steaming piles of crap, but there is something incongruous about seeing the nice, professional layout of this on-line article, and then having to read sentences like:

"But in terms of exercise for exercise’s sake, no other form of physical activity matches the hubris of runners."

...or painful sentence construction like:

"Take weight lifting as an example, a popular activity at this school judging by the crowded Rec weight room, at which you can witness no less than six different types of bicep curl being performed at a given moment."

"They put on public demonstrations in the form of marathons and running groups, crowding up and closing down roadways, inconveniencing commuters and forcing pedestrians and motorists to bear witness to their strained faces and quivering thighs. At least those of us who lift weights, play team sports or do yoga/Zumba/Pilates/Jazzercise have the courtesy to do it privately, with a roof over our heads or in a designated space or venue."

Funny stuff, especially "forcing pedestrians and motorists to bear witness to their strained faces and quivering thighs".

But the vast majority of running is done privately or just for fitness, not to show off.

Now bicyclists wear all that bright stuff to get your attention.

(so you don't hit them with your car)

I can imagine being annoyed at runners when a road they want to travel on is shut down.

I like my driving.

This article is freaking ridiculous. First off running competitions take place on the track, trails, and xc courses as well as the road. But the author didn't notice this; he assumes what he doesn't see doesn't happen. If marathons and races on the road are truly such a problem the logical response would be to suggest that they be moved to the track or xc courses. However, they aren't a problem despite the fact that they can clog up a city for 8 hours. They bring money to cities that host them, especially big events like marathons. For example, Nashville has the country music marathon which they allow the Competitor Group to hold, because it is an ECONOMIC BOON to the city. The tens of thousands of people who come in for this event spend money to stay in hotels, they buy food, they visit local restaurants, and they purchase souvenirs from local merchants. Most smaller events like Jimbo Bob's 5k for Pinky Cancer are designed in a way to minimize their disruptiveness (being held in parks, on bike paths, etc.). However even those provide more economic benefit to the city than the minimal disruption in traffic causes. But the big events like Country Music Marathon will never go away; local merchants and governments have run the numbers and weighed disruptions to commerce caused by these events vs the amount of money they bring in and found having them to be economically lucrative. As for the rest, this seems like a silly time to criticize physical activities, whether running or anything else when our nation is dealing with an obesity crisis. I welcome athletes and exercisers of all sorts, whether they put bumper stickers on their car and brag about how hard they trained to run some distance irl and on social media, or not because for every person who treats their body well, I will have to pay less in healthcare costs whether that is through health insurance, taxes, or anything else. I hope Mr. Rouillard doesn't represent the best of what Vanderbilt is teaching in terms of English or logic.

I'm not arguing with nonsense. wrote:

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

I always heard that Vanderbilt was a respectable university. I must have heard wrong.

I hope this guy just slipped through the classes and somehow took all poor professors and is not actually representative of Tennessee's best and brightest.

* wrote:

I can imagine being annoyed at runners when a road they want to travel on is shut down.

I like my driving.

This is why cities with major marathons and other large events publish road closures and post signs well in advance. Anyone who bothers to stay the least bit informed watching the local news, reading the local paper, or even paying attention to signs as their drive around their city will know to plan ahead. Their is no excuse for complaining when a marathon is being held in your town because you had weeks to plan alternate routes or know to leave early.

"Running out of patience"!? Ha ha. The title would make sense if he were the one doing the running. Running out of patience of others running doesn't make a bit of sense.

It's just trolling for clicks and not worth giving a response.

It's no different than that dumb WJS article: an Internet attention wh0re projecting his attention wh0ring onto runners.

failure to distinguish wrote:

But with runners, no one really makes the distinction between serious athletes and joggers. The 4:10 miler and the 23 minute 5K guy at your school are both just "cross country runners." So people make generalizations about runners based on the actions of joggers. This doesn't make any more sense than generalizing about football players based on the actions of JV scrubs.

Those hobby joggers you hate so much are more likely to make that distinction than people who don't run at all. So now what? What would you like people to do if their choice is between jogging 15 miles a week or not at all? Are they not allowed to put on running shoes and sign up for a turkey trot unless they buy into the idea that scrawny pimple-faced HS XC guys are awesome superhuman athletes? Or are they allowed to as long as they publicly admit their shame?

Why don't you just focus on your own running and what you want to get out of it? And if your goal is for the general public to admire you for your running, then train harder and go to the fu\cking Olympics.