Oh great, this is exactly something that we, as a society, can ill afford to withstand: another war!! We are still combating the Global War on Terror and the War on Obesity. I do not think we are prepared to take on another adversary. Just as Bush made the colossal mistake in the Mideast it appears that Obama is declaring another war. We must give the Department of Defense a break.
All I am asking is give piece a chance.
hypocrite!! wrote:
Positive Contribution wrote:Sorry for the run on sentences. I don't proofread my letsrun post.
and you bash people who don't proofread their letsrun post
FAG
Um ok?
Queer
Regarding running; I imagine I've hit on a deep vein of gold, my own personal gold mine. I’m actually not interested in sharing, and if the news reports it’s toxic to dig in my area, I’m perfectly fine with it. As a matter of fact, any and all myths, lies, half-truths, and pseudo-science that keeps people away from my private reserve, I’m OK with that too. I might even encourage more studies showing how “bad” running is.
Running is self-evident, it needs no defense. Never has, never will.
sub3over40 wrote:
In my opinion, the people who do the most damage to the image of the running community are those who are slower runners who have 13.1 stickers on the back of the cars but tout their athletic accomplishments as if they are Bill Rodgers. They come across as huge a-holes to people who are not exposed to running and I think they keep people from getting involved because they are so turned off by this.
Keep people from getting involved? Is that why the road race participation is at an all time high? What would be the level of participation, if they are not turned off by those self-congratulatory types?
sub3over40 wrote:
By the way, everyone knows you are pretty slow and are not impressed that you broke 2 hrs. in the half marathon. No matter what you do in running, there is always someone faster than you on any particular day so remain humble. Humility could lead to an explosion of interest in the sport.
Yeah, when you consider that a 59 year old woman and a 74 year old man have run sub3, doing so as an over 40 man seems quite ordinary. Do you use that handle as a sign of humility?
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
sub3over40 wrote:In my opinion, the people who do the most damage to the image of the running community are those who are slower runners who have 13.1 stickers on the back of the cars but tout their athletic accomplishments as if they are Bill Rodgers. They come across as huge a-holes to people who are not exposed to running and I think they keep people from getting involved because they are so turned off by this.
Keep people from getting involved? Is that why the road race participation is at an all time high? What would be the level of participation, if they are not turned off by those self-congratulatory types?
sub3over40 wrote:
By the way, everyone knows you are pretty slow and are not impressed that you broke 2 hrs. in the half marathon. No matter what you do in running, there is always someone faster than you on any particular day so remain humble. Humility could lead to an explosion of interest in the sport.
Yeah, when you consider that a 59 year old woman and a 74 year old man have run sub3, doing so as an over 40 man seems quite ordinary. Do you use that handle as a sign of humility?
Just because a rare rare 74 yo man could go sub3 does not make sub3 "quite ordinary" for the 90%+ other runners who can't hit that time.
But his point is that "No matter what you do in running, there is always someone faster than you on any particular day so remain humble."
So why does he put down a sub-2 half marathoner, if he cannot be humble about his "sub3over40"?
Good discussion, subfive and Just Another Hobby Jogger. Actually, I agree with both of you.
History wrote:
While I respect your knowledge of the running-related retail industry, you seem to be assuming that you NEED the current version of it in order for their to be plenty of competitive runners, a reasonable number of races, and an acceptable assortment of shoes and clothing. You don't. And we need not guess about this - just look at, say, 1978. Yes, inside the Boom, but races were still races, there were plenty of them, and folks survived just fine without there being hundreds of choices of shoes and clothing. Oh, and times were fast. Of course, "purists" even older than me (I started running in grade school in the late seventies) might say that the same applied in 1968, too!
Hey, thanks a lot for your response. Honestly I hadn't really thought of it that way, but you're correct in a lot of ways. But I should say that back then, we didn't have as many options in shoes, or apparel, or dedicated scientists that try and find out how to make us better at running, or most importantly, not as many people were able to turn their dream into a reality of running professionally as there are today. Every year, we see more signing and more brands entering the fray. With that, we get better coverage as people at home. And I think that that's great for the sport.
But with that said, I absolutely get where you're coming from, as the sport certainly could survive without that specific demographic. But they make it a whole lot more enjoyable in the long run.