a 29 minute 10 k runner still has the potential to run well under 2:20 and perhaps near 2:10 if not under. How many Americans these days are running anywhere near 2:10?--nothing like the 1980s
a 29 minute 10 k runner still has the potential to run well under 2:20 and perhaps near 2:10 if not under. How many Americans these days are running anywhere near 2:10?--nothing like the 1980s
I was a fan of Brian Sell and he was much more known as a hard worker than a 'talented' runner. No outstanding HS or college times but managed some success as a pro and being sponsored.
Jordan Hasay
joho wrote:
I was a fan of Brian Sell and he was much more known as a hard worker than a 'talented' runner. No outstanding HS or college times but managed some success as a pro and being sponsored.
Big fan of Brian Sell too, however his lack of talent was played up a bit by the media.
Sell ran 28:50 for the 10k in college and was an All-American in XC and Track. I consider sub 29 for 10k in college pretty outstanding.
He also never ran more than 13 miles in college.
Dick Beardsley
Tyler McCandless?
Other options wrote:
sahgadh5 wrote:I'd hardly call that lucky. So some mediocre semi-elite runner who'll never win anything significant gets paid shitty wages to postpone a proper career while continuing to deliver mediocre results? A half intelligent college grad can earn more than 95% of 'pro' runners by being entirely average in a professional job, and still carry on running if they want. Is there really any difference between someone who can run a 29 minute 10k and a 30 minute 10k? Is it worth sacrificing the most important years of your career to turn that into 28:30? You're still not going to make a living by running, even if you get 'lucky' and some company hands you free shoes and $30k a year.
What some people fail to understand is that not all people value money and possessions like others do. Apparently to you life is all about making as much money as possible and to some that would be viewed as sad and pathetic as well. Different perspectives.
Count me in the group of people who think a focus on money is pathetic. My wife and I combine for about 180k/year (both 30, she makes more than me). Like the majority of the people on this board, I've learned that I don't have that level of talent and am ok with it. But when last year I was at a party talking to a guy who has run 3:52 for the mile and makes barely enough money to survive, I definitely didn't feel like he was making the wrong choice by "going for it".
When I graduated from college, I decided that if I ever find that I'm focusing on money over anything else in my life, I'd quit my job in a heartbeat and try to figure out how to get my life back on track. We lived on barely any money while in college, we could do it again.
runnerdnerd wrote:
Other options wrote:What some people fail to understand is that not all people value money and possessions like others do. Apparently to you life is all about making as much money as possible and to some that would be viewed as sad and pathetic as well. Different perspectives.
Count me in the group of people who think a focus on money is pathetic. My wife and I combine for about 180k/year (both 30, she makes more than me). Like the majority of the people on this board, I've learned that I don't have that level of talent and am ok with it. But when last year I was at a party talking to a guy who has run 3:52 for the mile and makes barely enough money to survive, I definitely didn't feel like he was making the wrong choice by "going for it".
When I graduated from college, I decided that if I ever find that I'm focusing on money over anything else in my life, I'd quit my job in a heartbeat and try to figure out how to get my life back on track. We lived on barely any money while in college, we could do it again.
That's a lot easier to say sitting at $180k than it is at $18k...
When was the last time Miles Batty did anything for Asics?
Memphian wrote:
That's a lot easier to say sitting at $180k than it is at $18k...
Not really. $18k is more than enough for a single person.
Paterno's Ghost wrote:
Tyler McCandless?
Probably the best answer in the thread. How did this guy get a contract?
saladbar4.0 wrote:
Mary Cain if she doesn't get out of her rut. She'll be the highest paid 4:14 1500 runner in history.
This. If the question was "worst-performing sponsored athlete" Cain would be the winner bar none.
explainer of things wrote:
saladbar4.0 wrote:Mary Cain if she doesn't get out of her rut. She'll be the highest paid 4:14 1500 runner in history.
Now there's someone who doesn't get the question.
My guess is that there was full understanding, but simply a desire to answer (very well) regarding performance, vice talent. Both questions are interesting. And performance is almost infinitely easier to discuss, since we rarely (if ever?) know precisely how people compare on talent.
Tslatts45 wrote:
A lot of companies sign athletes every year out of college. Who got the luckiest with a shoe contract?
Josh Mcdougal?
Good question, talent, I guess as a whole talented or not its a return on investment that you would have to say very few of elites under contract give a return on investment and very few elites influence sales. Some brand awareness, maybe yes, actual shoe sales probably no if you go outside the confines of geeks who follow this site.
Its charity support to give elites a chance to train and compete. They should be grateful vs arrogant and elitist.
Webb winz wrote:
Memphian wrote:That's a lot easier to say sitting at $180k than it is at $18k...
Not really. $18k is more than enough for a single person.
That's my point. When I think about the things in my life that make me happy, the stuff I've bought with that money doesn't begin to make the list.
Every year my college friends and I get together on the coast. In college, we would find the cheapest campsite and spend 3 nights drinking high life and awful whiskey and shared the costs on beans and hotdogs. We had a great time. Now we get together in a house we rent and drink craft beer, decent whiskey, and make moderately good food. It costs about 10x as much. We have about 1% more fun, and that 1% more fun is only because we're older and a little more relaxed than when we were 21.
The only thing I wouldn't give up from my lifestyle is health insurance and a retirement account. Pretty much everything else that money buys (nice car, toys, fancy restaurants, etc) is nice to have, but the feeling that you "need" it is out of proportion with what it gets you.
Every Asics Athlete that got a contract last year! They over paid C level elites. Not sure who is making the calls for them now…..
nyce2Bwhyte wrote:
saladbar4.0 wrote:Mary Cain if she doesn't get out of her rut. She'll be the highest paid 4:14 1500 runner in history.
This. If the question was "worst-performing sponsored athlete" Cain would be the winner bar none.
I would say Cory Mcgee would be worse.
Depends on where you live--in the metropolitan NYC area, SF, or DC that will get you a lot in a trailer park if you are lucky--other places you can live well above the poverty line.
runnerdnerd wrote:
Webb winz wrote:Not really. $18k is more than enough for a single person.
That's my point. When I think about the things in my life that make me happy, the stuff I've bought with that money doesn't begin to make the list.
Every year my college friends and I get together on the coast. In college, we would find the cheapest campsite and spend 3 nights drinking high life and awful whiskey and shared the costs on beans and hotdogs. We had a great time. Now we get together in a house we rent and drink craft beer, decent whiskey, and make moderately good food. It costs about 10x as much. We have about 1% more fun, and that 1% more fun is only because we're older and a little more relaxed than when we were 21.
The only thing I wouldn't give up from my lifestyle is health insurance and a retirement account. Pretty much everything else that money buys (nice car, toys, fancy restaurants, etc) is nice to have, but the feeling that you "need" it is out of proportion with what it gets you.
Oddly, but maybe not oddly, I agree with runnernnerd on the points he makes here. I do not agree with Webb winz who claims that $18k is enough to live on. I live in one of the cheapest areas of the country and $18k minus taxes, insurance, and all of the necessities doesn't allow one to live happily.
In my county it takes over $22k for a living wage. (That's if you plan to never retire.) It's cheap to live here, but most of the country isn't this cheap.
Shelby, County TN -
http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/47157State of CA -
http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/06State of MA -
http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/25The only reason you'd mention your combined income is if you're proud of it. $180k combined is nothing to be shouting about, especially at 30.