Why are distance runners not viewed as athletic as sprinters and football players

Kenny "F"ing" Powers wrote:

I think Kenny Powers said it best, "I play real sports, I'm not trying to see who is the best at exercising."

I'm guessing anyone who is astounded by this line of thought is still in high school/early college. At the end of the day who cares? Running catches a hard time because it is a very basic series of movements. Basic can also be interpreted as "easy". Athletically, running is one of the easiest sports under the sun, get used to it.

I think a large problem running gets slack is because Americans define Basketball, Soccer, Football, Baseball, etc. as real sports. They are not! They are merely kids games that overly paid adults get to play for a large audience. When you distill things down, a real sport is anything that truly focuses on the athletic skills on a single individual, and requires endurance, agility, quickness, strength, etc, ..The more skills included the more impressive the athlete. Wrestling is a good example of all of these skills. Boxing and MMA (esp. before it was wussified) are also good examples of all around athletes in a real sport. A good distance runner is more impressive to me than a good football or hockey player. After a mile of 7 minute pace those people are generally exhausted, collapsing, and gasping for air, while the distance runner is just warming up for a much faster additional 10 miles! Crazy to think about!

Runningart2004 wrote:

Depends on how you define athletic.

I define it as a combination of strength, speed, power, agility, and endurance.

Runners have one of those four characteristics.

Here's a set of tests you can use to help measure what I define as athletic:

Standing broad jump.

T Test

Deadlift 5 rep max

Pull-up max reps

1 mile run

Runners may do well at the last two but will suck horribly at the rest

Standing broad jump is the eye opener. 2x your height is considered very athletic. Under 1x your height is severely weak.

Alan

But this hangs on what society "values".

Generally, society does favor quick, powerful and agile body movement as the essence of athleticism. Is that view valid?

If athleticism just is the ability to perform at a high level in the widest veriety of "sports" then body size is a significant factor. Why should athelicism hang on body size?

If the task is moving your body over a distance of 5000 meters in say 15 min, you've eliminated many athletes. That puts you in rare company as an athlete. And if you can "run" 200m in 22 sec, you probably can't run 5000m in 15. 22 is also relatively rare. But probably most 22 sprinters can't run that 15 5000.

And why do folks assume that any 15 min 5000 runner lacks agility or a high strength to weight ratio?

"When you distill things down, a real sport is anything that truly focuses on the athletic skills on a single individual, and requires endurance, agility, quickness, strength, etc, ..The more skills included the more impressive the athlete."

So, you just eliminated running from your own argument.

It only requires 1 aspect of what you describe.

And that same good distance runner would be left in their tracks on a basketball court, murdered on a football field, swinging at air on the baseball field, and tripping over their own feet on a soccer field. While most people good at any of those sports would be good at the other sports too.

The most athletic guy at most schools is the quarterback, point guard, and short stop and could still probably beat most distance runners in a race up to a mile.

Show me a sub 15:00 5k guy who can do a T test in sub 10 or even sub 11.

Show me a sub 15:00 5k guy who can squat 2xBW or even 1.5BW

I'm sure they are better than the avg population at all sorts of qualitative measures but that bar is pretty low.

I define athleteticsm as the ability to have a broad range of physical skills.....which I why I view decathletes as the best overall athletes. Being really good at one "skill" does not make you a very well rounded athlete. Typically strength and speed and power go together with agility not far removed. Endurance tends to fly on its own.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

Show me a sub 15:00 5k guy who can do a T test in sub 10 or even sub 11.

Show me a sub 15:00 5k guy who can squat 2xBW or even 1.5BW

I'm sure they are better than the avg population at all sorts of qualitative measures but that bar is pretty low.

I define athleteticsm as the ability to have a broad range of physical skills.....which I why I view decathletes as the best overall athletes. Being really good at one "skill" does not make you a very well rounded athlete. Typically strength and speed and power go together with agility not far removed. Endurance tends to fly on its own.

Alan

So this argument hangs on one's definition of athlete. You added "very well rounded" to athlete. If that's what we use, we ought to always state that in the discussion.

The problem I see is that you're making body size a key factor in athelticism.

Is body size an atribute of athleticism? You can be quick, strong and agile at 5'5"/ 150 and not make it in pro basketball or football.

No body size is not an attribute of athleteticsm.

You can be strong in relation to body size.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

No body size is not an attribute of athleteticsm.

You can be strong in relation to body size.

Alan

So then, you presume that elite distance runners are necessarily not strong in relation to body size?

The best (most athletic) distance runners can sprint pretty fast. Not world class over a 100m probably but can leave some of your best football, basketball & baseball professionals in sprints as short as 400m surely.

Decathletes have great range, but body is important. So do we need to add body size as an atribute of athleticism?

If an athlete can run 5k in 12:50, is he necessarily less athletic than a NFL RB?

subfive wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

No body size is not an attribute of athleteticsm.

You can be strong in relation to body size.

Alan

So then, you presume that elite distance runners are necessarily not strong in relation to body size?

The best (most athletic) distance runners can sprint pretty fast. Not world class over a 100m probably but can leave some of your best football, basketball & baseball professionals in sprints as short as 400m surely.

Decathletes have great range, but body is important. So do we need to add body size as an atribute of athleticism?

If an athlete can run 5k in 12:50, is he necessarily less athletic than a NFL RB?

Since the NFL RB can kick his *ss, then yes, he is necessarily much less athletic. Why do you guys keep ignoring this basic fact?

VerminMeat wrote:

Basketball is a good indicator of overall athleticism. If you were going to play a pick up game of ball I doubt you'd pick distance runners over any sprinters.

Disagree.

In a game of half court 2 on 2 I'd take solinsky and wheating any day over Tyson gay and Justin Gatlin. And not just because solinsky and wheating are tall. A lot of sprinters are crazy "explosive"but can't jump off of one foot or catch a pass, never mind shoot.

The top 100 meter guys on our track team were the #1 and #2 running backs on our football team. Neither of them were allowed to catch anything other than a shovel pass because they had lousy hands.

My junior year, XC sectionals was won by a kid who was a star shooting guard in basketball who went on to play some diii ball.

The original post is a little silly. A 4:15 hs miler will almost always get more attention, respect, girls, etc than an all conference or even Allstate o- lineman. In terms of college scholarships, yeah being 300 pounds and 6' 4" tends to pay off a lot more but that is a different issue.

What a ridiculous topic... if I'm looking to determine the best overall athlete and I ran them through a combine or a decathlon who do you think would perform the best?

Odell Beckham

Lebron James

Cristiano Ronaldo

Mo Farah

.....

These other guys are faster sprinters, more agile, better jumpers, wayyy stronger and much more coordinated. Literally the only thing Mo Farah has over them is endurance.

Do you consider someone who's the best in the world at badminton as impressive of an athlete as Lebron James? Or do you just consider them someone who's extremely talented at a very specific sport... I ran in college and most my teammates looked outrageously goofy playing any other sport

subfive wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

No body size is not an attribute of athleteticsm.

You can be strong in relation to body size.

Alan

So then, you presume that elite distance runners are necessarily not strong in relation to body size?

The best (most athletic) distance runners can sprint pretty fast. Not world class over a 100m probably but can leave some of your best football, basketball & baseball professionals in sprints as short as 400m surely.

Decathletes have great range, but body is important. So do we need to add body size as an atribute of athleticism?

If an athlete can run 5k in 12:50, is he necessarily less athletic than a NFL RB?

You can't just compare them by saying a distance runner could beat an NFL player in a 400... NFL players have no need to run that distance for their sport, that is like saying lets line them up in pads and see who wins over 40 yards.

OK let me tell you a story.

The other day, in the office, we had a water cooler talk (I was drinking coffee).

Skinny fat guy talks about how he runs 50mpw and that he trains for an ultra now. Girls were "oh wow that is amazing".

He got really excited and wanted to talk some more about it but I stopped him:

"How come you don't look like an athlete if you train 15h a week?", I asked.

Silence.

I continued: "you run because it's easy, that doesn't mean it is a good exercise". Then I went on to explain that persistence hunting is a myth and that in ancient times, he would not have survived.

At that point, he walked away.

I talked some more to the girls (two of them are actually way HAWT) and asked them about there preference. They didn't use the same words (I think they said "defined" and "some muscle") but it was very obvious that they like there men BUFF and RIPPED.

So there is your answer.

I am sure your other traits are a real deal killer for chicks anyway , xfit dude. Your water cooler story pretty much proves that.

I love distance running but, look at these american football player/sprinter types just flying over this Superstars obstacle course:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CWHTxN_iy0

Can you imagine any distance runner managing that?

Even worse, look at one of the most athletic milers of all time, Steve Ovett, get beaten by some chubby cricketer (cricket is that sport where you basically stand around on some grass for several hours wearing white clothes) over this obstacle course:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXXbXNrpwt8

Maybe Max king could save face for us runners?

Soccer players have won this competition. Obviously soccer players need eye hand coordination and a distance runner needs virtually none, but their builds are close.

If Mary Decker had better eye hand coordination she probably doesn't crash and burn during the 1500 meter race in Los Angeles.

Nick Simmon tried the AMERICAN Ninja Warrior.

He FAILED after the first obstacle.

They didn't even show him on NATIONAL TV because he was deemed too SKINNY/SCRAWNY.