Nope, how you look never matters. As I have discussed with you prior, it doesn't matter what we weigh, how beautiful we look, or anything superficial when we run.
Tomato Tomato wrote:
weeping willow wrote:.2 matters. because its a timed race. c'mon.
I think how you look matters, a lot... especially where weight is concerns...Stoppit Smith amiright?
Why worry about what other people's experience is in what is uniquely their race?If someone doesn't want help? They will likely say no.The problem is that, unfortunately, we have a lot of former Div. I, II, and III runners who had aspirations but also expect that if you were not a college runner that you are not much.Or, if you are not near their times, you are still not much.This is not to say that all college runners are now frustrated in the present, but that many who are posting are.I want to race just as much as anyone else, sure, and this June, I will be trying for my first BQ attempt.Guaranteed, if I see a runner take a spill on the course or need help in front of me, I will assist them--no not carry them, but assist them--until help shows up, even if it means no BQ.The pearly gates do not need a time.Mike
weeping willow wrote:
[
Stoppit Smith wrote:
4. It allows them to finish anyway.
Time is not everything
this is a RACE. time is an important factor. if you don't think so, go for a jog on the bike path!! why cheapen the experience of other runners in a race by celebrating those who don't care about time? it cheapens the sport and detracts of the general interest in elite events....
Stoppit Smith wrote:
This is your comeback on my questions. Furthermore, is this supposed to sway me to even entertain the other side?
But, I digress. I will answer your questions with a bit of a commentary on the side.
1> it is certainly not the competitive types that I judge or seem condescending to. Nope. I personally have the utmost respect for Lagat, Kipchoge, Tergat, Farah, Rupp, Hall, Webb, Radcliffe, Linden, and Hasay, just to name a few, although a comprehensive list will take pages.
No. My problem is with the insecure competitive types who, much in the style you emulates, choose to belittle people with terms like snowflake and even fat to try to one-up them. Yes, you see, my problem is with you "one-upmanship types. And honestly, if you're running 16 minute 5Ks ( as I seem to have visited before, the fact that you are only 20% faster is not a license for the attitude or to imply I was fat. So, I am not giving you this carrot. As the fat person you thought I was, I will eat the carrot, um, and your lunch, as I am doing now.
You'll just have to wonder.
2> Nobody fantasizes about a moment when it happens. Sometimes, it just happens. Have you even run a marathon to know what I mean?
Yes, I do have you figured out. It's written all over your angst.
Sincerely,
Mike
San Marcos, CA
fitsport156@aol.comLive to run wrote:Lol at the snowflake thinking that he's got everyone who doesn't fall for this normie inspiration porn figured out.
How about some questions for you:
1) were you so fat in school that you gave up on goals in life, except for the goal of making condescending judgements to competitive types?
2) how often do you fantasize about being a charity runner, cutting a course, or white knighting a Mike Rossi on a public forum?
"Only" 20% faster? If the person you're responding to is running a 16 flat 5K you'll be 3:12 behind him which is significant. Well over a half mile in a 3.1 mile race.
While I agree that his time vs. your time is not a license to imply that you are/were fat, pulling out the "only" 20% faster card is ridiculous. He is significantly faster than you are and that's just reality.
So? And?That is just speed.We are both not seeing Eugene except as a spectator.
"Only 20% faster?" wrote:
Stoppit Smith wrote:This is your comeback on my questions. Furthermore, is this supposed to sway me to even entertain the other side?
But, I digress. I will answer your questions with a bit of a commentary on the side.
1> it is certainly not the competitive types that I judge or seem condescending to. Nope. I personally have the utmost respect for Lagat, Kipchoge, Tergat, Farah, Rupp, Hall, Webb, Radcliffe, Linden, and Hasay, just to name a few, although a comprehensive list will take pages.
No. My problem is with the insecure competitive types who, much in the style you emulates, choose to belittle people with terms like snowflake and even fat to try to one-up them. Yes, you see, my problem is with you "one-upmanship types. And honestly, if you're running 16 minute 5Ks ( as I seem to have visited before, the fact that you are only 20% faster is not a license for the attitude or to imply I was fat. So, I am not giving you this carrot. As the fat person you thought I was, I will eat the carrot, um, and your lunch, as I am doing now.
You'll just have to wonder.
2> Nobody fantasizes about a moment when it happens. Sometimes, it just happens. Have you even run a marathon to know what I mean?
Yes, I do have you figured out. It's written all over your angst.
Sincerely,
Mike
San Marcos, CA
fitsport156@aol.com"Only" 20% faster? If the person you're responding to is running a 16 flat 5K you'll be 3:12 behind him which is significant. Well over a half mile in a 3.1 mile race.
While I agree that his time vs. your time is not a license to imply that you are/were fat, pulling out the "only" 20% faster card is ridiculous. He is significantly faster than you are and that's just reality.
Didn't some chick run slower and help another chick with water and pacing at a race a couple years ago because she was overheating and delirious? It may have been a race to decide who goes to the Olympics but I can't remember. Anybody else remember what race it was?
So he's faster than you. Which means he's a better runner. That's the so and the and.When discussing races "that's just speed" is the entire point. Frankly I don't even know what that means. What is your point with that statement?Why do you run races then? If someone's speed and ability don't matter then why bother to race at all? There is nothing wrong with running purely for the enjoyment of it. But I'll never understand why someone enters races if they don't care what their time is or can't recognize that while "neither of us are going to Eugene" the guy running 20% faster for a 5K is a significantly better runner.If simply making the Olympic Trials or games is the sole arbiter of why someone should be racing then none of us ought to be doing it.
Stoppit Smith wrote:
So? And?
That is just speed.
We are both not seeing Eugene except as a spectator.
"Only 20% faster?" wrote:"Only" 20% faster? If the person you're responding to is running a 16 flat 5K you'll be 3:12 behind him which is significant. Well over a half mile in a 3.1 mile race.
While I agree that his time vs. your time is not a license to imply that you are/were fat, pulling out the "only" 20% faster card is ridiculous. He is significantly faster than you are and that's just reality.
Exactly!Either we all should or nobody should.Point proven...let everyone race how they will, even if means helping someone.Competition is relative.
"Only 20% faster?" wrote:
So he's faster than you. Which means he's a better runner. That's the so and the and.
When discussing races "that's just speed" is the entire point. Frankly I don't even know what that means. What is your point with that statement?
Why do you run races then? If someone's speed and ability don't matter then why bother to race at all? There is nothing wrong with running purely for the enjoyment of it. But I'll never understand why someone enters races if they don't care what their time is or can't recognize that while "neither of us are going to Eugene" the guy running 20% faster for a 5K is a significantly better runner.
If simply making the Olympic Trials or games is the sole arbiter of why someone should be racing then none of us ought to be doing it.
Stoppit Smith wrote:So? And?
That is just speed.
We are both not seeing Eugene except as a spectator.
The real competition begins when someone tries to cart your limp fat hobby jogging body over the finish line
Hah. At 5'8" 172, I am hardly what practitioners, doctors, dietitians, etc etc would consider fat.So, maybe even you would be able to do so.Maybe.
Tomato Tomato wrote:
The real competition begins when someone tries to cart your limp fat hobby jogging body over the finish line
Stoppit Smith wrote:
Hah. At 5'8" 172, I am hardly what practitioners, doctors, dietitians, etc etc would consider fat.
Yes, they would. Your BMI says you're fat. That's what doctors use! YOU ARE FAT.
Why are you guys trying to rip on this dude?
Mike in SD wrote:
Because of:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8135299
Alright, my apologies....you guys were right. Flame this guy.
🤡......ðŸ¿
Stoppit Smith wrote:
Exactly!
Either we all should or nobody should.
Point proven...let everyone race how they will, even if means helping someone.
Competition is relative.
Nice way to side step the main argument from most of the other posters.
The problem with this mentality of making heroes out of people ' helping' distressed runners cross the line, is that the helpers don't know if the person in distress is in life threatening distress. Carrying someone across the line is not noble. It is stupid, unless you are a medical professional.
Well then...If I am fat, then you should be ashamed of yourselves that at your streamlined perfection, you are only maybe a couple of minutes faster.And oh the sacrifices you must have made.I can run, and I still live and eat.No shame in my game.
You are fat wrote:
Stoppit Smith wrote:Hah. At 5'8" 172, I am hardly what practitioners, doctors, dietitians, etc etc would consider fat.
Yes, they would. Your BMI says you're fat. That's what doctors use! YOU ARE FAT.
Stoppit Smith wrote:
You know. Many of you say that, as if Runners World is like the worst of the worst and the slowest of the slow.
I read Runners World and I read this site.
FYI, if some of the people here had the heart, spirit or positive outlook of people like Willey, Burfoot, Parent, Shea and McDowell, to name a few, then we would see the true spirit of running back.
SJWs out! wrote:Go back to Runners World!
I read both....sometimes I read RW, often I read LRC. RW is always whitewashed [boring]. LRC is authentic; that is, LRC is more diverse - and I like that even if I don't hold the same values. I will take greater diversity and authenticity over the whitewashing of life.
Oh!I think I get it now.So this is the place where the TKEs and SAEs convene.This is the gathering place for those with the alpha wolves of coaches who taught their runners to act like kings.Yeah, I am glad I do not partake of post-race beer gardens.The runner attitude has caught up with the cyclist.Congratulations.
sloinnorcal wrote:
Stoppit Smith wrote:You know. Many of you say that, as if Runners World is like the worst of the worst and the slowest of the slow.
I read Runners World and I read this site.
FYI, if some of the people here had the heart, spirit or positive outlook of people like Willey, Burfoot, Parent, Shea and McDowell, to name a few, then we would see the true spirit of running back.
I read both....sometimes I read RW, often I read LRC. RW is always whitewashed [boring]. LRC is authentic; that is, LRC is more diverse - and I like that even if I don't hold the same values. I will take greater diversity and authenticity over the whitewashing of life.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday