Big me wrote:
jamin wrote:
Compare to another hobby like chess. You could become very good at chess of you invested 10 hours per week. You don't have to worry about injury or any other external factor wrecking your skill (other than something rare like a brain stroke which would take you out of any hobby). It would cost nothing. And if you took a year off, you might only loose 3% of your skill, whereas in running you would lose 90% of your skill and it would take forever to get it back.
But then you have to interact with other competitive chess players. Worse, you'll become one. If you think runners are maladjusted and miserable...
True. I gave up tournament chess in my mid-twenties to spend more time running and racing. A good decision. Whenever I step back into a chess club, I always have this sense that I'm the coolest, most well-adjusted person in the room. Outside of chess clubs, I don't have that sense very often.
I do agree with Jamin, however, that you can take a long break from chess without losing a lot of your playing strength. I haven't played a serious game of chess in thirty-five years, but am still able to play at a 2000+ Elo level just by following the game on the Internet and playing an occasional game. Running, on the other hand, is a constant battle to maintain fitness, and some combination of age and injury ultimately wins out.
Still, when I think about what my life would have been like if I hadn't spent a good part of it running, I have serious doubts about whether I would have been more sociable, more professionally accomplished, wealthier, or whatever else Jamin (or I) might have considered a worthwhile pursuit -- although I probably would be a better chess player.