"Tim Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:...
If there is any difference between "feat accomplishment" and true
competitiveness, and I repeat *if*, it lies within the heads of the
runners. It's not something that anyone else can make a judgement about,
least of all you.
I've gotta agree with this. Who is Lance or anyone else to judge another
runner. If being competitive means to contend with another as in a rivalry,
then it's a state of mind. The rival may or may not know he's being competed
against. Most of those who enter races probably want to do as good as they
can, and that, by definition, makes them competitive. How many will enter
races just to finish and care nothing at all about their time? I would
venture to guess that most trail and ultra runners want to perform well
(even if they are slow), as do most road racers. In this sense, there may be
no difference between the sports.
Some might argue - and it seems that this is Lance's angle - that being
competitive means being a talented runner, e.g. one capable of competing
high in their age group. This could be taken further: it could be said one
isn't competitive unless one is capable of vying for the win in a very
strong field of runners. Lance's claim that he beat Donovan by some
contorted WAVA calculation illustrates his desperation to be competitive.
But even if he was vying for wins in his age group, which he might some day;
it's awfully arrogant to put down other runners who may in fact be training
and trying harder even though they are less talented.
Others might argue that being competitive means doing your absolute best in
training, making the most of your talent, and also competing with others in
your club. In this sense, Lance isn't competitive either because (some would
say) his training has been untargeted and undisciplined.
Are trail runners and ultra runners less competitive? Or, is Lance really
just calling them untalented. I'm a mid-packer in almost every event I race
in, but I don't go to races and not try my best. I always try to run well
and not leave anything out there, and I train as hard as my body will allow.
I think most trail runners are like me: they train pretty hard, and they
want to do well in races. Did I switch to trail races because I'm
untalented? Hell no. I ran on trails long before I ever entered a road race.
That others may arrive there after running roads first, it really just might
be that they just found something they like better.
As far as feat accomplishment goes, what's wrong with it? Perhaps those who
over-promote mediocre feats and those who seek publicity through their feats
get tiresome, but what's wrong with interesting races in far away places?
Forget races, what's wrong with an obscure feat that someone does by
himself? Lance jumps to the conclusion that people do singular feats (or win
thin field races) only to impress others. My take on it is that they want to
do something challenging and adventurous because it's interesting and fun
and, yes, it makes for good story telling to your friends, and *gasp* it
might even make for an interesting read for others in a newsgroup.
-Tony
