GPS Trainer Done Right



[email protected] wrote:
> >Ever been in a big 10K, like the Peachtree Road Race. I'd say that about 50,000 of the runners in that race are feat accomplishers.
> _
>
> No, I've never been in a big 10K but in that event of 55,000 you're
> saying the runner that placed 5001 is not a competitive runner and a
> feat accomplisher.

Nope. Never said that. I'm saying that 50,000 runners are feat
accomplishers.

> STEPHEN A. GURA is that person with a gun time of
> 1:00:19 and a net of 58:47. TKB, what is it about running a time
> slower than 58:47 that renders people non-competitive runners and feat
> accomplishers? Who knew you were so tough with such rigorous
> standards....wow.

Nope. You're the one with rigorous standards. I didn't say a thing
about finishing time. But you did? What does that say about you? You're
the one always thinking about finishing time and competition.

> My view of ultra runners and trail runners is a
> product of the statements by those within that community like the
> person i quoted....not a performance time. I see your view is a
> product of performance.

Nope, that's your view Lance. You seem to have things mixed up.

tkb
 
>I'm saying that 50,000 runners are feat
accomplishers.
____

OK, fair enough, but how do you know? How do you derive this opinion?
What's the foundation?

My view of the ultra & trail crowd is a product of their words about
themselves. I have provided details quotes, points of reference,
etc...from their figures of authority.

We're all entitled to our views & opinions...I am not questioning
that..., I am curious if their is substance to yours?....I have
published "substance" to mind.......perhaps you can do the same?
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Where does she say it was the *last* 50,000?
> _
>
> she did not reference any point of foundation for her opinion. she's
> saying apprx 10% are competive runners, 90% are feat accomplishers. in
> the absence of her clearly defining the basis of her view, it's logical
> to conclude it's on performance.

Logical??

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 never asserted an opinion of a "cut off point" like TKB has, she's
> drawn a line in the sand....and that's rather elitist of her i might
> add as well. but that's fine.

You're arguing with yourself, not TKB.

Tim
>
 
TenKBabe wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Ever been in a big 10K, like the Peachtree Road Race. I'd say that
>>> about 50,000 of the runners in that race are feat accomplishers. _
>>
>> No, I've never been in a big 10K but in that event of 55,000 you're
>> saying the runner that placed 5001 is not a competitive runner and a
>> feat accomplisher.

TenKBabe, I think we'd better pull out now.

As the old saying goes, "Never argue with an idiot, bystanders can't always
tell the difference." ;-)

Tim
 
"Tim Downie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>...
> 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
 
[email protected] wrote:

>Bones In Motion....if you got 4-5 minutes...check out the demo.

Nice n geeky. But what has it got to do with competitive running?
 
steve common wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Bones In Motion....if you got 4-5 minutes...check out the demo.
>
> Nice n geeky. But what has it got to do with competitive running?

Didn't you know? It's what the Kenyans have been using for years to give
them an edge. ;-)

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back