Race Walking is Amazing

[[email protected]]

I have a great time Race Walking. My name is Ramsey and I do it
competitively. You can see for yourself at my new web site
www.TheRaceWalker.com

Ramsey

 

[McTavish]

I have a great time dispensing Clue to lusers...

--
McTavish the Unmentionable

 

[dkd]

You'd get there much faster on a bicycle.

 

[Ken]

"dkd" <jjsjsjd> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> You'd get there much faster on a bicycle.
Yeah and cycling is much more fun!

 

[gds]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:58:08 -0500, dkd <jjsjsjd> wrote:
>
> >You'd get there much faster on a bicycle.
>
> And cyclists look cool instead of that John Cleesian goofy race walk
thing. Race
> walkers all look like special olympics competitors, except for the
actual
> special olympics competitors who have too much dignity to be seen
walking like
> that.
>
> Ron

Gee! What chauvinism. Race walking is excellent exersize and good race
walkers can walk much faster than most of you(us!)can run (over a
distance not a short sprint).

Many race walkers migrate to the sport after a running injury-not
unlike cycling. Why make fun of a perfectly good activity that others
enjoy?

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> I have a great time Race Walking. My name is Ramsey and I do it
> competitively. You can see for yourself at my new web site
> www.TheRaceWalker.com

Don't you think Lord Peter Wimsey should look into this?

 

[Dave]

"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> The others are right: race walking is funny looking! You can't deny that.
> That's why people make fun of it...and laugh at the people doing it.

Check out the website and let me know if Ramsey is male or female. Maybe I
need new glasses, but I couldn't tell.

Cheto

 

[Roger Zoul]

Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
:> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:> news:[email protected]
:>
:> > The others are right: race walking is funny looking! You can't
:> > deny that. That's why people make fun of it...and laugh at the
:> > people doing it.
:>
:> Check out the website and let me know if Ramsey is male or female.
:> Maybe I need new glasses, but I couldn't tell.

Who cares?

 

[Michael Warner]

On Thu, 05 May 2005 23:25:49 GMT, RonSonic wrote:

> And cyclists look cool instead of that John Cleesian goofy race walk thing.

It looks just as ridiculous as synchronized drowning, with the added
disadvantage that there's no possibility of the drowning part coming to
pass.

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo

 

[Bill Sornson]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>>> The others are right: race walking is funny looking! You can't
>>>> deny that. That's why people make fun of it...and laugh at the
>>>> people doing it.
>>>
>>> Check out the website and let me know if Ramsey is male or female.
>>> Maybe I need new glasses, but I couldn't tell.
>
> Who cares?

Well, you guys got me to look. I'd almost bet that "Ramsey" is mentally
challenged, so good for him or her. Now just do something about that stupid
music, AND take it off this cycling ng, and all will be well...

BS

 

[gds]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> And cyclists look cool instead of that John Cleesian goofy race
walk
> > thing. Race
> >> walkers all look like special olympics competitors, except for the
> > actual
> >> special olympics competitors who have too much dignity to be seen
> > walking like
> >> that.
> >>
> >> Ron
>
> > Gee! What chauvinism. Race walking is excellent exersize and good
race
> > walkers can walk much faster than most of you(us!)can run (over a
> > distance not a short sprint).
> >
> > Many race walkers migrate to the sport after a running injury-not
> > unlike cycling. Why make fun of a perfectly good activity that
others
> > enjoy?
>
> Because it was posted in a bicycling newsgroup? I was also going to
point
> out that it was a generic, non-relevant post probably put in a
zillion other
> newsgroups, but a quick google search finds that not to be the case.
Fro
> some reason the guy just wants us to know that Race Walking is a cool
thing.
> OK. But I still don't see its relevance in a bicycling newsgroup.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

OK, but I guess my gut reaction would be to attack a spammer for
spamming-not the perfectly good activity of race walking.

And it may seem funny looking but investigate the times for good
competitive walkers-very impressive athletic achievements!

 

[gds]

RonSonic wrote:
>
that it is not a
> natural mode of walking or running. There is no reason that anyone
would ever
> use that method of walking except as a form of competition

OK I agree that it looks funny--- but the motion is the result of the
rules against running. For the purpose of competition walking (vs
running) is defined as always having at least one foot on the ground.
The race walking motion is the fastest way to travel and still follow
that rule. And you need the rule - or else if both feet could be off
the ground at the same time you would have running and not walking.

 

[Maggie]

gds wrote:
And you need the rule - or else if both feet could be off the ground
at the same time you would have running and not walking.


Which is why no one can figure out if Elephants run.

Maggie

 

[gds]

Maggie wrote:
> gds wrote:
> And you need the rule - or else if both feet could be off the ground
> at the same time you would have running and not walking.
>
>
> Which is why no one can figure out if Elephants run.
>
> Maggie

Sabu knows!

 

[dkd]

On 9 May 2005 10:17:40 -0700, "gds" <[email protected]> wrote:


>OK I agree that it looks funny--- but the motion is the result of the
>rules against running. For the purpose of competition walking (vs
>running) is defined as always having at least one foot on the ground.
>The race walking motion is the fastest way to travel and still follow
>that rule. And you need the rule - or else if both feet could be off
>the ground at the same time you would have running and not walking.

Yes, well, then it would be running, not walking...

Uh, did I miss something? If the object is to go fast, why not run?

If you're going to impose artificial limitations like walking, why not
also require that the knees must come up waist high, and the foot must
flick out until the leg is straight, then be brought directly down to
the ground? I guess, that wouldn't be race walking either, that would
be race silly-walking...

 

[gds]

dkd wrote:
>
>
> If you're going to impose artificial limitations like walking,

Ummm. Because that's the sport.
Don't all sports have "artificial rules?"
Like why not have 600 guys on the field in football. In basketball the
rim is at 10'. That's artificial (or at least somewhat arbitrary) and
I'd sure do better with it at 8'. In swimming when you compete in the
breast stroke you can't do the crawl. In trotting, horses trot, they
are disqualifed for cantering or galloping.

So if you compete in walking you walk.And walking is pretty much
defined as having at least one foot on the ground (as opposed to
running). It is not defined as lifting your knee to your chin. Why is
that so difficult to understand?

 

[Chalo]

gds wrote:
>
> So if you compete in walking you walk. And walking is pretty much
> defined as having at least one foot on the ground (as opposed to
> running). It is not defined as lifting your knee to your chin. Why is
> that so difficult to understand?

The point is that racing by walking makes about as much sense as racing
by shuffling (neither foot leaving the ground) or by slithering
(stomach remaining in contact with the ground). It looks foolish
because it *is* foolish.

Like 3-legged racing, race walking may be fun and wholesome exercise,
but it's also buffoonery. That's part of its attraction. A major
difference is that people who indulge in 3-legged racing don't fancy
themselves serious sportsmen like some race walkers do.

Chalo Colina

 

[gds]

Chalo wrote:
> gds wrote:
> >
> > So if you compete in walking you walk. And walking is pretty much
> > defined as having at least one foot on the ground (as opposed to
> > running). It is not defined as lifting your knee to your chin. Why
is
> > that so difficult to understand?
>
> The point is that racing by walking makes about as much sense as
racing
> by shuffling (neither foot leaving the ground) or by slithering
> (stomach remaining in contact with the ground). It looks foolish
> because it *is* foolish.
>
> Like 3-legged racing, race walking may be fun and wholesome exercise,
> but it's also buffoonery. That's part of its attraction. A major
> difference is that people who indulge in 3-legged racing don't fancy
> themselves serious sportsmen like some race walkers do.
>
> Chalo Colina

Well I must say I don't understand your argument. Why is any one sort
of racing intrinsically more foolish (or more valuable) than another?
Forget how it looks. You are arguing that walk racing is in and of
itself foolish. Why? To my mind all of sport is essentially for fun so
why is one more worthy than another. Sure, you may well prefer to
participate or watch one over another but that doesn't make one
"better" than another.

There is boxing and there is wrestling. Both fighting sports but with
very different rules. Is one intrinsically a better sport than the
other (I'm talking about real wrestling not the WWE)

By your argument what is pure enough to justify racing. Certainly not
cycling. If the only way to judge the worth of a race is by speed then
we all need to stick to racing rockets.
And BTW if you don't think that top race walkers aren't top
athletes-then I'd suggest you try it sometime. Top race walkers walk 50
K in a time that most of us could never run.

 

[Bartow W. Riggs]

making little circles with your feet, fast, doesn't even begin to compete
with how funny race-walking looks.

I think it is the hip action.

But, I agree, race-walking is no more arbitrary than other sports.

bartow
"gds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Chalo wrote:
>> gds wrote:
>> >
>> > So if you compete in walking you walk. And walking is pretty much
>> > defined as having at least one foot on the ground (as opposed to
>> > running). It is not defined as lifting your knee to your chin. Why
> is
>> > that so difficult to understand?
>>
>> The point is that racing by walking makes about as much sense as
> racing
>> by shuffling (neither foot leaving the ground) or by slithering
>> (stomach remaining in contact with the ground). It looks foolish
>> because it *is* foolish.
>>
>> Like 3-legged racing, race walking may be fun and wholesome exercise,
>> but it's also buffoonery. That's part of its attraction. A major
>> difference is that people who indulge in 3-legged racing don't fancy
>> themselves serious sportsmen like some race walkers do.
>>
>> Chalo Colina
>
> Well I must say I don't understand your argument. Why is any one sort
> of racing intrinsically more foolish (or more valuable) than another?
> Forget how it looks. You are arguing that walk racing is in and of
> itself foolish. Why? To my mind all of sport is essentially for fun so
> why is one more worthy than another. Sure, you may well prefer to
> participate or watch one over another but that doesn't make one
> "better" than another.
>
> There is boxing and there is wrestling. Both fighting sports but with
> very different rules. Is one intrinsically a better sport than the
> other (I'm talking about real wrestling not the WWE)
>
> By your argument what is pure enough to justify racing. Certainly not
> cycling. If the only way to judge the worth of a race is by speed then
> we all need to stick to racing rockets.
> And BTW if you don't think that top race walkers aren't top
> athletes-then I'd suggest you try it sometime. Top race walkers walk 50
> K in a time that most of us could never run.
>