What's Up at Runner's World?

[Guest]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

"runners world needs help , It mainly advertising for shoes and beginner joggers. It really doesn't help the
sport"


Somewhat true - if the magazine decides that it wants to devote itself to jogging and running shoes, that is okay.

But if that is the case it should re-name itself; possibly Joggers World or something like that.

Big difference between runners and joggers.

[6 5.5hjsteve]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

No Name, you certainly do not antagonize me, but be careful in talking about "joggers vs. walkers."

Those millions( well, multi thousands )of recreational runners out there, many of whom are seriously busting their rear ends 5 days a week, are not joggers. They are serious recreational runners that just do not happen to have the ability and/or the youth to run 32 minute 10k's. But there are humping it to run their 6, 6:30, 7 minute, or even slowerpaces. Cut 'em some slack and give them some respect. They ARE "runners."

[MJD]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

or even
>slowerpaces. Cut 'em some slack and give them
>some respect. They ARE "runners."


Do you draw the line anywhere Steve? My line is somewhere left of 6 hours for the marathon- whatever that is per mile.

[tafnut]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

My official dividing line is 8 minute pace (let's say a 3-mile run) for joggers vs. runners. When I go out for a run and can't break 24, I really do feel like I'm jogging, not running.

[6 5.5hjsteve]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

MJD and TAFNUT, I draw the line between the 2 at an ever-slower pace, amazingly paralleling a pace slightly slower than what I am able to do. It used by 7's, now it's 9's !!!

But really,there is no definitive dividing line. All those people killing themselves to prepare for 10k's, 1/2 M's, or the full boat, at whatever pace below 10's, do not consider themselves joggers so I say give them the respect their efforts deserve. Spoken by someone that has not run a yard in 6 months so I am not talking about myself here.

[MJD]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

>My official dividing line is 8 minute pace (let's
>say a 3-mile run) for joggers vs. runners. When I
>go out for a run and can't break 24, I really do
>feel like I'm jogging, not running.

Mine's kind of a complicated calculation based on MVO2 max and what % of both your current and potential measurement is you are propelling your self forward at. A world class miler could be jogging at a 3 hour marathon pace but someone else could be running their ass off at a 6 hour pace. I find the latter kind of hard to believe but it is possible.

[Guest]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

Steve:

My classification of runners and joggers is not based on time at all. If you look at my post, I said absolutely nothing about time.

A runner is anyone who takes the sport seriously, busts his ass and does everything he can with the tools he's been given.

To me, it does not matter if the person is a 4, 8 or 12 minute miler (although I'd venture a guess that someone who takes the sport seriously can break 12 ).

I ran at a DIII school and there was a miler on my team who could barely break six minutes -- obviously not a great time for any level of college, high school or even middle school competitive running. But he worked as hard as he could every single day and did the best with the limited ability he was given.

To me, he was as much of a runner as El G and Geb are.

Time is not relevant to my definition of a real runner.

[6 5.5hjsteve]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

No Name, very well stated. I'm with you 100%.

[Guest]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

My rule of thumb for what constitutes a runner or a jogger was this hypothetical: "If you could win an Olympic gold medal, but the price you would have to pay is that you could never run or race for pleasure again, would you take the deal? You could run while playing tennis, soccer, or any other sport, but you could never again 'just go for a run', let alone race. Would you do it?" Invariably, the people who considered themselves competitive runners (regardless of how good) would say yes, and the joggers would say no.

[Guest]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

<My rule of thumb for what constitutes a runner or a jogger was this hypothetical: "If you could win an Olympic gold medal, but the price you would have to pay is that you could never run or race for pleasure again, would you take the deal? You could run while playing tennis, soccer, or any other sport, but you could never again 'just go for a run', let alone race. Would you do it?" Invariably, the people who considered themselves competitive runners (regardless of how good) would say yes, and the joggers would say no.>

I used to believe this, until I had to make a decision on whether to have major surgury to my pelvis and never race again, or risk permanent injury and continue to race. I was competitive (4:11, 14:50, sub 2:30 marathon) as hell, but when the decision is real and not hypothetical it's a tougher call. I opted for the surgury in 2000 and have not broken 20 minutes in a 5k since, but I can still do those 15 milers Sunday mornings with my friends, so what the hell. Don't regret the decision. I miss the racing, but I can't tell you how much I missed running while injured even more. I susupect many competitive runners are so good not because they are competitive, but because they LOVE running so much (and do it so much) that they can't help but get fast - doesn't mean they would give it up for a medal.

[MJD]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

>No Name, very well stated. I'm with you
>100%.

I'm putting words in No Name's mouth here but I agree with him too and yet you and I don't(or maybe we do). The most important part of No Name's post(to me) and how I look at it is this:

"does everything he can with the tools he's been given."

I don't think most of the 12 minute milers are. Some might be but very few IMHO.

[MJD]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

>My rule of thumb for what constitutes a runner or
>a jogger was this hypothetical: "If you could
>win an Olympic gold medal, but the price you
>would have to pay is that you could never run or
>race for pleasure again, would you take the deal?
>You could run while playing tennis, soccer, or
>any other sport, but you could never again 'just
>go for a run', let alone race. Would you do
>it?" Invariably, the people who considered
>themselves competitive runners (regardless of
>how good) would say yes, and the joggers would
>say no.


By this definition I've always been a jogger then.
Possible I suppose.

[stevehj197]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

somehow the word "competitive" has gotten slipped in here. We are not trying to differentiate between "competitive runners" and "joggers", but between "runners" and "joggers." Big difference.

[larwood]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

Once in the early eighties in Boulder a group of us were doing repeat 800's on a residential street. A few of us were averaging 2:20 or so and Stan Mavis and Alan Sharsu were running under 2:10. During the middle of one a kid who had been sitting on the sidewalk, suddenly screams "you guys are the fastest joggers I have ever seen!".

[Guest]

Re: What's Up at Runner's World?

This is reasonably funny:

"See, I cover athletes for a semi-living. And most of you people don't look anything like them."


http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/Co ... 0599109774