Donovan - "Competitor" or "Athlete" Any difference?

David said:

It seems by your understanding of 'athlete' that the word 'competitor' can
simply be used interchangeably. Would that be right? And if so, then why has
there been the word 'athlete' invented?. If not, what is the difference
between these two words?

What a stunningly stupid question.

But let me help you out:

The answer to the first question is obviously "no". Microsoft and Sun
Microsystems are competitors but not athletes.

Even if you amend the question to 'is the word athlete synonymous with
competitor in an athletic event ?', the answer, in my opinion, is still no. I
have already explained why, in a post that specifically addressed exactly
this point, and you followed up to that post, so I optimistically presume that
you read it.

The answer to your second question is equally obvious. "Athlete" is more
specific. It refers to participants in physically demanding sporting
competitions. "Competitor" is very general and can refer to almost any sort
of rivalry (e.g. between corporations as above).

I am archiving your post, and adding it to the supplemental materials to be
presented at the IOM election.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

David said:

It seems by your understanding of 'athlete' that the word 'competitor' can
simply be used interchangeably. Would that be right? And if so, then why has
there been the word 'athlete' invented?. If not, what is the difference
between these two words?

What a stunningly stupid question.

But let me help you out:

The answer to the first question is obviously "no". Microsoft and Sun
Microsystems are competitors but not athletes.

Even if you amend the question to 'is the word athlete synonymous with
competitor in an athletic event ?', the answer, in my opinion, is still no. I
have already explained why, in a post that specifically addressed exactly
this point, and you followed up to that post, so I optimistically presume that
you read it.

The answer to your second question is equally obvious. "Athlete" is more
specific. It refers to participants in physically demanding sporting
competitions. "Competitor" is very general and can refer to almost any sort
of rivalry (e.g. between corporations as above).

I am archiving your post, and adding it to the supplemental materials to be
presented at the IOM election.

Cheers,

Donovan wrote:

"I stated my definition of athlete. It is the standard English
definition, based on the both a literal reading of the dictionary,
and a historical interpretation of the Latin origin of the word. That
definition has nothing to do with level of performance or
competition."

Donovan later wrote:

"I understand the point that you are trying to make, so I'll address
it. There are a number of runners who are on fairly casual training
schedules. These runners may not be terribly proficient. It's
borderline to say that they're "training". Fortunately, language has a
way of evolving, and there are a number of more specific terms that
address these runners -- fitness running, penguins, recreational
running, etc. "Athlete" is a very general term, with borderline
applicability to these relatively undertrained athletes,
whereas these other terms are more precise.

Most people will need some time to build enough mileage to commence a
reasonable marathon training program. When I talk of "training", it
must be understood that running around the block a few times, the week
before the event, does not count.

Anything less than 40 miles a week is not a competitive marathon
training program. Any program that doesn't include *some* interval
work or tempo work is not a competitive marathon training program
either."

And even later wrote:

"The answer to your second question is equally obvious. "Athlete" is
more specific. It refers to participants in physically demanding
sporting competitions. "Competitor" is very general and can refer to
almost any sort of rivalry (e.g. between corporations as above)."

It appears to me that you have delinked the definition of athlete from
the definition of training. Using the original definition of athlete
you supplied almost anyone can qualify but you later qualified what
training means and they are an athlete if and only if they meet your
definition of training. For training you have imposed the requirement
that it be competitive based on your standard of what a marathoner
must do to be competitive.

Am I missing anything?

--
Is this thing on?

Donovan Rebbechi said:

David said:

It seems by your understanding of 'athlete' that the word 'competitor' can
simply be used interchangeably. Would that be right? And if so, then why has
there been the word 'athlete' invented?. If not, what is the difference
between these two words?

What a stunningly stupid question.

But let me help you out:

The answer to the first question is obviously "no". Microsoft and Sun
Microsystems are competitors but not athletes.

Even if you amend the question to 'is the word athlete synonymous with
competitor in an athletic event ?', the answer, in my opinion, is still no. I
have already explained why, in a post that specifically addressed exactly
this point, and you followed up to that post, so I optimistically presume that
you read it.

The answer to your second question is equally obvious. "Athlete" is more
specific. It refers to participants in physically demanding sporting
competitions. "Competitor" is very general and can refer to almost any sort
of rivalry (e.g. between corporations as above).

I am archiving your post, and adding it to the supplemental materials to be
presented at the IOM election.

Cheers,

Donovan wrote:

"I stated my definition of athlete. It is the standard English
definition, based on the both a literal reading of the dictionary,
and a historical interpretation of the Latin origin of the word. That
definition has nothing to do with level of performance or
competition."

Donovan later wrote:

"I understand the point that you are trying to make, so I'll address
it. There are a number of runners who are on fairly casual training
schedules. These runners may not be terribly proficient. It's
borderline to say that they're "training". Fortunately, language has a
way of evolving, and there are a number of more specific terms that
address these runners -- fitness running, penguins, recreational
running, etc. "Athlete" is a very general term, with borderline
applicability to these relatively undertrained athletes,
whereas these other terms are more precise.

Most people will need some time to build enough mileage to commence a
reasonable marathon training program. When I talk of "training", it
must be understood that running around the block a few times, the week
before the event, does not count.

Anything less than 40 miles a week is not a competitive marathon
training program. Any program that doesn't include *some* interval
work or tempo work is not a competitive marathon training program
either."

And even later wrote:

"The answer to your second question is equally obvious. "Athlete" is
more specific. It refers to participants in physically demanding
sporting competitions. "Competitor" is very general and can refer to
almost any sort of rivalry (e.g. between corporations as above)."

It appears to me that you have delinked the definition of athlete from
the definition of training. Using the original definition of athlete
you supplied almost anyone can qualify but you later qualified what
training means and they are an athlete if and only if they meet your
definition of training. For training you have imposed the requirement
that it be competitive based on your standard of what a marathoner
must do to be competitive.

Am I missing anything?

--
Is this thing on?

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

It seems by your understanding of 'athlete' that the word 'competitor'

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

simply be used interchangeably. Would that be right? And if so, then why

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there been the word 'athlete' invented?. If not, what is the difference
between these two words?

What a stunningly stupid question.

But let me help you out:

The answer to the first question is obviously "no". Microsoft and Sun
Microsystems are competitors but not athletes.

Even if you amend the question to 'is the word athlete synonymous with
competitor in an athletic event ?', the answer, in my opinion, is still

no. I

Quoted message said:

have already explained why, in a post that specifically addressed exactly
this point, and you followed up to that post, so I optimistically presume

that

Quoted message said:

you read it.

The answer to your second question is equally obvious. "Athlete" is more
specific. It refers to participants in physically demanding sporting
competitions. "Competitor" is very general and can refer to almost any

sort

Quoted message said:

of rivalry (e.g. between corporations as above).

I am archiving your post, and adding it to the supplemental materials to

be

Quoted message said:

presented at the IOM election.

This just demonstrates yourdesperation to win a point. No one in his right
mind would imagine we are talking about 'competitor' in any other context
that the obvious one. There is only one quality that separates 'competitor'
with 'athlete' and that is one that would relate to 'excellence' or
'achievement' - but now that you seem to be backpedalling all over the
place, maybe you can spell it out. What is "physically demanding"? I can't
seem to find a reference to it in your definition below

Quoted message said:

ath·lete
n.
A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength,
agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or
sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.

(Good luck with the IOM, you're gonna need it!)

Joe Humble said:

It appears to me that you have delinked the definition of athlete from
the definition of training.

Not quite. I've delinked it from specific standards of performance.

Your understanding regarding my comments on training is correct. I don't
believe that someone who doesn't train for their sport is an athlete.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Joe Humble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

David said:

It seems by your understanding of 'athlete' that the word 'competitor'

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

simply be used interchangeably. Would that be right? And if so, then

why has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there been the word 'athlete' invented?. If not, what is the

difference

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

between these two words?

What a stunningly stupid question.

But let me help you out:

The answer to the first question is obviously "no". Microsoft and Sun
Microsystems are competitors but not athletes.

Even if you amend the question to 'is the word athlete synonymous with
competitor in an athletic event ?', the answer, in my opinion, is still

no. I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have already explained why, in a post that specifically addressed exactly
this point, and you followed up to that post, so I optimistically presume

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you read it.

The answer to your second question is equally obvious. "Athlete" is more
specific. It refers to participants in physically demanding sporting
competitions. "Competitor" is very general and can refer to almost any

sort

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of rivalry (e.g. between corporations as above).

I am archiving your post, and adding it to the supplemental materials to

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

presented at the IOM election.

Cheers,

Donovan wrote:

"I stated my definition of athlete. It is the standard English
definition, based on the both a literal reading of the dictionary,
and a historical interpretation of the Latin origin of the word. That
definition has nothing to do with level of performance or
competition."

Donovan later wrote:

"I understand the point that you are trying to make, so I'll address
it. There are a number of runners who are on fairly casual training
schedules. These runners may not be terribly proficient. It's
borderline to say that they're "training". Fortunately, language has a
way of evolving, and there are a number of more specific terms that
address these runners -- fitness running, penguins, recreational
running, etc. "Athlete" is a very general term, with borderline
applicability to these relatively undertrained athletes,
whereas these other terms are more precise.

Most people will need some time to build enough mileage to commence a
reasonable marathon training program. When I talk of "training", it
must be understood that running around the block a few times, the week
before the event, does not count.

Anything less than 40 miles a week is not a competitive marathon
training program. Any program that doesn't include *some* interval
work or tempo work is not a competitive marathon training program
either."

And even later wrote:

"The answer to your second question is equally obvious. "Athlete" is
more specific. It refers to participants in physically demanding
sporting competitions. "Competitor" is very general and can refer to
almost any sort of rivalry (e.g. between corporations as above)."

It appears to me that you have delinked the definition of athlete from
the definition of training. Using the original definition of athlete
you supplied almost anyone can qualify but you later qualified what
training means and they are an athlete if and only if they meet your
definition of training. For training you have imposed the requirement
that it be competitive based on your standard of what a marathoner
must do to be competitive.

Am I missing anything?

Excellent points. You're missing nothing. His reply will be 'interesting' I
am sure.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Joe Humble said:

It appears to me that you have delinked the definition of athlete from
the definition of training.

Not quite. I've delinked it from specific standards of performance.

Your understanding regarding my comments on training is correct. I don't
believe that someone who doesn't train for their sport is an athlete.

This came up today. I just spent the morning working at a triathlon.
(The people there were in four categories: "volunteer", "race
committee", "athletes" and "fans".)

I was talking to a young man today who won his age group and came in
fifth overall. He said that he was nervous about this because he's not
a triathlete - he doesn't work on his swimming and had never done one
before. (He considers himself a cyclist.) This was a one-off that he
did for family reasons: his older brother, a 23 year old elite
triathlete, died in June after doing a triathlon and his whole family
came out to do the home-town race in homage to him. Anyway, he doesn't
train for it so doesn't consider himself a triathlete, despite fantastic
genes and ability (and being a "natural" athlete.)

I worked the transition area because, as the volunteer coordinator said,
it was nice to have someone who was actually a triathlete there to help
out. He was right, I was a big help to the competitors in the
transition area. I'm particularly proud of talking a woman into doing
the run after she came in dejected from a bad bike ride. I practically
drop-kicked her out onto the course. She finished near the back of the
pack, but came in third overall in the women 40-49 age group. She told
me she's doing a half-ironman in two weeks.

You'd be nuts to look at this woman, who runs marathons, too, and
suggest that she's not an athlete. It just doesn't make sense in the
context that language is used.

It was weird being there as a "volunteer" rather than as an "athlete".
I knew many of the competitors and more than a few asked why I wasn't
out there. (I had planned on resting this week after last week's race
and getting ready for another one in three weeks. Plus, I knew too many
of the race committee and got drafted as a volunteer.) It was really,
really evident that I had more in common with the athletes than the
volunteers.

Dally

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Joe Humble said:

It appears to me that you have delinked the definition of athlete from
the definition of training.

Not quite. I've delinked it from specific standards of performance.

Your understanding regarding my comments on training is correct. I don't
believe that someone who doesn't train for their sport is an athlete.

This came up today. I just spent the morning working at a triathlon.
(The people there were in four categories: "volunteer", "race
committee", "athletes" and "fans".)

I was talking to a young man today who won his age group and came in
fifth overall. He said that he was nervous about this because he's not
a triathlete - he doesn't work on his swimming and had never done one
before. (He considers himself a cyclist.) This was a one-off that he
did for family reasons: his older brother, a 23 year old elite
triathlete, died in June after doing a triathlon and his whole family
came out to do the home-town race in homage to him. Anyway, he doesn't
train for it so doesn't consider himself a triathlete, despite fantastic
genes and ability (and being a "natural" athlete.)

I worked the transition area because, as the volunteer coordinator said,
it was nice to have someone who was actually a triathlete there to help
out. He was right, I was a big help to the competitors in the
transition area. I'm particularly proud of talking a woman into doing
the run after she came in dejected from a bad bike ride. I practically
drop-kicked her out onto the course. She finished near the back of the
pack, but came in third overall in the women 40-49 age group. She told
me she's doing a half-ironman in two weeks.

You'd be nuts to look at this woman, who runs marathons, too, and
suggest that she's not an athlete. It just doesn't make sense in the
context that language is used.

It was weird being there as a "volunteer" rather than as an "athlete".
I knew many of the competitors and more than a few asked why I wasn't
out there. (I had planned on resting this week after last week's race
and getting ready for another one in three weeks. Plus, I knew too many
of the race committee and got drafted as a volunteer.) It was really,
really evident that I had more in common with the athletes than the
volunteers.

Dally

That's very nice Dally, but this is not all about you. However it was decent
of you to offer your services as a volunteer. (you did offer, right?)

"Give me your tired your sick, your old, your obese, your wretched refuse -
stick 'em in a fun race and I will finish mid pack and call myself an
athlete" David the Oz

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Joe Humble said:

It appears to me that you have delinked the definition of athlete from
the definition of training.

Not quite. I've delinked it from specific standards of performance.

Your understanding regarding my comments on training is correct. I don't
believe that someone who doesn't train for their sport is an athlete.

This came up today. I just spent the morning working at a triathlon.
(The people there were in four categories: "volunteer", "race
committee", "athletes" and "fans".)

I was talking to a young man today who won his age group and came in
fifth overall. He said that he was nervous about this because he's not
a triathlete - he doesn't work on his swimming and had never done one
before. (He considers himself a cyclist.) This was a one-off that he
did for family reasons: his older brother, a 23 year old elite
triathlete, died in June after doing a triathlon and his whole family
came out to do the home-town race in homage to him. Anyway, he doesn't
train for it so doesn't consider himself a triathlete, despite fantastic
genes and ability (and being a "natural" athlete.)

I worked the transition area because, as the volunteer coordinator said,
it was nice to have someone who was actually a triathlete there to help
out. He was right, I was a big help to the competitors in the
transition area. I'm particularly proud of talking a woman into doing
the run after she came in dejected from a bad bike ride. I practically
drop-kicked her out onto the course. She finished near the back of the
pack, but came in third overall in the women 40-49 age group. She told
me she's doing a half-ironman in two weeks.

You'd be nuts to look at this woman, who runs marathons, too, and
suggest that she's not an athlete. It just doesn't make sense in the
context that language is used.

It was weird being there as a "volunteer" rather than as an "athlete".
I knew many of the competitors and more than a few asked why I wasn't
out there. (I had planned on resting this week after last week's race
and getting ready for another one in three weeks. Plus, I knew too many
of the race committee and got drafted as a volunteer.) It was really,
really evident that I had more in common with the athletes than the
volunteers.

Dally

That's very nice Dally, but this is not all about you. However it was decent
of you to offer your services as a volunteer. (you did offer, right?)

"Give me your tired your sick, your old, your obese, your wretched refuse -
stick 'em in a fun race and I will finish mid pack and call myself an
athlete" David the Oz

"Joe Humble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

David said:

It seems by your understanding of 'athlete' that the word 'competitor'

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

simply be used interchangeably. Would that be right? And if so, then

why has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there been the word 'athlete' invented?. If not, what is the

difference

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

between these two words?

What a stunningly stupid question.

But let me help you out:

The answer to the first question is obviously "no". Microsoft and Sun
Microsystems are competitors but not athletes.

Even if you amend the question to 'is the word athlete synonymous with
competitor in an athletic event ?', the answer, in my opinion, is still

no. I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have already explained why, in a post that specifically addressed exactly
this point, and you followed up to that post, so I optimistically presume

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you read it.

The answer to your second question is equally obvious. "Athlete" is more
specific. It refers to participants in physically demanding sporting
competitions. "Competitor" is very general and can refer to almost any

sort

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of rivalry (e.g. between corporations as above).

I am archiving your post, and adding it to the supplemental materials to

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

presented at the IOM election.

Cheers,

Donovan wrote:

"I stated my definition of athlete. It is the standard English
definition, based on the both a literal reading of the dictionary,
and a historical interpretation of the Latin origin of the word. That
definition has nothing to do with level of performance or
competition."

Donovan later wrote:

"I understand the point that you are trying to make, so I'll address
it. There are a number of runners who are on fairly casual training
schedules. These runners may not be terribly proficient. It's
borderline to say that they're "training". Fortunately, language has a
way of evolving, and there are a number of more specific terms that
address these runners -- fitness running, penguins, recreational
running, etc. "Athlete" is a very general term, with borderline
applicability to these relatively undertrained athletes,
whereas these other terms are more precise.

Most people will need some time to build enough mileage to commence a
reasonable marathon training program. When I talk of "training", it
must be understood that running around the block a few times, the week
before the event, does not count.

Anything less than 40 miles a week is not a competitive marathon
training program. Any program that doesn't include *some* interval
work or tempo work is not a competitive marathon training program
either."

And even later wrote:

"The answer to your second question is equally obvious. "Athlete" is
more specific. It refers to participants in physically demanding
sporting competitions. "Competitor" is very general and can refer to
almost any sort of rivalry (e.g. between corporations as above)."

It appears to me that you have delinked the definition of athlete from
the definition of training. Using the original definition of athlete
you supplied almost anyone can qualify but you later qualified what
training means and they are an athlete if and only if they meet your
definition of training. For training you have imposed the requirement
that it be competitive based on your standard of what a marathoner
must do to be competitive.

Am I missing anything?

Thanks Mike - if not for you and Charles I would have had a tough fight -
you know, the master debater wasn't going to roll over easily. Now I would
say he is licking his wounds.

"David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Joe Humble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-08-07, David <[email hidden]> wrote:
> It seems by your understanding of 'athlete' that the word

'competitor'

Quoted message said:

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> simply be used interchangeably. Would that be right? And if so, then

why has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> there been the word 'athlete' invented?. If not, what is the

difference

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> between these two words?

What a stunningly stupid question.

But let me help you out:

The answer to the first question is obviously "no". Microsoft and Sun
Microsystems are competitors but not athletes.

Even if you amend the question to 'is the word athlete synonymous with
competitor in an athletic event ?', the answer, in my opinion, is still

no. I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have already explained why, in a post that specifically addressed

exactly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this point, and you followed up to that post, so I optimistically

presume

Quoted message said:

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you read it.

The answer to your second question is equally obvious. "Athlete" is

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

specific. It refers to participants in physically demanding sporting
competitions. "Competitor" is very general and can refer to almost any

sort

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of rivalry (e.g. between corporations as above).

I am archiving your post, and adding it to the supplemental materials

to

Quoted message said:

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

presented at the IOM election.

Cheers,

Donovan wrote:

"I stated my definition of athlete. It is the standard English
definition, based on the both a literal reading of the dictionary,
and a historical interpretation of the Latin origin of the word. That
definition has nothing to do with level of performance or
competition."

Donovan later wrote:

"I understand the point that you are trying to make, so I'll address
it. There are a number of runners who are on fairly casual training
schedules. These runners may not be terribly proficient. It's
borderline to say that they're "training". Fortunately, language has a
way of evolving, and there are a number of more specific terms that
address these runners -- fitness running, penguins, recreational
running, etc. "Athlete" is a very general term, with borderline
applicability to these relatively undertrained athletes,
whereas these other terms are more precise.

Most people will need some time to build enough mileage to commence a
reasonable marathon training program. When I talk of "training", it
must be understood that running around the block a few times, the week
before the event, does not count.

Anything less than 40 miles a week is not a competitive marathon
training program. Any program that doesn't include *some* interval
work or tempo work is not a competitive marathon training program
either."

And even later wrote:

"The answer to your second question is equally obvious. "Athlete" is
more specific. It refers to participants in physically demanding
sporting competitions. "Competitor" is very general and can refer to
almost any sort of rivalry (e.g. between corporations as above)."

It appears to me that you have delinked the definition of athlete from
the definition of training. Using the original definition of athlete
you supplied almost anyone can qualify but you later qualified what
training means and they are an athlete if and only if they meet your
definition of training. For training you have imposed the requirement
that it be competitive based on your standard of what a marathoner
must do to be competitive.

Am I missing anything?

Thanks Mike - if not for you and Charles I would have had a tough fight -
you know, the master debater wasn't going to roll over easily. Now I would
say he is licking his wounds.

Forgot my new sig line

"Give me your tired, your feeble, your old, your freaks, your obese, your
wretched
refuse - stick 'em in a fun race and I will finish mid pack and call myself
an athlete"

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Joe Humble said:

It appears to me that you have delinked the definition of athlete from
the definition of training.

Not quite. I've delinked it from specific standards of performance.

Your understanding regarding my comments on training is correct. I don't
believe that someone who doesn't train for their sport is an athlete.

Cheers,

Training is probably a "standard of performance" in the context of
being an athlete. Ow, that made my eyebrow hurt.

--
Is this thing on?

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Joe Humble said:

It appears to me that you have delinked the definition of athlete from
the definition of training.

Not quite. I've delinked it from specific standards of performance.

Your understanding regarding my comments on training is correct. I don't
believe that someone who doesn't train for their sport is an athlete.

Cheers,

Training is probably a "standard of performance" in the context of
being an athlete. Ow, that made my eyebrow hurt.

--
Is this thing on?

Joe Humble said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Joe Humble said:

It appears to me that you have delinked the definition of athlete from
the definition of training.

Not quite. I've delinked it from specific standards of performance.

Your understanding regarding my comments on training is correct. I don't
believe that someone who doesn't train for their sport is an athlete.

Training is probably a "standard of performance" in the context of
being an athlete.

You're welcome to believe that, but that's not David's position, nor mine for
that matter.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/