How long do you wait?

In article said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Running marathons (or 32K MP runs) frequently isn´t my favourite idea, either, but we´re
dealing here with the question of the sense and wisdom of running the 32K and a marathon within
a short or the shortest possible time.

Quoted message said:

Yes, yes, be as half-assed as possible.

With all due respect, you would be perfectly entitled to mock my contribution (to these two
threads, which I´ve

No, I'm not saying that your writing is half-assed. I'm saying that the notion of minimal
preparation as a *goal* is half-assed, mediocre, etc. I'm saying this because I'm a snob.

Your writing style is fine, so if you really are trying to write in a mediocre manner, you're being
awfully mediocre at mediocrity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I still don't get why these losers always wish to make a goal of mediocrity, > why they always
strive to achieve the minimum. Why not run with the most preparation possible ? Why is mediocrity
seen as a parameter that should be maximised ?

Dunno, and I´m probably with you in general - but neither you or I have any reason to treat or
brand the original poster as one of "these losers"!

Yeah, well you sort of got me started ranting. I don't directly followup to mosters calling
them losers.

Quoted message said:

All we know is that 1) he has a strong desire to attain the goal he´d set for himself ASAP, 2) he
appears to have made at least one major error before his first attempt, and 3) failed to include
sufficient information.

IMHO if you´re going to post a reply, you should respect
1) as far as possible,

I don't think so. Maybe their premise is simply wrong-headed. A lot of beginners tend to post
questions that are based on premises that are really flawed. At the very least, if the premise is
completely bone-headed ("I've done no training, and I need to run a marathon in a week"😉 then it's
worth suggesting that the poster re-evaluate their premise, especially if they do not completely
understand what the said premise entails.

Quoted message said:

you`ll only fool simple souls like me who don´t get that you were merely blowing off steam,
spouting on a pet issue or whatever:-)

Hey, it was you who got me started. Newbies are forgiven for not knowing better, you should
understand that I rant a lot, and enjoy arguing.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

In article said:

Anders,

A *big* thank you for a voice of reason and sensibility in many of these threads. One big thing
I've noticed in terms of quality of replies is that *you* have done a marathon. Several of the
others offering advice have not.

I have done a lot of running, but no marathons.

But this is largely irrelevant to my comments. I do have experience in running races without
adequate preparation. I do have experience overtraining, bringing up milage too fast, getting
injured, etc.

Quoted message said:

One of the things I learned my first year on r.r is that we all, even me, have an assumed context
in which we are stating things, but it isn't always explicitly stated, so a new comer may be
seriously mislead by even the best-intentioned advice.

That's the nature of usenet. Someone may even deliberately give bad advice. I've been awfully
tempted to do this sometimes.

Quoted message said:

And all of these goals are perfectly acceptable. The challenge of running is what *we* make it.
Not what somebody else defines it as.

Call me a snob, but I think when someone wants to do the minimum amount of work in exchange for the
maximum amount of glory (e.g. the marathon tourist who posts questions about running a marathon with
minium preparation), I think it's reasonable to state that (a) mediocrity is their goal, and (b)
they have been seriously mislead if they think that a mediocre marathon performance is a worthwhile
achievement.

I don't buy this "all goals are equal" thing. I have much more respect for the person who works hard
than the person who is lazy.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I still don't get why these losers always wish to make a goal of mediocrity,

why they always strive to achieve the minimum. Why not run with the most

Quoted message said:

preparation possible ? Why is mediocrity seen as a parameter that should be maximised ?

My snob meter just bent flat. I find this balls to wall notion and anything less mediocrity,
highly egocentric.

You're right that I am a snob.

You're wrong that I propose a false dichotomy between balls to the wall and mediocrity.

However, to aim to do the minimum is to make mediocrity a goal.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi, Chief Snob pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Donovan Rebbechi said:

You make it sound like I followed up directly to the originator and called him a [censored]. Which is
simply not the case.

OK. Looks like I got the wrong impression due to the paint-balls you fired at your true target and
which splashed the vicinity :-

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I have done a lot of running, but no marathons.

But this is largely irrelevant to my comments.

It is not.

Your depth of experience *does* allow you to extrapolate much more accurately than someone who has
little or none. But until you have run a competitive marathon, I would think that just a tad more
humility would be in order.

There's nothing at all wrong with hypothesising, calculating, cross-checking research work, chewing
the fat over it with others, either real or virtual. Fine. But it's seems rather vulgar to me to
criticise the motivations of others on such intellectual scaffolding, however well founded you
believe it to be.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

In article said:

Quoted message said:

>I still don't get why these losers always wish to make a goal of mediocrity,

why they always strive to achieve the minimum. Why not run with the most

>preparation possible ? Why is mediocrity seen as a parameter that should be maximised ?

My snob meter just bent flat. I find this balls to wall notion and anything less mediocrity,
highly egocentric.

You're right that I am a snob.

You're wrong that I propose a false dichotomy between balls to the wall and mediocrity.

However, to aim to do the minimum is to make mediocrity a goal.

It does not make them losers and why I bothered to comment, it just makes their goals different than
yours. Mediocrity does not equal loser!!!

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

Donovan Rebbechi said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Dot wrote:

Since your posts are usually reasonable and informative, I'm assuming you've had a couple bad days
or something - at least I hope no runner truly believes some of the things you said. But I did want
to raise a couple points about diversity of goals. I know my perspective from Alaska is different
because road racing isn't big (I think Chris Clark is an anomaly), but the mountain runners are
regarded as gods, and they aren't snobs.

I do have experience in running

Quoted message said:

races without adequate preparation.

Is this the same mediocrity that you're criticizing others for? 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And all of these goals are perfectly acceptable. The challenge of running is what *we* make it.
Not what somebody else defines it as.

Call me a snob, but I think when someone wants to do the minimum amount of work in exchange for
the maximum amount of glory (e.g. the marathon tourist who posts questions about running a
marathon with minium preparation), I think it's reasonable to state that (a) mediocrity is
their goal,

Is "running a marathon" the "maximum amount of glory"? Running a marathon is certainly an extremely
worthy goal, not to be underestimated don't get me wrong, but there are longer races, "tougher"
marathons (and I don't want to get into a discussion of what constitutes tough but people here do
refer to "tough" courses and don't use them for BQs), final leg of IM, etc.

What is "minimum amount of work"? Not running at least 20-mi training runs? or 26.2 mi runs?
Not doing enough hill work? You won't get a statement from me since I'm not willing to judge
another runner.

What is "mediocrity"? Is it choosing a flat marathon for a BQ rather than the run leg of IMH? Do you
have to run the Iditarod Trail Invitational in less than 22 days (course record, I think) to not be
considered mediocre? Do you have to run a mile in 4 min? Not in my book.

Quoted message said:

I don't buy this "all goals are equal" thing.

I don't think anybody has ever said that here. Many, including myself, have stated many times that
people have *different* goals and those goals will evolve as they get more experience and improve.
But they generally don't do their finest performance of all time on their first attempt. It might
make races pretty lonely since everyone would only get one shot at a distance without being
considered mediocre (if they improved on a 2nd shot, then they were undertrained on 1st and hence
guilty of mediocrity - or at least that's my interpretation of what you're saying).

The goals that people set as they develop are not a sign of mediocrity, but rather a recognition of
their current training and what they are prepared to do, IMHO. Some people may have a goal of a
fast, but flat, marathon. Others may have a goal of just being able to run a marathon with 7000ft
elevation gain starting at about 7000ft. I wouldn't suggest to anyone running the Pikes Peak
marathon that they are mediocre if they finish in 4 hr 😉

Goals are very personal things. No one who expects to be respected by other people would criticize
another person's goals. I've got my goals, which are evolving. Trails I once thought unrunnable
because they were so steep, I've been able to run (maybe not far yet, but I've worked my butt off on
hill work when I was home this summer). (I'm using my goals as an example since I don't know what
goals of others are) Just because my goals are to run hilly trails doesn't mean I expect *you* to be
even want to run a race with hills. We both work hard toward our own, but different, goals.

FWIW, I, for one, do not have a marathon on my definite to-do list. I do have 2 or 3 trail or gravel
road/trail races that are nominally 26.2 miles that might be run as stepping stones to longer
distances - depending on timing of when I get my mileage up. But I whole heartedly respect the
desire of people to run big city marathons - at whatever pace or effort or run/walk ratio. We just
have different goals. And they are at least getting some exercise that they might not otherwise get.

I have much more respect for the

Quoted message said:

person who works hard than the person who is lazy.

I think we all do. But I don't understand how that relates to your "all goals are equal" statement.

Quoted message said:

I think it's perfectly valid to criticise the motivations of others, as long as I'm not a
hypocrite about it.

What *is* this guy's motivation that started the thread? He didn't finish his marathon (was it even
a race or just a 26.2-mi run), but wanted to go back out and try the distance again - apparently as
a training run since he had a friend that was going to ride with him. Most people here when they
finish a marathon sound like they don't want to run again for a few days. If this guy is asking
about doing a training run this soon after his unfinished one, it sounds like he's not as spent as
others. What's wrong in being motivated by seeking a challenge? I know after some of my first races,
I wanted to go back out and do the longer distance later in the summer (but didn't have time).
Admittedly, *I* wouldn't ask the group since *they* don't know how *my* body recovers (I am still
learning but certainly getting a better handle on
it). And if it's just a training run, I'd just do it when the body feels right.

Anyway, I don't think you really meant what you said. The only reason I posted this is to bring up
some diversity ideas.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

In article said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I have done a lot of running, but no marathons.

But this is largely irrelevant to my comments.

It is not.

Your depth of experience *does* allow you to extrapolate much more accurately than someone who has
little or none.

I don't agree that not running a marathon is equivalent to little or no depth of experience. I've
run times comparable to yours in shorter distances (when I was in college), something I accomplished
with a lot of hard training. What you're trying to do in this post is peg me as some kind of
armchair expert, and that's just way off the mark.

I do agree that having experience racing marathons will give you more precise insights. However, I
don't need to have a lot of experience racing 26.2 miles to knowsomething about recovering from
races. For example, I'm pretty sure that it takes longer to recover from a marathon than it takes to
recover from a 10k or a 10 mile race.

Of course I can't give precise and accurate information on developing training programs for the
marathon. But I never even attempt to do this. The most I've attempted to do is make vague
references to websites or well known resources.

Quoted message said:

But until you have run a competitive marathon, I would think that just a tad more humility would
be in order.

Implicit in this is the assumption that I can have less humility after I do a marathon ? But this
seems awfully silly to me. I'm certainly not going to rashly charge into a marathon to make others
think I'm an expert (though sadly, I believe it probably would have that sort of effect)

Quoted message said:

There's nothing at all wrong with hypothesising, calculating, cross-checking research work,
chewing the fat over it with others, either real or virtual. Fine. But it's seems rather vulgar to
me to criticise the motivations of others on such intellectual scaffolding, however well founded
you believe it to be.

Why is that ? I think it's perfectly valid to criticise the motivations of others, as long as I'm
not a hypocrite about it.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

In article said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

In article said:

>>I still don't get why these losers always wish to make a goal of mediocrity,
>
>why they always strive to achieve the minimum. Why not run with the most
>
>>preparation possible ? Why is mediocrity seen as a parameter that should be maximised ?

My snob meter just bent flat. I find this balls to wall notion and anything less mediocrity,
highly egocentric.

You're right that I am a snob.

You're wrong that I propose a false dichotomy between balls to the wall and mediocrity.

However, to aim to do the minimum is to make mediocrity a goal.

It does not make them losers and why I bothered to comment, it just makes their goals different
than yours. Mediocrity does not equal loser!!!

OK, maybe the losers remark was a bit harsh.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Donovan Rebbechi said:

What you're trying to do in this post is peg me as some kind of armchair expert, and that's just
way off the mark.

No I'm wasn't. And if it came out like that I'"m sorry. I tried to take care to say that you *could*
allow yourself more extrapolating than others.

Quoted message said:

Implicit in this is the assumption that I can have less humility after I do a marathon ?

No not at all. It's not about marathons as such but about the strength of one's criticism when it is
based on something you do not truly KNOW, as opposed to highly-educated extrapolation.

Quoted message said:

Why is that ? I think it's perfectly valid to criticise the motivations of others, as long as I'm
not a hypocrite about it.

Fair enough, as long as you criticise their *expressed* motivations and not imagined motivations
which have been thrust upon them.

In article said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Dot wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I do have experience in running races without adequate preparation.

Is this the same mediocrity that you're criticizing others for? 😉

The performances were indeed mediocre, and I wasn't happy with them. However, I don't criticise
anyone for having mediocre results. I do criticise them for making a goal of mediocrity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Call me a snob, but I think when someone wants to do the minimum amount of work in exchange for
the maximum amount of glory (e.g. the marathon tourist who posts questions about running a
marathon with minium preparation), I think it's reasonable to state that (a) mediocrity is
their goal,

Is "running a marathon" the "maximum amount of glory"? Running a marathon is certainly an
extremely worthy goal, not to be underestimated don't get me wrong, but there are longer races,
"tougher" marathons (and I don't want to get into a discussion of what constitutes tough but
people here do refer to "tough" courses and don't use them for BQs), final leg of IM, etc.

Oh, of course there are races that are longer than marathons. But I doubt your typical marathon
tourist knows much about them.

Quoted message said:

What is "minimum amount of work"? Not running at least 20-mi training runs? or 26.2 mi runs?
Not doing enough hill work? You won't get a statement from me since I'm not willing to judge
another runner.

You're missing my point. I'm criticising the notion that doing the minimum amount of work should be
the goal. I personally don't know a whole lot about what the minimum amount of work is, since it is
not something I aspire to do.

Quoted message said:

What is "mediocrity"?

Mediocrity is when you aspire to do as little as possible.

Quoted message said:

Is it choosing a flat marathon for a BQ rather than the run leg of IMH?

I don't think so. Because I don't think the people who do these tell themselves, "hey, I'm going to
qualify on an easy course so I can take shortcuts in my training".

Quoted message said:

Do you have to run the Iditarod Trail Invitational in less than 22 days (course record, I think)
to not be considered mediocre? Do you have to run a mile in 4 min? Not in my book.

I don't have any problem with someone who wants to run 10 minute miles. I know some people like
this. None of them ask me what the "minimum amount of work" they can do is. For the most part, they
just go out and have a good run. The notion of "doing the minimum" rarely occrurs to them, as they
consider running to be an enjoyable activity.

Quoted message said:

attempt. It might make races pretty lonely since everyone would only get one shot at a distance
without being considered mediocre (if they improved on a 2nd shot, then they were undertrained on
1st and hence guilty of mediocrity - or at least that's my interpretation of what you're saying).

Your interpretation is not what I meant. But I admit that I was rather unclear.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think it's perfectly valid to criticise the motivations of others, as long as I'm not a
hypocrite about it.

What *is* this guy's motivation that started the thread? He didn't

Well, the conversation has drifted a long way from there.

Quoted message said:

run again for a few days. If this guy is asking about doing a training run this soon after his
unfinished one, it sounds like he's not as spent as others. What's wrong in being motivated by
seeking a challenge? I know after some of my first races, I wanted to go back out and do the
longer distance later in the summer (but didn't have time). Admittedly,

I don't think there's anything at all with the guy wanting to make a repeat effort in two weeks.
I've raced a lot, and anyone who's raced a lot has had some bad days. One always wants to go back
and make it right. When I was teaching during grad school I'd see similar in students -- they'd
always want a way to undo history after a bad exam.

But I've found that this sort of haste is never a good thing, and taking the time to rebuild -- both
physically and psychologically, until you're just aching to go is what produces results. The desire
to change history exists, and that's OK, but it's smart to avoid being a slave to it. Maybe there's
something about the marathon that makes it more suitable than shorter events to people who lack
patience , but I really don't believe this is the case.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Dot said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Dot wrote:

Since your posts are usually reasonable and informative, I'm assuming you've had a couple bad days
or something - at least I hope no runner truly believes some of the things you said. But I did
want to raise a couple points about diversity of goals. I know my perspective from Alaska is
different because road racing isn't big (I think Chris Clark is an anomaly), but the mountain
runners are regarded as gods, and they aren't snobs.

I do have experience in running

Quoted message said:

races without adequate preparation.

Is this the same mediocrity that you're criticizing others for? 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And all of these goals are perfectly acceptable. The challenge of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

running is what *we* make it. Not what somebody else defines it as.

Call me a snob, but I think when someone wants to do the minimum amount of work in exchange for
the maximum amount of glory (e.g. the marathon tourist who posts questions about running a
marathon with minium preparation), I think it's reasonable to state that (a) mediocrity is
their goal,

Is "running a marathon" the "maximum amount of glory"? Running a marathon is certainly an
extremely worthy goal, not to be underestimated don't get me wrong, but there are longer races,
"tougher" marathons (and I don't want to get into a discussion of what constitutes tough but
people here do refer to "tough" courses and don't use them for BQs), final leg of IM, etc.

What is "minimum amount of work"? Not running at least 20-mi training runs? or 26.2 mi runs?
Not doing enough hill work? You won't get a statement from me since I'm not willing to judge
another runner.

What is "mediocrity"? Is it choosing a flat marathon for a BQ rather than the run leg of IMH? Do
you have to run the Iditarod Trail Invitational in less than 22 days (course record, I think) to
not be considered mediocre? Do you have to run a mile in 4 min? Not in my book.

Quoted message said:

I don't buy this "all goals are equal" thing.

I don't think anybody has ever said that here. Many, including myself, have stated many times that
people have *different* goals and those goals will evolve as they get more experience and improve.
But they generally don't do their finest performance of all time on their first attempt. It might
make races pretty lonely since everyone would only get one shot at a distance without being
considered mediocre (if they improved on a 2nd shot, then they were undertrained on 1st and hence
guilty of mediocrity - or at least that's my interpretation of what you're saying).

The goals that people set as they develop are not a sign of mediocrity, but rather a recognition
of their current training and what they are prepared to do, IMHO. Some people may have a goal of a
fast, but flat, marathon. Others may have a goal of just being able to run a marathon with 7000ft
elevation gain starting at about 7000ft. I wouldn't suggest to anyone running the Pikes Peak
marathon that they are mediocre if they finish in 4 hr 😉

Goals are very personal things. No one who expects to be respected by other people would
criticize another person's goals. I've got my goals, which are evolving. Trails I once thought
unrunnable because they were so steep, I've been able to run (maybe not far yet, but I've worked
my butt off on hill work when I was home this summer). (I'm using my goals as an example since I
don't know what goals of others are) Just because my goals are to run hilly trails doesn't mean I
expect *you* to be even want to run a race with hills. We both work hard toward our own, but
different, goals.

FWIW, I, for one, do not have a marathon on my definite to-do list. I do have 2 or 3 trail or
gravel road/trail races that are nominally 26.2 miles that might be run as stepping stones to
longer distances - depending on timing of when I get my mileage up. But I whole heartedly respect
the desire of people to run big city marathons - at whatever pace or effort or run/walk ratio. We
just have different goals. And they are at least getting some exercise that they might not
otherwise get.

I have much more respect for the

Quoted message said:

person who works hard than the person who is lazy.

I think we all do. But I don't understand how that relates to your "all goals are equal"
statement.

Quoted message said:

I think it's perfectly valid to criticise the motivations of others, as long as I'm not a
hypocrite about it.

What *is* this guy's motivation that started the thread? He didn't finish his marathon (was it
even a race or just a 26.2-mi run), but wanted to go back out and try the distance again -
apparently as a training run since he had a friend that was going to ride with him. Most people
here when they finish a marathon sound like they don't want to run again for a few days. If this
guy is asking about doing a training run this soon after his unfinished one, it sounds like he's
not as spent as others. What's wrong in being motivated by seeking a challenge? I know after some
of my first races, I wanted to go back out and do the longer distance later in the summer (but
didn't have time). Admittedly, *I* wouldn't ask the group since *they* don't know how *my* body
recovers (I am still learning but certainly getting a better handle on
it). And if it's just a training run, I'd just do it when the body feels right.

Anyway, I don't think you really meant what you said. The only reason I posted this is to bring up
some diversity ideas.

Dot

Well said.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I admit that I was unusually grumpy.

So was I. Memo to self: don't write anything on usenet after 72 hours without sleep...

Dot dot.h@#att.net said:

Quoted message said:

I have much more respect for the person who works hard than the person who is lazy.

I think we all do. But I don't understand how that relates to your "all goals are equal" statement.

This is the only place I don't agree. The hard work = go(o)dliness, is part of the protestant (or is
that judeo-christian?) work ethic. I don't respect someone more, simply because he works "harder"
than his neighbour. Neither do I believe that someone who I may *perceive* (with my value set) as
being "lazy", should merit disdain.

This may be because I love to laze :->

But this is rather off topic - or is it yet another example of how culural/religious differences can
lead one (you, me, them, everybody, everybody...<sings "Everybody Needs Somebody"(1)>😉 into mistakes
when looking at others?

NB flashing, exclamation marks and wailing sirens, this is NOT any kind of criticism of you, but I
think you guessed already ;-)

_______________
(1) For the youngsters: Live & Studio Group plus Film by John Landis "The Blues Brothers" starring
the late John Belushi in the role of Jake Blues, lead singer of the Blues Brothers Band, and Dan
Ackroyd in the role of Elwood Blues, his brother (vocals, harmonica).

Donovan Rebbechi said:

You're missing my point. I'm criticising the notion that doing the minimum amount of work should be
the goal.

Why? Doing the minimum work for a given performance is also called "optimising". Doesn't that make
it more palatable?

Quoted message said:

I personally don't know a whole lot about what the minimum amount of work is, since it is not
something I aspire to do.

So no-one else is allowed to, is that right?

Quoted message said:

Mediocrity is when you aspire to do as little as possible.

Why? Who says?

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I don't think there's anything at all with the guy wanting to make a repeat effort in two weeks.
I've raced a lot, and anyone who's raced a lot has had some bad days. One always wants to go back
and make it right. When I was teaching during grad school I'd see similar in students -- they'd
always want a way to undo history after a bad exam.

But I've found that this sort of haste is never a good thing, and taking the time to rebuild --
both physically and psychologically, until you're just aching to go is what produces results. The
desire to change history exists, and that's OK, but it's smart to avoid being a slave to it.

Very nicely put.

Quoted message said:

Maybe there's something about the marathon that makes it more suitable than shorter events to
people who lack patience , but I really don't believe this is the case.

I don't think that's the point. The "special" thing about Marathon(tm) road races is not that it's
easier to skimp on training or recover or whatever, but what happens in the later stages of such a
race. And our original contributor didn't execute that part of the race.

Your disagreement with Anders on just this point is what started this thread boiling IMO. Anders
suggested that the last 10km or so is where the real damage happens, whereas you can see no reason
for this, from your experience.

ASIDE: the original poster should get a grade A super-troll gold statuette award. Even if it turns
out he isn't a real troll, he should be considered one /honoris causa/

Quoted message said:

Re: How long do you wait?

Usually I let her tell me when the best time is, that way you can be sure she's satisfied.

In article said:

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

But while I can understand very clearly what it means to say "what is the minimum I can do for a
*given result*", I can't for the life of me see what is at the other end of the scale?

My goals arise from my interest in running, not the other way around. I suppose this is in part a
difference in philosophy between what are sometimes called "fitness runners" and "goal runners" on
this newsgroup. I have goals of course, but the goals are not the reason I am running in the first
place, and my running is not premised upon those goals. It's the other way around. Which is why I'm
not the slightest bit interested in finishing a marathon and then burning out prematurely.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

steve common said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Quoted message said:

Except who is to say what is a mediocre goal? I know you give a definition below, Steve calls it
"optimization", and I say who I am to judge another runners' goals or motivations. Heck, I just
run for fun, but I should note that I play hard when I play.

Well, exactly. You're not asking "how can I do the minimum", are you ? Most of the people here
just enjoy running.

I _do_ understand what your point is (I think) and it's perfectly valid, particularly in the
context it's coming from, ie in the USA = very strong work ethic (there's nothing wrong with
that btw).

My own, variable-geometry ethics don't go down the same road as yours but neither can negate the
other, they can both exist at the same time because they don't apply to the same person.

Steve, As a digression here since I've noticed in your posts and perhaps other European posts, that
France may have more of a team (sorta, in a loose sense) approach to training. What I mean, if I've
understood your posts, is that France, for example, may not have the races of the masses like US
has, but rather the fewer people that do run may be faster runners.

I'm not sure if your philosophy here reflects that of France in general or is your personal
philosophy. If it is French, is it reflected in other countries on that side of pond?

The reason I ask is that looking back at World Mtn Running Trophy results
wmrt2003.orgresults.htmOpen ↗ Italian Sr. men just cream everybody else. Watching it first
hand, it was extremely obvious to even a beginner like me why the Italians have won the team event
for 19 years. Quite simply, they made 2000ft (600 m) hills look like mole hills and were still
"sprinting" on 2nd lap up the 1000 ft (300m) hill again. I did get the impression that they train in
the Alps, perhaps as a team (I wasn't sure what the "we" referred to in a tv interview). US team is
selected from winners of selection races, and I'm not sure if there is any "team" training or not.

France did quite well - 5th senior men, 2nd senior women (senior is over 20 in this context, junior
is 16-20).

But I also noticed that some countries' scoring finishers finished in close clusters in some of the
races, like their runners might be synchronized.

I know this competition started in Europe 19 yr ago and is just now starting to be held outside
Europe. But other countries have had mountain races (although different types of courses - the more
blood shed the better up here) for a long time (Mt Marathon in Alaska has been run 76 years).

Anyway, I was just curious if you had any thoughts if training philosophies or histories had
anything to do with order or patterns in finishes or whether these were just random distributions. I
do recognize you may not have any experience or contact with the mtn runners, but I wasn't going to
find out unless I asked.

Just curious. Thanks.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Donovan Rebbechi said:

OK, maybe the losers remark was a bit harsh.

Let's just say it's most unlike your normal thought provoking posts. Then again, I have my PMS
days also. 😉

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]