>Randall: the 800 meters is NOT a "long distance" race although it is a
>"distance race."
I've been following this thread for some time with pretty
much detached bemusement.
My only comments are rather peripheral to the core debate of the
thread:
The terms "distance runner", "distance race" or just "distance"
seem to have emotional meanings to practicioners of Steeple, 5K, 10K,
and Marathon, that are quite apart from a dictionary definition.
For instance, such athletes would surely claim that it is not
possible for an 800m specialist (let alone a 100mH hurdler) to
experience what has ubiquitiously been referred to as a "runners high".
That realm of conciousness is reserved for those who...well, you
get the idea. Those who are distance runners.
This argument is circular. You can't qualify to be a distance runner unless
you're a distance runner, and those who aren't don't understand. And
those who already "are" get to decide who "is".
Because there is a considerable amount of "pride" attached to the
"club" of distance running, there is a tendency to protect the
exclusivity of such a "club" very fiercely. Perhaps this fierce loyalty
is rooted in the U.S. with distance advocates being somewhat social
outcasts to the general public social norm of couch-potato heaven.
Or that they are about as far away from the football player model as you
can get. Thus the arguments are reactionary.
But when it comes to club membership arguments are applied to exclusivity
WITHIN OUR OWN sport, such arguments seem to collapse into some extreme positions.
Thus, the arguments that 800m racers cannot possibly be "distance" runners.
Not much science, a whole lot of emotional-based argument.
The "long distance" club seems to be a radical offshoot of the "distance" club.
The FBI is probably tapping their phones about now.
:-)
RT
