Sucess and failure

tunney

Some time ago I came to the realisation that success and failure, for the age group athlete (or fun runner), can only be defined relative to themselves. To their physical traits, their athletic history, their employement, their family. Sucess for someone is failure for another. Failure for one is beyond the wildest dreams of someone else.

Which brings me onto another realisation - that goal setting and expectations of performances must also be viewed through the eyes of the person setting and making them. Trying to assess whether something is achieveable for someone else without considering the level of work that THEY are willing to make, and the sacrafices that THEY are willing to make. Improvements that someone may dismiss as "mah, simple" are an insurmountable mountain for others and not recognising this can make one seem like an elitist, condescending, patronising git. Likewise dismissing goals as the effort and work required is unimaginable to you can make the objector appear bitter and petty when someone else IS willing to go the extra mile.

My two cents.

On a further level these realisations are applicable to the same person at different points in time I believe.

elvis jones

Are you going soft:D

It is true. Just finishing a sprint is amazing for one person but for another finishing just over the hr mark is failure.

I'm doing the Lost Sheep in Sept and my goal is to finish, nothing more. Now that doesn't sound like much to some people but you have to understand where i was less than 3 yrs ago and where i have to come to.

Yet i have been the other person, i have seen someone finish a 10k in 80 min and go meh so what thats no big deal..........yet i don't know what they have gone through to do that time and understand the pride they feel in it.

sconhome

tunney wrote: »

Some time ago I came to the realisation that success and failure, for the age group athlete (or fun runner), can only be defined relative to themselves. To their physical traits, their athletic history, their employement, their family. Sucess for someone is failure for another. Failure for one is beyond the wildest dreams of someone else.

Which brings me onto another realisation - that goal setting and expectations of performances must also be viewed through the eyes of the person setting and making them. Trying to assess whether something is achieveable for someone else without considering the level of work that THEY are willing to make, and the sacrafices that THEY are willing to make. Improvements that someone may dismiss as "mah, simple" are an insurmountable mountain for others and not recognising this can make one seem like an elitist, condescending, patronising git. Likewise dismissing goals as the effort and work required is unimaginable to you can make the objector appear bitter and petty when someone else IS willing to go the extra mile.

My two cents.

On a further level these realisations are applicable to the same person at different points in time I believe.

Who are you? & what have you done with tunney? :rolleyes:

But isnt that the attraction of triathlon? People go on about how elitist we all appear to be yet, in my racing experience, a nicer bunch of supportive sportspeople would be hard to find.

I'd fully agree with the sentiment in your post.

peter kern

On a further level these realisations are applicable to the same person at different points in time I believe.



spot on

couerdelion

On that note I remember reading that you thought everyone was able for a 35 minute 10km. Do you still think that?

Would that be dependent on the sacrifice they are willing to make and the effort they are willing to put in? Or would you know see this as an unsurmountable mountain for some?

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

Cracking post and very true.

ray o

Did someone crack his boards password?

elvis jones

Never mind that, Tunney and Peter agree:eek:

griffin100

ray o wrote: »

Did someone crack his boards password?

That's what happens when you listen to too much Stone Roses and surround yourself with similar people Don't worry, he'll be dehippyfied soon and be back to normal.

Izoard

Meh, if you don't do sub 3:30, you are walking...

tunney

I think it quite telling that everyone only commented on one side of my OP.

The whole part about viewing other peoples goals as unrealistic and unattainable was ignored.

The whole idea of dismissing someone's goals because the amount of work and dedication and the number of sacrifices required is completely unimaginable to you is the other side. Simply because YOU cannot imagine doing what's required does not mean that someone else will not rise to the challenge and HTFU and do the "hard yards".

I had a reason for thinking this when I made the OP. Over the years I've see lots of peoples times and goals called "cr@p and slow" by lots of people. Lord knows I've done it enough. Some of the time it was fair, other times it was not and did not take account of the persons personal situation.

Over the years as well occasionally someone has had a goal smacked down. That bloke who was morbidly obese but wants to do Marathon des Sables got it rough and had his goal dissected by all and sundry. However that was done out of concern for his physical well being in the training and participation, and for his mental and emotional well being should be fail, which seemed likely.

However recently I've seen something else creep into ART and I don't like it. The supportive nature has eroded somewhat and I've seen lots of little nasty comments littered around. Whether the posters actually realise what they are saying or not is another thing. How it comes across is they don't think someone can do what they want to do and achieve their goals and that's fair enough, but what should be done is to articulate the concerns and post them, back them up with data and stand over the opinion. What seems to be happening is these people are taking digs and making sly gibes at people. I admit its not overt or obvious and one or two of the posters may not have intended to come across as they did.

There are plenty of things I cannot imagine ever doing because I cannot imagine doing the work to get there. However if someone demonstrates that they understand the work required and is willing to make the sacrifices to do that work then I tip my hat to them and wish them all the luck they may need to get the job done.

Perhaps we all should be a little more supportive?

Rawhead

You made a dig in a post a while back that pissed me off more than it should have. You said something like "the people waddling around in 44 minutes" with reference to an Olympic race. Now the fact that I had just completed my first Oly and my run time was 44mins might have clouded my judgement somewhat but that was a wanker of a elitist thing to say I reckon.

Why the softness all of a sudden, did you break a PB on the road to Damascus.

tunney

Rawhead wrote: »

You made a dig in a post a while back that pissed me off more than it should have. You said something like "the people waddling around in 44 minutes" with reference to an Olympic race. Now the fact that I had just completed my first Oly and my run time was 44mins might have clouded my judgement somewhat but that was a wanker of a elitist thing to say I reckon.

Why the softness all of a sudden, did you break a PB on the road to Damascus.

Again focussing on the one side of things......

Apologies, sure it wasn't a straight 10km I was talking about? Anyway's either way I never said your result was sh1t. I know nothing about you nor your background nor your situation.

Rawhead

tunney wrote: »

Again focussing on the one side of things......

Apologies, sure it wasn't a straight 10km I was talking about? Anyway's either way I never said your result was sh1t. I know nothing about you nor your background nor your situation.

I suppose you just proved your own point. I have lost nearly a third of my body weight in two and a half years (118kg to 82kg), I was smoking 40 a day and it took me 50mins to do 5kms.
Athy was my 3rd ever triathlon and I managed it in 2:25. 44mins is probably a waddle for some people but I was fairly happy.
Success is relative really I suppose.
I have also gotten some decent advise off of you so it ain't all negative my angry friend.

tunney

Rawhead wrote: »

I suppose you just proved your own point. I have lost nearly a third of my body weight in two and a half years (118kg to 82kg), I was smoking 40 a day and it took me 50mins to do 5kms.
Athy was my 3rd ever triathlon and I managed it in 2:25. 44mins is probably a waddle for some people but I was fairly happy.
Success is relative really I suppose.
I have also gotten some decent advise off of you so it ain't all negative my angry friend.

My point in bold, along with possible future successes also being relative.

Been along time since I got angry

The bitterness and digs were not at me. In all honesty I'm not a sensitive bloke and I can deal with people I don't know telling me I cannot do something. I'm allowed to be concerned for the people who the digs are being made at, and in all honesty those making them as well as it says alot about their state of mind.

shotgunmcos

tunney wrote: »

Been along time since I got angry
.

All good I guess. I even saw you pop onto a 15 hour IM finisher log to offer your congrats....

shotgunmcos

On a serious note

People constantly set unrealistic goals, in the short term. There is no dream too big for ANYONE, however the bigger the goal the more steps required to get there. Its the first step that people often think will just miraculously happen by itself...

interested

A nice topic Tunney, in this time of reflection

Irrespective of sport, people who have worked with a coach or coaches over a period of time usually take the opinion of that coach on board when setting goals, targets, objectives for the year or several years.

The coach, armed with knowledge of the persons background, existing ability, time available to train, injuries etc etc etc should be capable of administering a 'sanity check' to what they are told by that person or set goals along the way to something that seems almost impossible** to the person they're coaching but that the coach see's as a feasible target.

It's D'internet, so everyone's entitled to an opinion. The fact that opinion's are not always formed with all of the information is not always the fault of those responding.

Recently someone was talking to me about objectives for their swimming times in relation to triathlon - someone I don't coach - I offered some opinions, harsh as they were but never said 'No, forget it!'. Instead, tried to impress on the person that what they were doing was nowhere near enough and that patience, consistency and avoiding previous mistakes that led to injury might help them along the road.

Some recent indicators show progress, will it take this person to their goal ? maybe, maybe not ... the point is it's better for someone to get advice to help them find out for themselves if what they think they are trying to achieve is really possible with what they're doing or that they are indeed, just fooling themselves.

Oryx

I have to say I find it deeply ironic that its you, tunney, that posted this thread. In the years Ive been posting here Ive often found you ascerbic and dismissive towards 'lesser' achievements. Over time I realised a) you were usually right in your opinion* and b) youre actually quite a helpful guy, but god, you can came across badly at times. You actually seem surprised when called out for it in this thread.

I think pretty much everyone judges other peoples goals and achievements based on where they are themselves at the time. Someone who has never run 5k will see a marathon as a huge achievement, a sub 10 ironman would see a barely-scraped-the-cutoff IM finish as very weak. Its totally subjective. And we also do it to ourselves. A few years ago, finishing an IM would have been the pinnacle of wonderfulness for me, a superhuman thing to do. Having now done one and finished poorly imo, its no big deal, I didnt do great. I could, and will, attempt to do a lot better. Again, a subjective thing. My family cant understand why Im disappointed.

*not the being dismissive, but you do have a certain realism that comes from having been there, done that.

peter kern

Rawhead wrote: »

I suppose you just proved your own point. I have lost nearly a third of my body weight in two and a half years (118kg to 82kg), I was smoking 40 a day and it took me 50mins to do 5kms.
Athy was my 3rd ever triathlon and I managed it in 2:25. 44mins is probably a waddle for some people but I was fairly happy.
Success is relative really I suppose.
I have also gotten some decent advise off of you so it ain't all negative my angry friend.

wow ,thats serious improvement from 50 min for 5 k to 44min for 10k
I am sure there is more to come.

how did you get started if I may ask?

tunney

Oryx wrote: »

I have to say I find it deeply ironic that its you, tunney, that posted this thread. In the years Ive been posting here Ive often found you ascerbic and dismissive towards 'lesser' achievements. Over time I realised a) you were usually right in your opinion* and b) youre actually quite a helpful guy, but god, you can came across badly at times. You actually seem surprised when called out for it in this thread.

Agreed on the historical ascerbic and dismissive traits.

I don't see where I was called out for it in this thread? I certainly amn't surprised. I'm quite often a pr1ck.

nerraw1111

This is like one of the Facebook statuses: ‘To all the people talking behind my back, you know who you are. Karma is a bitch etc.” What’s the real reason behind the thread? Spit it out.

tunney

nerraw1111 wrote: »

This is like one of the Facebook statuses: ‘To all the people talking behind my back, you know who you are. Karma is a bitch etc.” What’s the real reason behind the thread? Spit it out.

Someone said something mean about me and I've been crying since Tuesday.

Rawhead

peter kern wrote: »

wow ,thats serious improvement from 50 min for 5 k to 44min for 10k
I am sure there is more to come.

how did you get started if I may ask?

My 10k stand alone time is actually 39:47. I gave up the smokes and as I mentioned was nearly 19 stone. I thought that if I didn't start doing something I would put on more weight off the smokes so I just started walking one evening, then running a small bit then really started enjoying it.

peter kern

Rawhead wrote: »

My 10k stand alone time is actually 39:47. I gave up the smokes and as I mentioned was nearly 19 stone. I thought that if I didn't start doing something I would put on more weight off the smokes so I just started walking one evening, then running a small bit then really started enjoying it.

fantastic !
on the other hand if your pb is sub 40, dave was right ;-0 44 is like walking then ;-) ;-0

Rawhead

While I have your attention Peter, I have my first HIM next weekend and was wondering what a good run would be considering my PB for a half marathon is 1:32?

peter kern

1.44. 48, 39

Kurt Godel

tunney wrote: »

I think it quite telling that everyone only commented on one side of my OP.

I'll comment on the other side- but before I do, cards on the table, I agree with Oryx, your OP is a bit rich, given your previous ascerbic comments on A/R/T performances (but you've always walked the walk, and are a great source of info round here).

Now for the other side- there's many threads on the /R/ part of the forum which undermine success- where "elitist" is used as a bad word, where the very notion of competition is derided, where "medals for getting off the couch" is considered to be a good idea. That's as damaging a mentality as is slagging the fatties running six-hour marathons. It shouldn't be considered that everyone has equal merit when it comes to competition- everyone (from the fastest to the slowest) should be using this forum to improve their times/abilities/distances. And that's done from a meritocracy, where slower guys learn from what worked or those who beat them them.

I don't see it on the athletics or tri threads on the forum, where generally everyone who tries their best is applauded or encouraged to try harder next time (and I think the running section used be more like this), but the running part has a large contingent of goodybag whingers who seem to think they have as much right to a place on the start line, because they paid the same entry fee as the lad who has trained much harder. More to the point, they seem to think their participation in an event has parity of esteem with someone else's (better) performance. That's not useful to anyone, except for ego massaging.

RandyMann

I'm just confused why Tunney gets his arse licked so much by some posters

MrCreosote

Kurt Godel wrote: »

That's as damaging a mentality as is slagging the fatties running six-hour marathons.

but the running part has a large contingent of goodybag whingers who seem to think they have as much right to a place on the start line, because they paid the same entry fee as the lad who has trained much harder.

That's rubbish! It's hardy damaging in any way- except maybe to the elitists' egos.

And those goodybag whingers HAVE the same right to be start line- for most events the only entry requirement is paying the entry fee. 'Harder' training has nothing to do with it.

Kurt Godel

MrCreosote wrote: »

That's rubbish! It's hardy damaging in any way- except maybe to the elitists' egos.

And those goodybag whingers HAVE the same right to be start line- for most events the only entry requirement is paying the entry fee. 'Harder' training has nothing to do with it.

Pay the entry fee, you've the right to toe the start. That's the mentality I'm talking about all right. For a start, they get in the way of their better's. But I doubt I'll spend much time trying to convince you otherwise, if that's your opinion.

menoscemo

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Pay the entry fee, you've the right to toe the start. That's the mentality I'm talking about all right. For a start, they get in the way of their better's. But I doubt I'll spend much time trying to convince you otherwise, if that's your opinion.

I don't disagree with you but I don't see a trend on the 'R' forum where this kind of reverse snobberry is prevalent.
Yes there have been some posters displaying this attitude but from what I have seen they have been shot down by the masses.

Do you have any specific examples of these 'anti-eiltist', 'goodybag whingers' attitude taking over?

mloc123

RandyMann wrote: »

I'm just confused why Tunney gets his arse licked so much by some posters

He's the elder statesman of the Triathlon forum these days.

Think of him as the John Giles of here, you might not always agree with his opinions but he is very knowledgeable and most people will always listen to what he has to say.

RandyMann

mloc123 wrote: »

He's the elder statesman of the Triathlon forum these days.

Think of him as the John Giles of here, you might not always agree with his opinions but he is very knowledgeable and most people will always listen to what he has to say.

Nah, arse licking is all it is, period.

mloc123

RandyMann wrote: »

Nah, arse licking is all it is, period.

Hah, fair enough

MrCreosote

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Pay the entry fee, you've the right to toe the start. That's the mentality I'm talking about all right. For a start, they get in the way of their better's. But I doubt I'll spend much time trying to convince you otherwise, if that's your opinion.

You're talking about getting in people's way. That's a totally different thing and I've seen nobody say that you should go right to the front regardless of your expected time. Quite the opposite. Although maybe you could point out a few place where it was said?

There are only two types of athletes- professionals and everybody else i.e. funrunners/hobbyists/weekend warriors. Call them what you want. If you're not getting paid for why you do, you very much in the second group. Might as well accept it.

peter kern

RandyMann wrote: »

Nah, arse licking is all it is, period.

thats how it works you get info and you say thanks
and off his 6000 post i am sure 5000 are good ones.

RandyMann

peter kern wrote: »

thats how it works you get info and you say thanks
and off his 6000 post i am sure 5000 are good ones.

Whatever works for you Peter...

peter kern

RandyMann wrote: »

Whatever works for you Peter...

i assume he dosnt get paid and his advices is better than tri magazines.

tunney

RandyMann wrote: »

I'm just confused why Tunney gets his arse licked so much by some posters

RandyMann wrote: »

Nah, arse licking is all it is, period.

I thought I felt a bit of a tickling sensation last night, I just thought it was the curry from tea, hadn't realised it was from my arse being licked.

Chartsengrafs

MrCreosote wrote: »

There are only two types of athletes- professionals and everybody else i.e. funrunners/hobbyists/weekend warriors. Call them what you want. If you're not getting paid for why you do, you very much in the second group. Might as well accept it.

That's a very convenient spectrum to use: professional vs not professional but is virtually useless in reality. Not even going to bother with examples to illustrate how non-sensical it is.

MrCreosote

Basster wrote: »

That's a very convenient spectrum to use: professional vs not professional but is virtually useless in reality. Not even going to bother with examples to illustrate how non-sensical it is.

Humour me with a few examples maybe?

I'm not sure why people get so heated up about it. You do something for money-you're a pro. You do it for enjoyment- you're one of the rest of us. The first placing age-grouper has more in common with the back of the pack competitors than with the pros.

Oryx

MrCreosote wrote: »

Humour me with a few examples maybe?

I'm not sure why people get so heated up about it. You do something for money-you're a pro. You do it for enjoyment- you're one of the rest of us. The first placing age-grouper has more in common with the back of the pack competitors than with the pros.

I disagree completely with this. The superstar in our club is doing the Ironman world championships this year. He is not a pro, but this is not just a hobby to him. It is a complete commitment, physically, financially and emotionally. He has NOTHING in common with a back of the pack finisher apart from they can both ride a bike. To argue that all non pros are the same shows how little you know about amateur sports and the effort the really good guys put in.

nerraw1111

The running forum is ridiculously helpful. There's always someone to answer the same questions. Some very patient posters.

ecoli

MrCreosote wrote: »

Humour me with a few examples maybe?

Every scholarship athlete in the NCAA (Galen Rupp, Bernard Lagat and Cam Levins are just a few examples who came through over the last few years). Under the rules none of these athletes are able to receive any money from sponsors/prize money from races.

Mark Kenneally is another example professionally he is a physio despite being an Olympian. Ailish McSweeney was another example of someone who was working to support herself and only in recent times did she quit her job to dedicate herself to her running (though was not funded as a result)

duffyshuffle

RandyMann wrote: »

Whatever works for you Peter...

I don't think i've read a post by Tunney that somewhere in its meaning, explicit or not, he isn't actually trying to help the poster. Some people only post wanting to hear the answer that they were hoping for, Tunney posts up the answer to the question that he thinks is right. This seems to rub people the wrong way.

No arse licking, just an appreciation for the knowledge and clear no-nonsense explanations Tunney provides.

nerraw1111

duffyshuffle wrote: »

I don't think i've read a post by Tunney that somewhere in its meaning, explicit or not, he isn't actually trying to help the poster. Some people only post wanting to hear the answer that they were hoping for, Tunney posts up the answer to the question that he thinks is right. This seems to rub people the wrong way.

No arse licking, just an appreciation for the knowledge and clear no-nonsense explanations Tunney provides.

Ah come on. Have you been given rose tinted tunney spectacles? You seriously never seen a post by Tunney where he wasn't trying to help someone? He's slagged off many a poster/time/target without offering any help. Sure that was his appeal. The new tunney, boo urns.

bryangiggsy

peter kern wrote: »

RandyMann wrote: »

Nah, arse licking is all it is, period.

thats how it works you get info and you say thanks
and off his 6000 post i am sure 5000 are good ones.

Jeez not u as well Peter

duffyshuffle

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Ah come on. Have you been given rose tinted tunney spectacles? You seriously never seen a post by Tunney where he wasn't trying to help someone? He's slagged off many a poster/time/target without offering any help. Sure that was his appeal. The new tunney, boo urns.

He's given his opinion on what's fast and what's plodding in his eyes, People may have seen that as slagging, it's his opinion. I think he's a realist that believes in smart/hard work and big returns where a lot of posters that post don't want to know how to get better, they just want a pat on the back and on your way.

My mate in work, in response to anyone whining or giving out about how other people are sh1t or lazy, says "sure I think we're all doing a great job" and I think that's what lots of people want to hear and want to believe even though he's always saying it in jest.

MrCreosote

Oryx wrote: »

I disagree completely with this. The superstar in our club is doing the Ironman world championships this year. He is not a pro, but this is not just a hobby to him. It is a complete commitment, physically, financially and emotionally. He has NOTHING in common with a back of the pack finisher apart from they can both ride a bike. To argue that all non pros are the same shows how little you know about amateur sports and the effort the really good guys put in.

Unless he's living on thin air, or getting funded by somebody else to do triathlon, then it is very much a hobby. An all-consuming hobby maybe, but a hobby nonetheless.

By the way I never said all non pros were the same, I said they had more in common than pros and nonpros.

ecoli wrote: »

Every scholarship athlete in the NCAA (Galen Rupp, Bernard Lagat and Cam Levins are just a few examples who came through over the last few years). Under the rules none of these athletes are able to receive any money from sponsors/prize money from races.

I doubt they were working down the local chippers to make ends meet. They got paid to run (scholarship)- that makes them professional.

Clearlier

MrCreosote wrote: »

Unless he's living on thin air, or getting funded by somebody else to do triathlon, then it is very much a hobby. An all-consuming hobby maybe, but a hobby nonetheless.

By the way I never said all non pros were the same, I said they had more in common than pros and nonpros.



I doubt they were working down the local chippers to make ends meet. They got paid to run (scholarship)- that makes them professional.

Mr C - While I admire your persistence I think that you're on a hiding to nothing on this one. Just thinking of myself. The athlete I was when I turned up to run a 10 mile race about 5 years ago and hit the wall after 5 miles (I'm not kidding) bears very little resemblance to the athlete I was last October (and not just because I've gone bald in the mean time!).

There's a whole spectrum of athlete in a race and there isn't any kind of a gap between pro's and non pro's. There's quite a few people out there who pick up a little bit of sponsorship and a bit of prize money who also work full time jobs.

By the way I think that your original point - that everybody who pays the entry fee has the right to start - is valid although I think that it misunderstood what Kurt was trying to say which I took to be an attempt to knock the idea that participation is all that counts. It may be all that matters for some runners but there are plenty of people out there who are aiming to be as good as they can be.

I'll happily offer advice to most anyone who wants it but I'm much more interested in following the progress of someone who's aiming to be the best that they can be no matter what level they're at. I'm also much more interested in the advice of the latter group although the former shouldn't be ignored.

P.S. I think that Tunney's new log may provide some insight into the origins of this thread. I've never followed a tri's log before but I think I might make this my first.