When is Running Racing?

One long lasting conversation any good distance runner has centers around the point of the ultimate distance to race. In high school most runners agree that the 800 meter race is pretty much it due to the need for intense speed mixed with duration. In college it seemed most opted for the 3000 meter steeple chase due to it's mixture of speed, distance, and now jumps too. Personally I always thought it was funny that men went from the 5k to the 8k/10k in the college jump - when asking why, the best response I could get was, "The 5k is just a sprint now." What a mind altering comment!

So now that we are in the real world of running where all runners congregate, Olympians and first time runners alike, what constitutes as the ultimate race? Is there a distance that better tests a humans abilities than another? Is there a distance where running ceases to be running and becomes fast hiking? Is there a certain amount of energy/effort that must be exerted for a run to become a race? If we take the later approach I often wonder if I've raced since college...

Let's pause first on this - transitioning from a run to a race. A good example is your average runner out there running. Do they understand what it means to push their body and race? Do I? Do you? Most of us do not. Look to http://www.waddle-on.com/ for a great website that understands this principle to the "t" and goes the opposite direction. Why run hard and push yourself and rob yourself of the joy from experiencing the run? Take your time and enjoy yourself. It is true that after some runs my body seems to be telling me I'm insane for pushing myself past a certain limit. Might I have enjoyed the run better if I had simply slowed down...

And then there is the distance question. Just because I line up with other guys next to me and agree to compete over a certain distance, does it count as a race (in the running sense)? Or after a certain point does it become something else - an intense adventure run or perseverance of the mind race rather than a running race? Frank Shorter has said about the marathon (paraphrase) that it is the ultimate distance to perceive a humans ability to push himself/herself - it's the limit to which someone can push themselves to race over a given distance. Of course this does not mean that a further distance is not more difficult than the marathon, or even maybe more prestigious and amazing, but rather is simply seeking to make a distinguishable difference between racing and running hard for a long distance. This website looked like it had some good stuff on ultra running: http://www.ultrarunning.com/

It may seem like splitting hairs to ask such questions but this is what runners do when they have nothing else to do. It's sort of like asking the question if there is a difference between a person that finishes any marathon and a person who finishes the Boston marathon. Both have done a great thing that should be respected and congratulations are in order. Saying nothing less about the first person, is there something more that can be said for the second? In the same way, I can marvel at the guy that runs all the way across the nation and holds the record for doing so, but perhaps in my mind he still has not achieved the sort of status that Ryan Hall or Frank Shorter or Alberto Salazar or Bill Rodgers have in their marathons.

In short, I'd like to end this post with one statement: After running a few marathons I understand Frank Shorter to have said - anything shorter than the marathon leaves the body untested to it's ability - anything farther than the marathon, though challenging for certain, fails to hold up the standard of pushing one's own body at a race pace.

Who knows, maybe comparing first time runners to the Olympian is just too difficult - maybe comparing an ultra runner to a guy racing a marathon might be too much like comparing a triathlete to a runner - they're just different animals altogether. Who knows - just throwing questions out there.