- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
There has always been competition, but we have perverted its purpose. Mr. McClelland demonstrates it with precision. Competition originated not to have the pleasure of vanquishing another, the result of which is a winner and a loser, The purpose of competing was to raise the level of performance by joining together to (in this case) run with others of like ability. Such competitors wanted the other to do well, because it gave each the opportunity to excel.
A vestige of this spirit remains occasionally in a team scrimmage or friendly playground race, but is unrecognizable in the the ritual lines of team players passing each other with a disinterested handshake. This empty symbol is what we have left to remind us of what real competition was. Oh, and the "Olympic Games," called so to designate the fun and lighthearted way people once tested their mettle without losing or causing another to lose.
Several people here have posited that the decline of marathon speeds has to do with the paltry prizes. Shame on anyone who runs for money or bragging rights. That's not competition and it's not running. It is greed, ego gratification and showing off. The slow runners at the back are running primarily for running, which could be called a more pure form.
I once ran a marathon, twenty years ago. The race itself was awful because as a greenhorn I wasted energy through my own excitement, waving and calling out to well wishers while I misspent my limited resources.
I was tired by mile eleven, which was a great disappointment. Three weeks prior, I had run 27 miles, alone, without stopping. Eventually I was not just fatigued beyond comprehension; I was hungry, too. Even so, I ran all but maybe one mile. I sped slowly across the finish line with a transporting kind of joy.
It took me five hours and seven minutes.
In all that time I had not seen (nor interfered with the pace of) one elite runner. I admire them and I don't mind that I am not one of them. I have other talents which I doubt they would begrudge me. In any case, I don't care. Comparisons are useless at furthering anyone's cause. To make a point, I will make such a comparison here: I ran for five freaking hours. The front runners ran for_______ (fill in the blank). Guess what. I ran for longer than they did. I probably felt worse than they did, for more miles-and-hours. If they gave out prizes for that, I might get one. I don't want one. In the spirit of real competition, I was satisfied to raise my level of performance. No, not pace, but sheer endurance and guts. And, so what? I am not deluded it makes any difference to anyone else but me.
We at the back of the pack don't need prizes, or to be noticed or lauded. We run such a race for the experience of doing it, for besting our own time or distance, for charity (awful, isn't it?), to stretch our own limits, mental and emotional as well as physical. How stingey and undemocratic, never mind unsportsmanlike, to castigate us -- benign as we are -- so that he can – what – feel better about himself? Get punlished? It's lame and I wish for him a kinder heart.
I'm kind of glad to have got a bad knee and a fat ass; I needn't worry about bumping into Mr. McClelland.
