Yet another random question that I was curious about. Obviously everyone here is either physically fit or well on their way, but do you consider yourself to be an athlete? What do you consider an athlete to be?
Parents
Former Member
I think there's a difference between going to the gym a lot and seriously training / competing in a sport. It's one thing to swim laps or to run for pleasure and another to swim in a meet or run a marathon. Both of the later activities take training, a focus on certain dietary things, and often extra activities like strength training.
Does that mean those people who train at the level of a competitive swimmer or runner or cyclist and choose not to compete are not athletes? No, I don't think that's the case. I think the defining criteria for the athlete is someone who can compete at some level (masters, college, professional, olympic, whatever you call marathon level). Whether or not they chose to is up to them.
This is an odd comment. Obviously, most people "can" compete, even if they are just going to the gym or swimming laps. Does the fact that you "can" compete make you an athlete? Or is there an athlete meritocracy? I work out pretty seriously and don't compete much due to time constraints. I consider myself an athlete. I think Donna's definition is pretty good.
It seems like some people never compete, some only compete at big meets or in good pools, and some only go to Nationals. What is the rationale for that? Is it a time issue or preference issue?
I think there's a difference between going to the gym a lot and seriously training / competing in a sport. It's one thing to swim laps or to run for pleasure and another to swim in a meet or run a marathon. Both of the later activities take training, a focus on certain dietary things, and often extra activities like strength training.
Does that mean those people who train at the level of a competitive swimmer or runner or cyclist and choose not to compete are not athletes? No, I don't think that's the case. I think the defining criteria for the athlete is someone who can compete at some level (masters, college, professional, olympic, whatever you call marathon level). Whether or not they chose to is up to them.
This is an odd comment. Obviously, most people "can" compete, even if they are just going to the gym or swimming laps. Does the fact that you "can" compete make you an athlete? Or is there an athlete meritocracy? I work out pretty seriously and don't compete much due to time constraints. I consider myself an athlete. I think Donna's definition is pretty good.
It seems like some people never compete, some only compete at big meets or in good pools, and some only go to Nationals. What is the rationale for that? Is it a time issue or preference issue?
