Hacker News Reader

I did ponder this for a while and from the possible answers I've got, I believe the best one is that rich people tend to love sports that you can win at without having to compete against anyone.

I think there are two kinds of sports, ones that require you to compete against somebody else to win and ones that allow you to win by simply pushing your limits. You can't win a game of soccer by playing alone, this is the nature of the sport, but you can win a 10k run by simply beating your previous best.

This being said, if you lack the talent or previously acquired skills to be good at a direct competition sport, your best bet for winning, as per above definition, is to pick up an endurance sport.

As weight lifting goes, I know plenty of rich people that do that. Yet they don't tend to do it until they get huge, they do it to be a bit more in shape. Basically, they set their own rule for what winning means and they are crushing it.

> but you can win a 10k run by simply beating your previous best.

I've never heard somebody refer to this as "winning". Beating a PR, sure, but not winning. At least in the triathlon scene, that I'm most familiar with, in order to "win" you have to beat other people.

Well, if you finish, you beat all the people that didn't

Yup! But beating some people isn't what people calling winning. Sometimes I've heard people say they won their age bracket, but even that's always qualified by the scope of their winning and still suggesting that they were at the top of the reduced scope.

Although historically golf was a very popular sport among wealthier people. Which is or can be competitive. Apparently golf has declined a lot as a sport to the point where a fair number of golf courses have closed. And the people who bought houses on those courses are suing.

More anecdotally while I’m sure there are people in tech who golf, it’s pretty much invisible from my perspective—may still see it in sales here and there-/and fun runs (or yoga) are what you see as active conference activities. I could name tons of people who run among my tech contacts. I couldn’t name one who I know golfs.

I think golf is a sport where you can compete against yourself. Anecdotally, my 2 friends that play golf are middle lower class, by no means wealthy.

Obviously, any sport can be played against opponents, but some don't have to. And I believe most wealthy people have to compete against human opponents most of the time and are inclined to pick "easier" to win sports when it comes to doing it for fun.

> rich people tend to love sports that you can win at without having to compete against anyone.

That would explain all the rich skateboarders then :-)

Running requires a safe neighborhood. I've lived in enough bad neighborhoods where my wife would never feel safe running in. When we did move to a better neighborhood and saw runners, my wife was surprised. Many poor people do not live in places conducive to running.

That's such a "US only" statement... along most of Europe from Russia to Spain and from Ireland to southern Greece you can run safely almost anywhere as long as you wear mostly cheap-looking clothes (eg. no $100+ shoes, no iphone on arm-band, no apple watch or rolex, no over-colorful clothes that could be mistaken for pro training gear etc.)... As a woman there would be areas to avoid, but by picking to run through more crowded places and at more daily times it can also be safe enough.

I'd bet the same would apply to most US too if you wouldn't purpusefully dress like a "rich runner"... (or go the other extreme and end up looking like a home robber on the run form the police :P).

Running has much lower safety requirements than walking. Runners are generally not compelling robbery targets because they're harder to stop and they carry fewer valuables.

Women running are at risk for sexual assault, but this is less correlated with "bad neighborhoods".

They are apparently great kidnapping targets, though, after reading this article.

> Running requires a safe neighborhood.

Or access to a treadmill.

;-)

> Running requires a safe neighborhood.

I (a man) feel uncomfortable walking, let alone running, in any neighborhood, safe or not. A man walking/running in a more upper-middle class neighborhood (or manicured gated community) always attracts attention and someone's bound to call the cops on you "just to be on the safe side" :) Safer to whiz by in your car and lift weights in your garage.

Something's wrong with a society if that is the case. You can't imagine how much this statement shocks me. Not doubting it in any way, just a considerable shock.

This is definitely true. You do not want to be poor and male and running at night when the police come by, or poor and female and running in a truly bad neighborhood. I've spent time in the back of a police cruiser because they thought I was breaking into cars when they saw me jogging at night.

I was interviewed by police because they thought I was trying to steal my own car, as stupid as that may seem, and the only reason for that was because I was wearing a hood at night in a rich neighborhood.

Yeah, same here. I wonder if that's a byproduct of american society where walking anywhere is seen as "weird"?

Like, I can't even fathom a situation where I would be worried about walking somewhere just in case someone calls the police on me. That's crazy.

No. It's a byproduct of a 24hr news cycle and a bunch of rich people who have never actually lived in a rough neighborhood who get spooked at every little thing thinking it might be crime.

What country is that ? As a French person, this is shocking - I can't imagine living in such place.

As long as you're wearing obvious running clothes, this is not an issue anywhere I've been.

Yeah, as someone who has run late at night in cities and towns all over the US, this definitely doesn’t happen in my experience.

I’ve been stopped/checked out by police while walking with friends late at night in small towns, but running (in running clothes) seems to put one beyond suspicion.

I've run in affluent neighborhoods in at least a dozen US cities, walked in too many to bother counting. This isn't something I've experienced anywhere.

I don’t think this is actually true.

Anddddd I don’t want to live in the US even if they do make twice as much money.

I think you have to understand that posts like this reflect the attitude of Americans much more than they reflect the USA itself (I grew up in the UK but live in the USA).

More concretely: are there places in big cities in the USA where you should be very cautious walking around at night? Absolutely. But the exact same thing applies in London and Manchester too. Robbery is an issue there too.

To some extent, people in the USA just make a bigger deal out of it. You'll also find that when Americans discuss travel abroad they're also very worried about safety. IMO it's a cultural mentality more than the specific realities of specific places.

One factor that seems to be under-represented in the comments so far is that less affluent people don't have time to run.

As you probably know, endurance running requires a significant time commitment. Anyone training for a marathon needs to run several hours a week. I suspect that affluent people have more leisure time, and that it can be more conveniently arranged to match a runner's schedule.

It also requires a not-insignificant investment in nutrition. Less affluent people in the US already have trouble eating healthy food--training for a marathon could increase the required food intake by about 30%, which would have a meaningful impact on household budgets.

Finally, blue-collar workers are less likely to have pent-up physical energy. It's likely that they've already spent all day on their feet, and would rather invest their leisure time in a less physically demanding activity. White-collar workers have been sitting in a chair all day, and the ones who don't get into endurance sports (or similar) are likely to become obese.

Obviously, all of the above is based purely on wild conjecture, but it doesn't seem implausible.

It's almost 100% cultural. Distance running is the national obsession of Kenya and Ethiopia, two countries not renowned for their economic prosperity. Here in the UK, distance running is strongly associated with the north-east, an area that has always been strongly working class and has been devastated by post-industrial decline. In much of continental Europe, cycling has a similar image to boxing as a tough sport for working-class men to lift themselves out of poverty.

Running is damned near the cheapest sport you can choose to pursue. You need trainers, a road and plenty of carbs. If you can't afford to run, you probably can't afford to do much of anything. American culture has turned it into a bourgeois pursuit, but that's absolutely not the case in many other countries.

Agree that it's largely cultural, but not sure about cause/effect. I suspect that American culture leaves less uninterrupted chunks of time for lower middle-class and below to go running. Anecdotally I get the sense that Kenyan culture gives ~everyone uninterrupted chunks of time to go running.

> Running seems like it should be the most affordable sport, but in America, at least, runners tend to be affluent. Perhaps wealthy areas are more hospitable to running, but I don't think that explains much.

Running is the most affordable sport. It requires nothing. So you're correct that pro-running effects in wealthy areas can't explain why runners are affluent; you have to explain it by anti-running effects among poorer people. (Such as "why would I do that?")

To the ancient Greeks, racing was the most prestigious of all sporting events, because it was felt to be the most traditional. If that were still true for us, poor people would probably run a lot more than they do.

Non competitive jogging is something anyone can do for cheap.

The article is about competitive endurance running specifically. Competitive running requires quite a lot of time for training and then regeneration. It is pretty hard on body - meaning time needed for regeneration and healing injuries and also it requires proper food. Meaning, if you work night shifts or lift weight in work you have disadvantage. We can come destroyed into office and take it easy for a day if I trained too much. People who actually compete in those marathons often get sick right after race, which is something a rich person cares about less then poor one.

Add to it network effect and it becomes pretty clear why rich would do it more then poor.

Team ball sports are perceived as a "way out" in low income areas. They've heard stories about someone from the area who made it to the pros. Whereas only a tiny number of athletes make a living from running, and none of them are remotely as well paid or famous as the NBA or NFL stars.

It’s such a horrible thing to emphasize to young people that they can ‘get out’ by being good at a ball sport. I saw it way too frequently growing up where peers were pressed in sports so hard by parents or coaches and education was left as a checkbox. Obviously they didn’t get their ticket out and left high school without a complete education. Such a waste.

> I remember reading an article in the New Yorker about a retreat where people would go to participate in extended fasts. It struck me you need to come from abundance for the idea of recreational starvation to be appealing, and I think something similar could be said for sports like running, where punishment and self-denial are nearly an aim in themselves.

This reminds me of camping which seems to be primarily a first world/affluent pursuit, at least imho.

>>This reminds me of camping which seems to be primarily a first world/affluent pursuit, at least imho.

Really? I see it as the exact opposite based on my experience - people go camping because it's the far cheaper alternative than staying at a hotel. You can get a tent pitch for close to nothing, hand-me-down family tent and suddently staying for 2 weeks with your family on a Croatian coast doesn't seem impossible anymore.

Like, I always said that if I had the money I'd just stay at a hotel, camping is something you do if you're poor. Obviously nowadays that notion has changed for me seeing as you can spend a lot of money on camping equipment(and people still do), but at the end of the day, your super fancy 1000 euro tent is still standing on a 3 euro/day pitch next to a family that brought 3 kids in their 1992 VW Passat and they are holidaying for close to nothing next to you - not that there is anything wrong with that, that's how my childhood holidays looked like.

I could be incorrect but I don't think camping is popular with people who live in the 3rd world. That's what I was trying to allude to here, hence my inclusion of the first world.

Was communist-era Poland considered 3rd world? Because I'm pretty sure it was, and camping was the most popular mode of staying away from home.

It wasn't always this way / this may be culturally dependent. In the UK at least there used to be a big working class connection to outdoor walking (Kinder Scout trespass!) and camping, as it was the cheapest form of holiday. I think this may have gone away with the advent of cheap flights to cheaper drinking locations.

I suppose it depends on what version of camping you’re looking at. Backpacking in the wilderness seems to draw a crowd of either students or middle class people. However, pull into a state park in Michigan and you’ll see the whole range of socio-economic groups. Additionally, in this style of ‘camping’ the wealthier people actually show up with a whole house on wheels so I don’t even know how you call it camping.

> upper middle class Americans favor endurance sports as a way to demonstrate "moral character, self-control, and self-development, rather than physical dominance."

As an upper middle class runner, I can definitely agree with that statement. At times, I feel like my habits of running give me a little bit of an edge over my peers at some level.

I disagree. I think the rich like endurance sports because they're safe. My father was a triathlete. He could push himself to his heart's content and never worry about taking a kick to the temple.

Another HUGE factor is age. Rich people tend to be older. Older people can do endurance much easier than say, combat sports.

The safety aspect is... well, in my experience, the rich like dangerous sports. Think skiing, horse riding/polo, sailing/yachting. The rules of boxing are named after an aristocrat. They're all expensive, they're all fun, and they can all kill you without too much trouble. For more fun like this, see the Dangerous Sports Club: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2004/02/oxford-university-d...

the rich like endurance sports because they're safe

What a peculiar thing to say. You can get caught in a rip tide swimming in the sea, collapse from heat exhaustion while running, any number of things.

never worry about taking a kick to the temple

In MMA which I assume you are referencing the ref can stop the fight instantly and there’s always a fully equipped hospital a short drive away. It’s massively safer than an ultramarathon or a full triathlon and that’s even before you get to the self-navigating and self-supporting stuff.

Very interesting article. I'm upper middle class and really like strength training, but not in a bodybuilding kind of way. I don't want to get big, I want to get/keep reasonably muscular, for the reasons stated in the article : the older you get, the more muscle you tend to lose for natural reasons.

For that goal, I like calisthenics. Push ups, pull ups, bodyweight squats, planks, that kind of stuff. It's extremely cheap (only needs a pullup bar) and can be done anywhere, even when traveling. I can't think of a cheaper sport, I don't even need a pair of trainers.

That's the trend. Probably will see "why do rich people love strength/fitness sports" in 20 years. Certainly crossfit doesn't include many people on the dole.