Science! wrote:
east africans don't do it, if that's what you mean.
Even if they added a lot of money to ultras/trail events to attract the East Africans, I'm not convinced they would dominate. These events depend a lot on fueling and hydration, rather than raw speed. The East Africans are so thin/light to begin with, it seems like they would completely crumble. Science and knowledge (hence your user name) could potentially trump genetics.
Mount Marathon in Seward, AK is a pretty big deal up here in alaska. Kikkan Randall an olympic xc skier won it for the women last year. she ran a 17:05 in a local 5k as well.
The East Africans dominate in the marathon where fueling is vital. Why couldn't they learn to adjust? And what do you mean exactly by "they would completely crumble" as a result of being light and thin? Wouldn't being light and thin be a huge advantage in a race where fueling is vital because the amount of fuel needed depends on efficiency?
Ultras are competitive because people are competing for the win regardless how fast they are. Sometimes these people are sub 2:20 marathoners, sometimes they are 3:00 marathoners. Why such insecurity about ultras? If you don't like them don't run them...pretty simple. If you don't like their blogs, don't read them. Pretty simple.
I love how every poster here pretends a guy like Max King is beneath them because he only runs a 2:15 marathon. 98% of people on this board would get owned at any local ultra, but we'll never know because 98% will hide behind their insecurities and never try one to find out for themselves.
And for the guy who lives in a big ultra community and likes to call people names...you're a swell guy. One of your issues with ultra runners is that they like to swear, yet you curse multiple times in your post. I'm not even an ultra runner and you guys piss me off. No wonder this site is known as the cesspool of Internet message boards. I won't leave though, it's too much fun telling you guys what little douchebags you are.
AK5k wrote:
Mount Marathon in Seward, AK is a pretty big deal up here in alaska. Kikkan Randall an olympic xc skier won it for the women last year. she ran a 17:05 in a local 5k as well.
That race really doesn't attract much top talent, especially from outside south central Alaska. That's sort of the exciting thing about that race, almost any talented local person can kick butt there if they put in the work (or if you're Kikkan, take a small break from ski training).
mountain running is very competitive in europe, for example:
jonathan wyatt, new zealand, 27.36 for the 10,000m and 7 x world mountain running champion
wilson chemweno, commonwealth mountain running champion in 2009, 7.49 3000m and 13.45 5000m
and a bit of trivia;
steve vernon won the english national xc in 2011 ahead of athletes such as andy vernon (27.56 10,000m and 13.23 5000m) and tom lancashire (3.33 1500m) but could only manage 13th in the european mountain running championships in the same year
....
maybe not in the states, but over in europe mountain running (and fell running here in the uk) is extremely hard to excel at
mountain running is very competitive in europe, for example:
jonathan wyatt, new zealand, 27.36 for the 10,000m and 7 x world mountain running champion
wilson chemweno, commonwealth mountain running champion in 2009, 7.49 3000m and 13.45 5000m
and a bit of trivia;
steve vernon won the english national xc in 2011 ahead of athletes such as andy vernon (27.56 10,000m and 13.23 5000m) and tom lancashire (3.33 1500m) but could only manage 13th in the european mountain running championships in the same year
....
maybe not in the states, but over in europe mountain running (and fell running here in the uk) is extremely hard to excel at
I think you are dead wrong. I listen to this local ultra guy talk like he is world class in ultras, meanwhile getting beat by 12 year old daughter for 10k.
chfgjv wrote:
That depends on what is meant by "couldn't handle traditional events". Does it mean they couldn't handle the rigorous track/marathon training? For the top ultra guys that is mostly a no. If it means they couldn't be competitive on that level, then I think you're getting at something, and that something is not necessarily derogatory in the usual way it is thrown around here. There are a lot of ultra guys who could run low 2:20s right now and some who could break that. But they aren't going to be going to the Olympics, WCs, winning US championships, etc. They might be able to if they dedicated themselves to it over a long time, but that's just not what they want to do. Now go to distances like the 50 miler, 100k, 100 mile, there's a lot more of an opportunity for these guys to compete at an international level, break records, represent their country, earn money, etc. So if I'm a guy out of college who enjoys competing at long distances and I've run say 2:29, I could choose to chip away for years with almost zero financial support and maybe run in the high 2:10s, win some smaller races, maybe qualify for and run in the Olympic trials. Or I could take my dedication to a sport that has a rapidly growing level of young talent, growing exposure, and growing financial support. On top of that, a high 2:20s guy like me has a real shot at representing my country on the international level and breaking records at big events. So yes, a lot of the top ultra guys couldn't handle the competition of the shorter distances But in the past where those guys would chip away for modest PRs or quit altogether, more guys are now continuing their running on the trails where they are breaking records and advancing a long ignored aspect of our sport.
A lot of people equate today's top ultra runner with those of 15, 20 years ago who in a lot of cases were just fast hikers. That couldn't be more wrong. If you want to see a good representation of today's trail runner, look at Max King. Here's a guy who goes and competes on the trails but still stays in touch with road speed and could spank 99% of the guys who bash trail runners.
Perfect response. + a million.
Yep it is what it is. wrote:
I live in an ultrarunning happy town. I can tell you these things to be true, in general:
- they swear as though to seem cool. (immature)
- they like trendy shit. They were all over the Vibrams. (sheep)
- they carry shit like water bottles on most of their short runs (develop terrible form).
Swearing is immature. You're right! And you saying "to be true, in general" is a great statement to your intelligence.
true or maybe a little false wrote:
I think you are dead wrong. I listen to this local ultra guy talk like he is world class in ultras, meanwhile getting beat by 12 year old daughter for 10k.
Yeah and I listen to a guy at work who ran a 45 min 10 Km in one of those mega-waddler events and get attention from the fat-butts like he was friggin' Lagat.
Hyperbole is not limited to those in ultras. And, unlike the hyperbolists in the shorter events, 50, 62, 100 or more miles is EFFORT no matter how you cut it.
I recall Matt Carpenter showboating himself quite a bit when I was in college decades ago. Did he ever really run a fast marathon? I seem to recall him making a big stink about his vo2 max and something else. I also remember him running a marathon trial around 2:30 (?) and had some lame excuse and ran back into the mountains again.
Those who can't accept hobby jogging status go longer and/or add 2 more events.
hks321 wrote:
I recall Matt Carpenter showboating himself quite a bit when I was in college decades ago. Did he ever really run a fast marathon? I seem to recall him making a big stink about his vo2 max and something else. I also remember him running a marathon trial around 2:30 (?) and had some lame excuse and ran back into the mountains again.
His pb was 2:18 or 2:19 and he ran in the 1992 U.S. trials.
Okay, I'll bite. So I've only done one trail ultra (Chuckanut 50k), but it was enough to let me see how different this type of running is compared to a road marathon. It's a totally different ballgame - and while it does come down to some level of talent/aerobic fitness there are some pretty specific skills (in nutrition, not falling and breaking yourself on rough trails, staying mentally in it for hours on end, etc..) that come into play. I used to laugh at the idea that people would mention walking or "power hiking" up a hill during a race...but there I was about 21 miles into Chuckanut walking up Chinscraper hill, falling on rocks and climbing on all fours at times. On the most technical trail section, about 6-8 miles in the middle of the race, I thought I was going fast since I was breathing as hard as I would running 5:20 pace on the roads - it ends up that Max King and I averaged 8:20 pace on that section...thats how rough the trail was...not like road racing or cross country at all- and I grew up running on trails and I think Max did as well (I mean, we're from rural Oregon- there's nothing else to do out here!). Of course Max is way faster, more athletic and has actually proven his worth at real ultra distances as well as on the road and track.
Finally, the pain was pretty real and brutal at 50k - much like a marathon when you are hitting the wall. I can't imagine what kinds of bad things can happen to you when you have to go 50 or 100 miles.
This is natural running - pure and simple. I hate Vibrams, but I'll embrace running on soft natural surfaces, up and down hills, with minimal footwear...that makes sense and it's a lot more scenic and fun.
-Tier D road marathoner