Is Ultrarunning still a joke?

The only way Ultra's can gain respect is by instituting a beer every other mile rule. 50 beers and a hundred miles would be impressive.

Might even get a real athlete like Pete Magill to run.

Aquafina wrote:

still a joke, and a hiding place for those not interested in even trying to run a fast marathon.

I can think of at least 3 trials qualifiers off the top of my head that have run ultras: King, Cox, and Wardian. Any others?

Chris Lundstrom has been dabbling in ultras for quite awhile now.

Ultras are not a good use of time. In a marathon you can be done in 2:30 and head on back home to spend time with the kids and fam.

With ultras its all about you. You need a crew. You need many aid stations. You need a ton of logistical support. If running is a selfish endeavor - ultrajogging rates at the very top of narcissism.

Those criticizing/trolling about ultras clearly haven't tried to run them. Yeah, you can't pull off 5 minute miles over 50 miles, but 6:xx are doable, and even hitting 7:xx is highly respectable. It's a different class of endurance, and takes huge amounts of training and strategy to do well in the more competitive races. There are huge amounts of sorry sods who put in no effort towards winning - just finishing, but those exist in far greater numbers amongst marathoners. They should be afforded little respect, and it should make beating them in a race all the more delicious.

At some point you change the nature of the foot race into something else. You tilt the scale farther and farther away from speed and make it into a purely endurance/survival contest. Your ability to run well doesnt really factor in as much as your ability to just survive the ordeal.

The marathon, as long and as grueling as it is, has more in common with a mile race than it does with a 100 mile trail run.

qwert wrote:

sciencetist wrote:

If you're interested in speed, sign up for a 400 meter dash. If you're interested in speed, distance and a true test of endurance, sign up for an ultra.

No...just no.

Maybe you could call the Marathon a test of speed and distance and edurance, but an ultra? I respect their dedication and endurance, but they without a doubt lack speed.

Without a doubt you are wrong. Yiannis Kouros was a 3:4x 1500m runner

Say it like it is wrote:

Ultras are not a good use of time. In a marathon you can be done in 2:30 and head on back home to spend time with the kids and fam.

Wow. In 2011 I've raced everything from mile track races to a 50 miler and did pretty well in all of them, so I don't think that any sort of race is intrinsically better than any other (All-though I'm sure that the best track and road runners are much more talented than the best ultra guys and will be as long as the prize money is much better for the shorter races.)

However, the post quoted above is ridiculous. What's the minimum time a week needed to train for a 2:30 marathon for even a very talented runner? Hours and hours and hours plus a lot of post-training exhaustion. The actual time spent racing is just a tiny percentage of total running time unless you are doing 50+ milers once or twice a month.

Not sure of any 2.05 marathon runners stepping up to ultras but an ultra stepping down to run a 2.10

http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=JPN/athcode=50037/index.html

the clarifier wrote:

Your assignment:

Run the damn thing and come back and tell us if it is a joke.

^This.

As someone who's run 100 miles in well less than 24 hours, even I wouldn't call an ultra a speed event. But, for some perspective:

100 Meter WR = 23 mph

Marathon WR = 12 mph

100 Mile WR = 8.7 mph

On an absolute basis, the speed of an Ultra and the marathon are a whole lot more comparable than either of them with a sprint.

........ wrote:

I am thinking about signing up for a 50 mile race but do not want waste my time if everyone that I race against are 4 hours marathoners that run long because they can't run fast.

Depends on where you run it brother. You can find ultramarathons in this country where you will get your ass kicked.

Go run one and win it in an awesome time and then come back and tell us how good you are. It's a LOT harder to run 50 miles fast than it is a marathon.

Should add that others at the top of the ultra pile are 2:17 marathoners, etc. See Wardian for another example.

VelociraptorOstrich wrote:

Should add that others at the top of the ultra pile are 2:17 marathoners, etc. See Wardian for another example.

I'm a crappy runner but I've wondered if being a 215 marathoner would be even worse. You are just SOOOOOOO close to being a true elite but on a global scale you're about as likely to win a major marathon as I am.

Say it like it is wrote:

Ultras are not a good use of time. In a marathon you can be done in 2:30 and head on back home to spend time with the kids and fam.

With ultras its all about you. You need a crew. You need many aid stations. You need a ton of logistical support. If running is a selfish endeavor - ultrajogging rates at the very top of narcissism.

Need, need, need...I've run many ultras and a few 100's, never needed a crew or pacer. 5k's have aid stations, why wouldn't an ultra?

I think the point is that when a decent 10k/marathon guy tries an ultra, he often wins (by a LOT). But well known ultra-runners routinely get waxed by good weekend warriors at the local 10k.

Very average runners can finish top 10 in most ultras, but many top-10 ultra finishers can't compete at any conventional distance.

lurker wrote:

I think the point is that when a decent 10k/marathon guy tries an ultra, he often wins (by a LOT). But well known ultra-runners routinely get waxed by good weekend warriors at the local 10k.

Very average runners can finish top 10 in most ultras, but many top-10 ultra finishers can't compete at any conventional distance.

I don't think your first statement happens as often as you think and when it does it is often at a less competitive ultra.

Your second statement is somewhat skewed by the sheer numbers. There is only a tiny fraction as many ultra runners as conventional distance runners. Top ten in a 200 person ultra should be compared to top 100 in a 1000 finisher conventional 10k/marathon.

Perhaps even more important is what are your definitions of decent and average? By LRC standards 33/2:30 might be considered decent despite the fact that those times can only be achieved by maybe 5% of the population

tagal wrote:

Not sure of any 2.05 marathon runners stepping up to ultras but an ultra stepping down to run a 2.10

http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=JPN/athcode=50037/index.html

probably started as a track runner then moved up and down.

takahiro sunada's personal best times.

5k 13:43 (on a track)

10k 28:27 (on a track)

half marathon 61:23

marathon 2:10:08

100 km 6:13:33

is it just me, but i almost consider an ultra to be another sport than 5k-marathon racing...the 5k through full or at least half can have similar workouts and mileages but i wouldn't have a clue how to gear up for an ultra...maybe that's just my experience as a guy who races 5k-half throughout the year with 50ish per week with a workout, fartlek/tempo and long day every week and havent really seen too much difference from when i did workouts specializing to a particular race