Is Ultrarunning still a joke?

and that is why you are an ignorant fool like the rest of the people on here who claim ultras are lame, slow, poop like, or any other childish rant. the worst is marathon man who is 50 and still doesnt get it.

i ran in college and less than a decade later i have plenty of all conference cc friend's who tried to move beyond the standard 2:25+ marathon into the 50k, 50m, and 100m. only one has a win at a legit race. i highly suggest that you dont talk sh*t til you show up at the starting line, finish, show your belt buckle, and get an understanding of people who race these events. they dont give a mad f*ck about you and what you think and you never know who might just nod their head in agreement with you saying that ultras are lame as they are thinking in their head how big of a asswipe you are.

Bwaahahahaha!!! Nice. I've seen too many people get their butts handed to them out there. I can't break 2:30 yet, so I guess I will avoid the ultra scene until I know for sure that I can win. That's what it is all about. Right?

As a 2:27 marathoner who has run 100 ultras I think that I can some perspective to this issue. If you think that you are only going to be running against 4:00 marathoners think again.

The difference between marathons and ultras is that there are many "fun run" ultras but "fun run" marathons do not exist (at least here in Northern California). This means that if all you are looking for is a win that is easier to find in an ultra than in a marathon. However, if you run the competitive ultras as a 2:30 marathoner you are no more likely to win an ultra than you are to win a marathon.

No sense wasting your time unless you can run 50 miles in under 5 hours.

Aquafina wrote:

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

.... and the only ones qualified to make this statement would have actually raced or at least completed an ultramarathon.

Which one did you run?

So I guess when Kilian Jornet ran 100 miles in Western States in 15:34:24 isn't competitive?

It's not a joke, but incredibly hard on the body.

TOUGH BRO, WELL TOUGH!! YOU'RE THE MAN NOW DOG!!

i can see for miles wrote:

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?

Not American, but Uli Steidl is a 2:13 marathoner (well, former 2:13 marathoner) and a pretty serious ultra guy. He usually wins, too (although I don't think he's run a 100 miler).

That's an idiotic post that shows zero knowledge of ultrarunning--if you have ever run a marathon have you noticed that AT LEAST 75% of the entrants can't run faster than 3:40? So what does that tell you about running a marathon? That people who run marathons do so because they are too slow for 10ks? Try running ---or better yet-- try jogging a 50 miler and you'll find out that running a marathon is a breeze in comparison.

You guys are fools. The best ultra guys the past decade have been sub-2:25 type guys

Tom Johnson

Dan Held (2:13:50 Marathoner)

Howard Nippert (2:19 Olympic Trials)

Greg Crowther (2:22 Marathon)

Michael Wardian (2:17 Olympic Trials)

Andy Henshaw (2:25 guy, potentially much faster)

If you are not in 2:20-shape, you will not be relevant on the world stage.

Randy Oldman wrote:

I'll guess you'll know whether ultra runners are serious athletes when 2:05 marathon runners start stepping up to ultras, i.e. never.

I read somewhere that runners who win ultras never win cash; if this is true, then this must be why serious marathoners aren't going up to the ultra.

To the OP: go run the ultra and then tell us if you still think it's a joke.

Aquafina wrote:

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.

That's the worst amount of talent to have. Enough to encourage you to devote your life to an activity, but not enough to get you to the top.

Assert wrote:

You guys are fools. The best ultra guys the past decade have been sub-2:25 type guys

Tom Johnson

Dan Held (2:13:50 Marathoner)

Howard Nippert (2:19 Olympic Trials)

Greg Crowther (2:22 Marathon)

Michael Wardian (2:17 Olympic Trials)

Andy Henshaw (2:25 guy, potentially much faster)

If you are not in 2:20-shape, you will not be relevant on the world stage.

True for road ultras and shorter ultras, but trail is different. You can add Rich Hanna (2:17 marathon, 2nd World Challenge 100k) to the list.

However, none of those guys has ever come close to winning WS or a major 100 mile trail event. Crowther and Hanna were DNFs in their attempts and Wardian finished 15th. I don't know if Held or Nippert ever attempted one.

"Your assignment:

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

-i like this. put up or shut up.

Oh, now there are "shorter" ultras... ha, an ultra is an ultra. 100km is the world recognized distance for an ultra championship.

Assert wrote:

Oh, now there are "shorter" ultras... ha, an ultra is an ultra. 100km is the world recognized distance for an ultra championship.

And a "distance" race is just a distance race. There are all types of ultras with varying distance and terrain. Some runners are better at one type than another. What's the big deal?

I just read thru this entire post thread and I cant get over the fact that Dr Wuss had his feelings hurt. Awwwww. haha. I thought the post was pretty accurate.

The Gray Zone wrote:

That's the worst amount of talent to have. Enough to encourage you to devote your life to an activity, but not enough to get you to the top.

Ugh...that is depressing...I see it all the time...from the podium.