?
?
Anyone can run for a long time. Not everyone can run fast.
When I was 14 I ran 20 miles straight once. My prs at the time were 5:13 1600, 11:28 3200, 19:43 5k. Did running over twice the distance that my teammates ran(who were faster than me at the time) make me more relevant as a runner? Of course not. Because I ran 20 miles at like 8:30 pace(read:slow). The only reason I had the fastest 20 mile PR on the team was because none of the older guys felt like doing it. So when some ultra guy runs a 100 miler, almost four times the distance of the longest "normal" race, does it make him more relevant as a runner? Of course not. Because he ran 100 miles at like 7:30 pace(read:slow). The only reason some random guy has the 100 mile record is because none of the fast guys(read:Geb) felt like doing it.
The only reason some random guy has the marathon record is because none of the fast guys(read:Bolt) felt like doing it.
this weekend is the 100K world champs in Holland. Here is the field:
http://www.iau-ultramarathon.org/
the range of the best times is vast 6:19 to 12:15! That's 11:45 pace to compete in a world champs!
Because it's easy to be extreme, it's hard to be excellent.
Phil Fondacaro wrote:
The only reason some random guy has the marathon record is because none of the fast guys(read:Bolt) felt like doing it.
That makes sense. Bolt is the fastest man over 100 meters so he must be the fastest over 42,195 meters, he just can't be bothered.
This is a very complex question that requires an in depth and complete response. We must rely on scientific data that surveys the running environment. Following collection of this data we must pore over the information in an effort to correlate cause and effect. We must then compose an analytical report for review by the athletic community.
I think this is your answer. I am glad that I could help get to the bottom of this conundrum.
Run on, my friend, run on.
The original premise creates a false dichotomy. What's really considered an accomplishment is running fast AND far. Your 8:30 paced 20 mile run may not have impressed a lot of people, yourself included it seems. But if you knock 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 minutes per mile off your pace it gets progressively more impressive.
Oleg Kharitonov, the current record holder for the distance, ran 100 miles at a pace roughly a minute and a half faster than you ran for that 20 mile run. When Cavin Woodward set the previous record he ran the first 50 miles in 4:58, a world record for that distance as well. These are not the accomplishments of some random guy. I don't know what would happen if some really fast guys took a shot at the 100 kilometer or 100 mile records. They might obliterate them but that's not a given. Faster guys than Kharitonov and Woodward have run 100 mile races and not gone as fast at the distance.
Obviously, some race distances are more commonly run than others are. If a million people have raced the mile seriously over the years and 1,000 people have raced the hundred mile seriously in that time it's likely that the best performances at the mile are better than the best performances in the hundred mile. But you cannot dismiss the best ultra performers as "some random guy."
HRE wrote:
I don't know what would happen if some really fast guys took a shot at the 100 kilometer or 100 mile records. They might obliterate them but that's not a given. Faster guys than Kharitonov and Woodward have run 100 mile races and not gone as fast at the distance.
Good point here. Just because someone is faster over 42K does not necessarily mean that they are automatically the best at 100 miles; there are two completely different skills sets at play. This is even more true when you started talking about mountain ultras, technical trails, etc.
Anyone can run far. It is not a great accomplishment to run far. Running far is more of an indication that you have way too much free time, severe OCD or no life. Ultras are for self absorbed losers who try to create a race where 99.9% of the population has no interest in doing so because a) it requires a lot of time that most people do not have and b) has been proven to be bad for your body.
joedirt wrote:
Anyone can run far. It is not a great accomplishment to run far. Running far is more of an indication that you have way too much free time, severe OCD or no life. Ultras are for self absorbed losers who try to create a race where 99.9% of the population has no interest in doing so because a) it requires a lot of time that most people do not have and b) has been proven to be bad for your body.
You know what else has been proven to be bad for your body? Sex. Does that mean that people should stop having sex or watching pornographic movies?
I didn't think so!
Deluxe wrote:
?
For 99.99% of runners, running farther is considered a great accomplishment.
they are both forms of self-gratification
In my opinion - the extent to which your performance deviates from the average person in a given sport and event, adjusted for the depth of the talent pool in that event creates the level of accomplishment.
So if I'm a marathon runner, I can't deviate with regards to distance, since that's hardwired, so I have to deviate by time. Also, there is a deep talent pool, so a high degree of time divergence equates to a large accomplishment.
If I'm an ultra runner, I can deviate by time as well and be the fastest at Western States, and that can lead to high-level accomplishments, but they probably won't be on the same level as the marathon (unless my time deviation is crazy) because the talent pool is smaller.
I guess you can also deviate on pure distance, and try to simply run farther than anyone else. Obviously the talent pool for this is miniscule, and so it would be very hard to judge the accomplishment because we don't have a scale upon which to really judge it.
So long story short is that faster is greater because faster implies shorter, and shorter implies a deeper talent pool with a deep history for reference. Accomplishments are really about how you stack up.
Phil Fondacaro wrote:
The only reason some random guy has the marathon record is because none of the fast guys(read:Bolt) felt like doing it.
Haha ha! Classic! Although the obvious choice for most talented sprinter ever, Bolt would never, ever be a world-class marathoner.
Listen good: the most talent marathoners to walk the earth are running the marathon and if they were to focus on 100-milers the record books would obliterated.
Agree with the sentiment that the orginal post is a false dichotomy.
Running 100 miles is no small feet, but if you consider performance level then speed at that distance matters. Taking 24 hours for 100 miles (non trail) >50% slower than the world record for the distance. So that's the relative equivalent to something like a 4:20 marathon or 28:00 5K.
But Bolt doesn't have to run a marathon. Drugs aside, he actually has talent. He doesn't have to run a 400, either.
OTOH, Farah has run a blazing 12.98, so you know who has to move up. Most everybody (except Olympic 100m people) move up after high school or college. And most people move up to the shortest distance they are competitive in, so the people running the longest distance have the least talent--and often the biggest ego's, so you get all those 26.2 stickers for people who are rrreeeaaalllyyy slow.
yeah but wrote:
You know what else has been proven to be bad for your body? Sex. Does that mean that people should stop having sex or watching pornographic movies?
I didn't think so!
Source? Sounds like a BS claim to me
joedirt wrote:
Anyone can run far. It is not a great accomplishment to run far. Running far is more of an indication that you have way too much free time, severe OCD or no life.
You think those sub-4 miles get knocked out on a whim. Lots of time and training go into those also.