The smoking, the bad grammar, the disheveled appearance, the producing a dumb race billing it as a marathon when it's not and net even runnable?
I don't find the guy very likable.
The smoking, the bad grammar, the disheveled appearance, the producing a dumb race billing it as a marathon when it's not and net even runnable?
I don't find the guy very likable.
Was Laz ever a runner wrote:
The smoking, the bad grammar, the disheveled appearance, the producing a dumb race billing it as a marathon when it's not and net even runnable?
I don't find the guy very likable.
Read his stories about his dog (Big) and coaching basketball (Ulist). Good stuff. Very likable guy. Wry sense of humor and mischievousness.
He doesn't bill the race as a "marathon." It's the Barkley MARATHONS.
I find the whole Barkley thing to be ridiculous. People doing that might as well spend their time joggling, same thing.
I watched the documentary again last night after the whole Robert Young debacle.
He isn't off-putting. He's genuine. Most people are not genuine.
NotanUltraGuy wrote:
I find the whole Barkley thing to be ridiculous. People doing that might as well spend their time joggling, same thing.
I find your response strange. I've done plenty of ultras, and would never attempt the Barkley, because it's simply too hard. But that doesn't mean I think the people who do try it are wrong to do so. In fact I think it's quite admirable - people willing to go to a place that most people aren't willing to go to, simply for the reward of finding out if they can do it. It doesn't get much purer than that.
part-time ultra guy wrote:
NotanUltraGuy wrote:I find the whole Barkley thing to be ridiculous. People doing that might as well spend their time joggling, same thing.
I find your response strange. I've done plenty of ultras, and would never attempt the Barkley, because it's simply too hard. But that doesn't mean I think the people who do try it are wrong to do so. In fact I think it's quite admirable - people willing to go to a place that most people aren't willing to go to, simply for the reward of finding out if they can do it. It doesn't get much purer than that.
I just don't find walking around in the woods to be what drew me to running. Call me crazy but I like to see people............................................ running and competing.
What you are talking about is more of a survival thing, which is something, but not really what I think of when I think of running.
It is still a competition. It just has different challenges and requires a different set of skills.
John McEnroe wrote:
He doesn't bill the race as a "marathon." It's the Barkley MARATHONS.
I don't really think of it as a running event. It seems to be more of a one discipline "adventure race" - foot travel only. Adventure racing light - for people who lack the ability to do a multi-sport event. That's not a bad thing, just some people only like foot travel and want to keep going until they fall over from exhaustion. Personally, I like sleep,
I used to like watching those eco-challenge races; I found those to be far more entertaining because of the varied nature of what they had to do. They may have just been better produced, that Mark Burnett guy is good at that.
NotanUltraGuy wrote:
part-time ultra guy wrote:I find your response strange. I've done plenty of ultras, and would never attempt the Barkley, because it's simply too hard. But that doesn't mean I think the people who do try it are wrong to do so. In fact I think it's quite admirable - people willing to go to a place that most people aren't willing to go to, simply for the reward of finding out if they can do it. It doesn't get much purer than that.
I just don't find walking around in the woods to be what drew me to running. Call me crazy but I like to see people............................................ running and competing.
What you are talking about is more of a survival thing, which is something, but not really what I think of when I think of running.
But nowhere does the event state "The Barkley: this is what running should be and is really about".
"It is what it is", as people like to say. You don't have to watch it, you don't have to participate in it, but I think it would be a shame to just dismiss it and all the participants simply because it's not what you're into. It would be sort of like if you liked hiking in the hills, let's say, and so did loads of your friends, and then you heard about this group of adventurers who were into climbing up Everest and K2 and such. Would you be annoyed with them, and say that that's not hiking; that's more like just surviving in extreme cold and extreme altitude.
I think the answer is, of course not. You might just say, it's not even the same sport, but it's at least somewhat related to what I do, and it's interesting.
Wasn't Barkley contrived from a prison escape in that area and Laz and some other runner friends conjecturing on whether an individual could run his way out of there? Bizarre event, yes, for everyone, no.
Was Laz ever a runner wrote:
The smoking, the bad grammar, the disheveled appearance, the producing a dumb race billing it as a marathon when it's not and net even runnable?
I don't find the guy very likable.
You are entitled to your opinion, and Laz probably does not care...!
I believe the whole Barkley thing, and his mannerisms, sort of emphasize that there are many aspects of life that are just a game.
Most people treat too many things, including running, much too seriously.
It is all sort of a big joke that he can get people to jump through so many strange and odd hoops just to enter what is a strange and odd running type event.
No question that you have to take the Barkley Marathons very seriously just to enter, participate and finish. But why and for what?
In many ways, he and his event is poking fun at everyone, including himself.
Lighten up and laugh. Its a long strange trip...
Was Laz ever a runner wrote:
The smoking, the bad grammar, the disheveled appearance, the producing a dumb race billing it as a marathon when it's not and net even runnable?
I don't find the guy very likable.
It would probably be good for you, and a number of other "serious" runners to sit back and relax a bit. I've seen your type at the local 5K, furiously warming up, putting your "game face" on. Chill out dude, running means different things to different people.
NotanUltraGuy wrote:
part-time ultra guy wrote:I find your response strange. I've done plenty of ultras, and would never attempt the Barkley, because it's simply too hard. But that doesn't mean I think the people who do try it are wrong to do so. In fact I think it's quite admirable - people willing to go to a place that most people aren't willing to go to, simply for the reward of finding out if they can do it. It doesn't get much purer than that.
I just don't find walking around in the woods to be what drew me to running. Call me crazy but I like to see people............................................ running and competing.
What you are talking about is more of a survival thing, which is something, but not really what I think of when I think of running.
This is a common misconception about barkley. You can't finish it without running. Quit a bit. While there are part that are not runnable at all, you have to be fit to move well on those too.
Here's video of the Jared Campbell who had the most success at the event:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFCjaKhbHMkTrust he had to run plenty to finish this year.
how to finish barkley wrote:
You can't finish it without running.
You can't cover 20 milse in 12 hours without running? Yeah right.
you're an idiot wrote:
You can't cover 20 milse in 12 hours without running? Yeah right.
No, because parts of it are not runnable. You have to make up time by running large portions of it.
you're an idiot wrote:
how to finish barkley wrote:You can't finish it without running.
You can't cover 20 milse in 12 hours without running? Yeah right.
So what is harder - running a sub-2:06 marathon or finishing the Barkley?
I don't think he's off-putting but I do think he's a sellout.
what is harder? wrote:
you're an idiot wrote:You can't cover 20 milse in 12 hours without running? Yeah right.
So what is harder - running a sub-2:06 marathon or finishing the Barkley?
Well far fewer people have finished the Barkley than run under 2:06
I read the entire RY thread confusing the Barkley Marathons with the Comrades marathon, and couldn't figure out why this guy Laz had come all the way from South Africa to watch a stupid Brit ride across America.