Attention all fast marathoners that want to make $25k by winning an ultra

From the website:

"The course is a 16.67 mile mixture of wide and narrow trails - from rolling hills, dirt, and off camber grass sections. There will be very little road running on the course. The terrain and woods provides protection from the wind. Most of the trails surround many of the lakes."

I talked to a coworker who said that area is relatively flat. When I asked sent her the link to the race and she saw the proposed course she said you'd be looking at probably 700 feet of per ascend per loop at most.

I have to figure that some big names are going to gun for this money.

Sorry about the crappy English and grammar above, I sent it from my phone.

Before anyone tries to break the national 100 mile trail record, maybe they should enter a 100 miler and jog through in 15 hours or so to see what they've got.

snet wrote:

Ultras are just plod-fests. I'd be embarrassed to be in one - I wouldn't accept the prize money, even.

Dude, you haven't been in one then. Yes there are runners who jog them just like there are in any other race of any other distance, but there are some dudes who keep a great pace up for a LONG time in many of those ultras.

I used to work for and occasionally train with former Western States 100 winner Doug Latimer...at the time he was in his early 50s, and man that dude was a monster runner.

I've never understood the condescending attitude a lot of runners have towards ultra-runners. They look at the per mile pace and sneer, thinking of how they run their warm-ups faster than that. It's not that easy.

To be clear-- yes, the talent pool isn't as deep in ultras.

And yes, a solid runner can do well in ultras, and place relatively high-- almost certainly higher than they could in a competitive 10k.

But-- the winners of ultras (even regional races, let alone the "known" ones) are usually quite talented. Her in MN, Chris Lundstrom dominates most of the local 50k races; he's no slouch (2:17 PR I think).

A typical post-collegiate runner (say, running 15 flat to 15:30 in 5k's) would probably place top 3 in any regional-type trail ultra, and have a shot to win if the field was weak. But to go and crush a 100 mile record on trails? Not easy. Or even realistic. I've run races up to 50k, having in the past been a sub-2:30 marathoner, and having to push through 8 miles of hills and trails after you've hit the wall at 23 miles or so is a whole different beast than pushing through the last 3 miles of a road marathon. Can't imagine the level of fatigue that sets in during 100 milers, nor do I have the time to train for it and find out.

Why bother with doing a "test" race in 15 hours? Breaking the AR would be quite easy. I'm not saying it would feel comfortable, but it's just a bit under 8min/mile pace...no big deal.

All of the really "fast" 10k runners are laughed at by sprinters because of how slow they run. They are laughed at by society because of how they look. They need to laugh at somebody too, and for some reason ultra runners have filled that need.

"To be clear-- yes, the talent pool isn't as deep in ultras.

And yes, a solid runner can do well in ultras, and place relatively high-- almost certainly higher than they could in a competitive 10k"

I guess this is my biggest rub with Ultras. It seems that people have started to look at Ultras as the next thing since road marathons are so crammed and the top is so crowed with East African runners.

It looks like a way to run away from real competition. I guess that will change as more and more guys with real running credentials jump into it. While a 13ish 5k PR doesn't mean you'll win a 100 miler, you toss in enough guys with that kinda talent and you'll see some big performances eventually.

Josh Cox is going to smash this record. Pencil him in for the race please.

Let's admit it, Ultrarunning is nothing more than a way to rationalize exercise addiction.

Ultra runners, and triathletes for that matter, should be required to put in as many hours of community service as they spend training.

True enough, with respect to the performances you'd see if all the talent went to ultras. But since even second-tier marathons pay 10-20 grand to win, which is more than most ultras have for total money, that won't happen.

I'm curious why you have a "rub" with ultras-- who cares if other people like them? I don't do triathlons, cross-fit, or any number of things, and I have no rub with any of them. I'm frankly happy when any sort of exercise gets popular, since our society could sure use it, but is seems like a pure waste of energy to be annoyed at any sports growing or waning popularity.

Most ultra runners are older, although there are exceptions. I think that's probably because as you hit your late 30's, the appeal of doing further road races becomes less. Your PR days are behind you, and you've run most of your local/regional races so may times you know the course by heart. It's sort of fun to try something different, see some spectacular scenery (if it's a trail run), and get out of the rut of the usual road-races. I still do mostly road races, including the occasional marathon, but tossing in a trail ultra each year has made running more interesting.

While I agree with your premise that there is some money to be made for the ultra bashers, it will require more than just winning an ultra. But really they do just have to "jog" for a little under 13hrs, so no sweat. Hve fun out there guys...and jaguar1.