Why Do Lets Run Posters Hate Ultra Runners?

ran Pikes Peak for the first time last summer, started in the 12th wave, finished in the top 200. To do that I had to pass over 800 walkers, not runners! I was amazed no one was running, I tried, lasted until mile 8, but all the passing took its toll. I was disappointed, I came in thinking people ran. They don't.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

For me the main problem is that it's a "small pond" sport. Maybe there are dozens of world elite marathoners that could beat Walmsley at the WS 100. We don't know and never will. You guys are raving about a guy that might only be 20th in the world or worse, if the best marathoners wanted to compete in trail racing.

Both fair and unfair points here.

It's fair to say that the ultraworld is pretty small, especially compared to the larger marathon/T&F/XC world.

But it's unfair, and a bit disingenuous, to play the hypothetical game (i.e., "If elite runners did X then ultrarunners would Y."). You could literally play that game to discount any sport (i.e., "If Randy Moss chose to play basketball rather than football, he would be the GOAT."). It's both unverifiable and unfalsifiable...which means it's pointless.

I do agree that following the ultra world doesn't necessarily interest me either.

There is a little difference.

People are saying that ulta runners are doing ultra because they can't be distance runners.

People are saying that distance runners are distance runners because they couldn't be sprinters.

The two sentences are shortcuts, but one hold more truth. The skills for distance running and ultra does not differ much, the main difference are the absurd distances that force people to run extremely slowly.

And so far the people on this thread doing ultra said that they have been doing this because they were declining as distance runners. I can understand that, it is perfectly fine.

But it illustrates that there is no equivalence and comparison. Top marathon runners and 5/10k runners are much much better athletes than top ultra runners. The two sports are not on the same level.

I'm comparing ultras to marathons and distance running on the track. The most talented runners in the world have competed in the Olympic distances so the WRs have meaning. How Walmsley's WS 100 course record compares to a 2:01 marathon is a complete unknown.

I am not one who is doing ultra's because of declining in other distances. In fact the faster I get at ultra's the faster I get at shorter distances. But that is mostly because I was never a 'runner' I only ever ran as supplemental exercise to other sports. I got into ultra's in my early 30's as a way to lose weight, challenge myself, and I enjoy the outdoors.

But I doubt you'll find many ultra runners that will argue that it is more competitive than road/XC/track. If anything there are those who just view that world as nothing but dopers. But then I am not sure how wrong they are. If you listen to people here, anyone who can sniff a world class time is a doper.

ok boomer

this is correct.

Ran Pikes Peak as well this year. People started walking almost as soon as we hit the Barr Trail. At some point walking in this race is probably fairly normal but not at mile 1.5. Most races don't have 7,000 feet of vertical on one essentially uninterrupted upgrade

Are you guys talking about Pikes Peak Marathon? If so, 1. it is not an ultra 2. I imagine many folks that 'run' that race are local and probably sign up for it as a nice 'hike' just like all the folks that normally sign up to 'run' big city marathons and clock 5 hours. These are walking events for many.

Agree. All of my non-runner relatives and work colleagues - knowing that I'm one of those oddball runners - always ask if I'm going to do triathlons or ultras, as though they are more impressive somehow. I always respond that once I've perfected this marathon thing, I'll consider it.

pass the pretzels wrote:

Agree. All of my non-runner relatives and work colleagues - knowing that I'm one of those oddball runners - always ask if I'm going to do triathlons or ultras, as though they are more impressive somehow. I always respond that once I've perfected this marathon thing, I'll consider it.

I get asked that question by co-workers as well. I do triathlon, but haven't been active in the ultra-world in about 5 years or so.

If you're honest, though: running 100 miles is a lot more impressive than running 26.2. To have to parse it down for a non-runner ("A sub-3 marathon is actually more impressive than a 29 hour 100 miler...") is tough to do before their eyes glaze over from extreme boredom.

Western States across 100.2 miles has 18,000 feet of climbing, and 23,000 feet of descent, and the terrain is extremely varying...and Walmsley's record pace was 8:30 avg across all of that..

Crawling huh?

I agree they're are some new age ultra clowns on social media, 100% cosign that, but that's also social media in general, and those new agers will likely flame out and get hurt soon enough. That's on them.

The frustrating point about, "not knowing how Walmsley's time compares to a 2:01" ok, other than half dozen runners in the last decade, we're struggling to get American runners consistently below 2:10 and not end their careers after doing such.

The world major marathon road times are essentially a track meet with very little elevation change throughout. The paces are irrelevant when comparing to certain ultra races and paces. I've cited this before, Walmsley's CR of 5:51 @ Lake Sonoma across 50 miles has 10,000 feet of climbing. That's nearly a 7 minute pace.

Are there some elite road marathoners that can do that now currently? I am sure if trained appropriately yeah, but way too much discrediting on this site and broad brushed statements with zero context in most posts. Until that road runner makes that conversion to the trails and sets now standards, it's all jibberish.

Pretty obvious that most on this board don't like ultrarunning or ultrarunners because it is not really running in their eyes. I would say that of course most people do not run the entirety of a 50-100 mile race in the mountains. Many races have thousands of feet of elevation gain in the span of just a few miles. The guys that win are still quite quick though. And there certainly have been fast marathoners or shorter distance guys run Ultras and succeed. I would still highly doubt any of the top marathoners today would win utmb if they had a year to train. Just such a different sport. And likewise I doubt Killian or Francois or Jim would win a major marathon.

True for the ascent which takes place on Saturday. Not true for the full up and down. And yes it is not an ultra but it is also not your run of the mill marathon

I guess my point is just that if we are going to 'judge' ultra runners we shouldn't be discussing Pikes Peak as it is not very representative of a 'typical' ultra and therefor the participants are not worth discussing in such a conversation.

And the second point is just in regards to comments about ultra runners walking in general. When the majority of the people in your big city marathons do not finish in a time that would indicate that those people were actually running, you do not have a leg to stand on to criticize ultra running for not being 'running'.

The best QB in the XFL might be the best QB in the world.

But any thinking person knows probability says the best QB in the world is in the NFL.

Same with Ultras. The best people are probably very good. But we can compare a very similar league (road racing) and realize the best ultra marathoners are probably competing on the road and not in the ultra circuit.

Matt Daniels, a sub 4 minute miler placed 4th in Western States in 2019. I know sub 4 doesn't translate as well to the marathon but it does give a little context...

Ultrarunning is going to continue to grow and will become more competative and standardized. People on this site will have to deal with it.

RandomRunner wrote:

Matt Daniels, a sub 4 minute miler placed 4th in Western States in 2019. I know sub 4 doesn't translate as well to the marathon but it does give a little context...

Ultrarunning is going to continue to grow and will become more competative and standardized. People on this site will have to deal with it.

Didn’t read through all the posts, but I don’t hate ultrarunners. But I do think they are niche runners and not to be confused with the best runners in the world.

4:30-something average pace in a long standing distance like the marathon will always trump 5-something average pace for a longer, less competitive distance. But I’ve got no beef with them and more power to them.