What are the best ultras in the world? (Sponsored by HOKA ONE ONE)

Sure, but it’s a lot to ask! I’m stumped for crossover between multidays, shorter ultras, and trails (other than Kouros at Spartathlon, admittedly not a huge section of the race).

Don Ritchie totally was a stud. I think we have several guys that can go sub 4:50 for 50-miles nowadays though. Fordyce was another legend...and I believe his marathon best was only 2:17ish (someone correct me if I am wrong!)? And Wejo you've got to know about Yannis Kouros! I believe he only ran 2:24-2:23 as a marathon best though? Someone could correct me if I'm wrong? I also believe one of his best records is the 24 hour though...177 miles? Just goes to show that marathon/track speed isn't everything when you start running 100+ miles! I also obviously have never done events like Badwater or Spartathlon, but I know about them. My question here is how many people do these races nowadays though? What is the competitive depth? I know Badwater is a very expensive entry fee and you have to have a crew van support you or something? I feel like runners like Jurek, Dean K and Goggins made Badwater a "big name" race but it is one of those events that is: 1. Hard to get into 2. Very Expensive 3. Very Exclusive. I'm also going to add that events like Hardrock and Barkleys are "very exclusive." It is like trying to get into a certain frat in college. Weird lotteries and application processes. Some favoritism and bias. No doubt the Hardrock course is amazingly beautiful (I've run over half the course in training and go out there every summer)..but it is interesting how much hype these relatively small races get. I think they realized they had to bring in guys like Killian and D'Haene and Xavier to make it more "legit" and "competitive" but they still call it a "run" instead of a "race"? And that DQ of Xavier last year? Another fact: When you win/earn a "golden ticket" for WS100 as a top runner (i.e. invited runner)......you still have to pay the $400 + entry fee to enter WS100. There are no "comped/free entries"....Coming from road marathon running (where you usually get a free race entry) this was as surprise. As far as "change and evolution goes"....well certainly there have been 2:10-:2:20 marathon type runners doing ultras for decades! I don't believe there is a ton of "new speed." But I do think that for US ultra runners that sponsorship options have become more lucrative (esp since the Anton Krupicka days circa 2010 and onwards) and you get a half a dozen more guys a year realizing that running a 2:14-2:20 marathon is not nearly as lucrative as being a sponsored "trail-ultra" runner! I mean it is great to make a USA team and get a trip to Europe to race in the mountains. I also think with guys like Kilian (who have been crushing the mountains for over 10 years now) there are probably more "glamour events" in the mountains/trails and slightly less on the roads. Keep in mind a lot of the trails in Europe simply just are "in the mountains" whereas in the US you have more geographical diversity and "flat lands" (as well as some mountains obviously) but also the deserts and beaches and forests. One final note that I'd like to touch on is the lack of PED testing in MUT. I've been tested once (legit) and it was after winning the Pikes Peak Ascent (World Mountain Running Challenge) by USADA/WADA. All other tests that I've seen have been somewhat of a joke (a blood draw without gloves etc...no "A and B samples"). Comrades 2015 had two guys in the top 10 test positive for PEDs on the day....UTMB had a guy who was top 10 several years ago test positive for EPO on the day... There is pretty much no "random testing" that I know of and "race day" tests seem to be extremely rare and many are not even carried out by WADA standards.

Maybe Brian Purcell? Won Western States, 3rd or 4th at Sydney-Melbourne. Would’ve done better if he kept going back? Very, very rare double.

6th at Sydney-Melbourne.

I can agree first hand that PED testing is pretty weak. Maybe the top three might get tested, if that, as well as some random racers. With trail running getting bigger and more profitable, maybe there should be more... But I know this is a huge cost issue. As most invited athletes still pay their own costs, I'm not convinced that this is a massive problem since it's not really worth it IMHO. But when I see cyclists crossing over into the sport that is a red flag...

In my opinion, Comrades is the best Ultra because the winners of that are also elite marathoners. The winners of most of the other Ultra's until recently were individuals who could never even make the OT marathon qualifier. I know guys like Walamsley have changed that but Jim is not a guy who could sniff a spot of the Olympic team. But Commrades is a different story. The top guys at Commrades are all individuals who would be one of the best marathoners in the US. The top ten is full of guys who have run 2:08-2:12 for the full.

I feel like a lot of the Ultra's are like the marathon used to be 50 years ago. The marathon used to be guys who didn't have the talent to be competitive on the track. Then as the money shifted to the roads and elite runners transitioned to the marathon the guys who had been world class were no longer competitive. The Ultra world was the same way for a long time. Guys like Jurek and Dean could never be anywhere close to elite in the marathon but because the money was in the marathon they could dominate their competitions. If the top talent were to shift their focus those guys would have been non-competitive.

Comrades is the exception. You need to be an elite level marathon talent to win Comrades. That is also not just a recent trend. Comrades has had world-class talent for years. Decades ago Salazar ran there in his prime. Josh Cox, not world class but a 2:13 guy, went there a few years back and got crushed. Commrades definitely doesn't have the insanity factor of races like Badwater or Leadville but from a top end competitive standpoint it wins by a huge margin.

garden variety BQ hobby jogger wrote:

I wonder why most famous trail races are ultras. It seems to me that since trail running is generally slower than road running, trail races should be shorter than road races. The opposite seems to be the case.

For me personally, as a complete amateur who started running after college, I just don't see the point in running an ultra. The marathon is about the maximum distance I'd like to race. It's already beating me up quite a bit, so I wouldn't want to run any longer. Also, in terms of watching an event on TV, I wouldn't want to watch an event that's longer than a marathon.

One of the most famous trail races in the US, with a 100+ years of history and lore, is not an ultra. Mount Marathon, with a race distance of about 3 miles/5K, is likely the most popular trail/mountain race in the US in terms of spectators. The town of Seward's population is around 3,000, but about 30,000-40,000 people show up to watch the three races (combined boys&girls, women, and men's races, totaling about 1000 racers) and party it up. There's great live TV coverage of the races with cameras all over the mountain, and days of coverage/previews in the local papers. It's great to watch, especially when AllieO is running (or Kilian Jornet, Emilie Forsberg, or David Norris).

No discussion needed, there is only The Spartathlon!

We know that when Ruth took his first batting practice (as a pitcher), it was an awesome display. Soon opposing teams turned out to watch. But we don’t have an exact account of these incidents.

The Eureka Moment in ultramarathon, however, is called Spartathlon. Kouros debuted & nothing was ever the same after.

Okay I'm going to maybe ruffle some feathers and say this: In the past 8 years or so the most competitive ultra marathon - and trail race in the US has been The North Face 50-miler in San Francisco....not Western States. Why? Because it gets a lot of the top 10 guys from Western States and Lake Sonoma..plus some international guys. It gets some sub 2:20 marathoners ($10,000 in prize money to first place) as well. The finisher density of the top 10 is quite high. It is at the end of the year so there are less conflicting races...and because it is a 50-mile distance it is more accessible for guys "moving up from the marathon" or "down from 100-milers". Finally it is much easier to get into (if you are fast and enter early enough you can get in). No crazy lottery or "golden ticket" bs or RD favoritism. It is not technical, but it is a lot of single track trail that can be muddy and it has 10,000' of climbing. So it is a legit "fair course"...not a flat road/trail, but not a technical mountain race on crazy terrain. As for the doping: I think there is plenty of incentive to take PEDs. One would not have to do a very sophisticated operation as we hardly ever get tested (and when we do we know its coming!). So it is not like cycling or elite marathon running or track. Somebody could be amped up on EPO/HGH/Testosterone and not really have to worry about getting caught all that much IMO. The benefits? Imagine being able to quit your day job and run full time....to be able to travel all around the world to explore some of the most beautiful mountain ranges and beaches....to get tens of thousands of social media followers on Instagram and Strava saying that you are "inspirational" and to have that kind of ego boost? Yeah, there isn't a ton of open prize money to win....but people don't seem to dope just for the money (its the ego I think). We already know the sport isn't 100% clean and there have been busts already at a lot of these races (despite the relative lack of actual testing!). Sorry this issue really grinds my gears... #cleansport PS Wejo: call me "MUT Runner"

That is just your bias showing. Unfortunately for you, as I noted in my other post, the US trail ultra community automatically discounts events less than 100mi as less important and prestigious. North Face is automatically disqualified from the top spot due to the distance.

On this board people are more interested in what the runner might have previously done on the track or road marathon. The US ultra running community at large however only cares what they have done at the 100mi distance. It is one of the reasons you are discounted when they think about who are the top ultra runners in the US.

[quote]wejo wrote:

And can someone get GOAT status or be contender for the top race if they're not in Wikedia? I don't think Ritchie has a wikipedia page and neither does Bright to London unless I'm looking at this wrong?

Wejo,

The lack of a Wikipedia page for Don Ritchie and London to Brighton (not Brighton to London) merely reflects when Don Ritchie and London to Brighton were the top of the ultrarunning universe. Don was at the top in the 1970s. London to Brighton was at the top in the 1950s - 1980s.

Well of course I have bias....but you may have bias for the 100-mile distance, you think?

I agree that a lot of the 100-milers are highly valued...esp by the US (some would say "over hyped).

In Europe they don't care that UTMB is 105 or 106 miles. It could be 83 miles and it would still be "The Race."

But lets look at this objectively:

1. What is the finisher density of the top 10 guys at Western States vs TNF SF on any given year?

2. Note I talk about all the restrictions (in field size, lottery etc).

Again we talk about the "most competitive ultra" in the world and its Comrades (NOT 100-miles).

ERS wrote:

If any top ultra guys/gals are reading, or any 2:25/2:45 and under type marathoners are reading:

Next fall I’d like to run a really fast 50. If you’d be interested in a sub 5hr men’s /sub 6hr women’s 50 attempt with prize money + a bonus for an AR please message me on Instagram/Facebook at Zach Ornelas. Can put together a fast course, weather pending, in the fall and would be happy not to have to travel far while in the midst of coaching xc season. Sage... plenty of time post Comrades...? Have houses any elites can stay at.

Nice job at two oceans Zach. I didn't see it mentioned anywhere but I was following along and you ran a great race.

if your race is on the west coast, I'll show up. won't be chasing sub-5 but 5:20 might be possible based on how I felt at that pace during AR50.

if you're serious about putting on a time trail, try to get help from an RD with some extra free time. I know Eric Schranz from ultrarunnerpodcast would LOVE to talk to you about it. in fact, I'll shoot him a message and maybe he can interview you about it.

SacParkwayRunner wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

It's time for LetsRun.com to really try and figure out the ultra marathon world. Over the next 5 weeks HOKA ONE ONE is going to be sponsoring our investigation of the ultra scene.

I'm hearing rumors and seeing mile markers for a HOKA sponsored 100k starting in Folsom CA and heading down the american river parkway into sacramento.

Any information about this?

that's supposed to be a secret. if you know me by my username, ask me about it in a DM on social media

You take a lot of crap here(part of the territory I guess), but you are appreciated and highly thought of. Thank you sir.

Definitely biased ? but since the headline of the thread is ”the best ultras” not ”the most competitive ultras” I’d like to highlight a couple of ultras in Finland with really beautiful routes:

Vaarojen maraton:

https://vaarojenmaraton.fi/en

NUTS Karhunkierros:

https://nutskarhunkierros.fi/en/

NUTS Ylläs-Pallas:

https://nutsyllaspallas.com/en/

Best/most competitive ultras:

- Comrades, UTMB, Western States

GOAT:

- Jim Walmsley

Criteria: course records and FKTs.

Alternatively, you could judge GOAT by number of wins over the years,

but that does not adjust for weaker competition in the past.

Course records do depend on conditions (temperature, snow, wind), though, so neither criteria is perfect.

Here are some good ultras: McKenzie River 50k, JFK 50, Chuck a Nut 50k, Way Too Cool 50k, Lake Sonoma 50, North Face 50, Cayuga Trails 59, UTMB, Bandera 100k, Moab Trail Marathon, Western States, Leadville 100, Speedgoat 50k, Georgia Death Race, Badwater, Gorge 100k

I'm not as up on my international races. I'm glad LRC is doing this. I think ultras get unnecessarily bashed on here sometimes. I can understand if you choose to run an ultra or not. I have a ton of respect for people going over a marathon on trail, in the mountains, in tough weather, etc.

I think one of the more difficult things for ultra marathons is trying to figure out how to make them accessible to runners/fans. For obvious reasons, it can be more difficult to travel to an ultra race. This might be a part of the allure but unless you have an ultra within driving distance from where you live you are probably flying into a city and then renting a car with a couple hour drive to get somewhere that doesn't have a lot of hotel options. Another thing is it is impossible to show a race live. irunfar does a great job live tweeting a race but you can't really stream an ultra. I don't think these things have to change but it does mean that popularity might have a limit.