Why?
Because it's easy to be extreme. It's hard to be excellent.
Why?
Because it's easy to be extreme. It's hard to be excellent.
Just my observation from my 40+ years of running, there used to be "couch to 5k, 10K, half marathon etc. programs", but what I see lately is pretty much Couch to Ultra.
Skip the work, the progression, (i.e. 5K's, 10k's etc), go down to your local Fleet Feet, buy a camel back and jog, walk and power hike at 50K or 50 miler.
And damn, it is sad to say, but these people are putting on the weight.
Chunky monkeys.
I am a 1500m to half marathon guy, but I do respect all distances of running.
And I have run on various parts of the WS100 course, and for me it was a beotch. Brutal
But in some ways I feel a disservice is being done to beginning runners by glamorizing the ultra distance, and even the marathon at times.
Neither should be taken lightly.
Just my 3 cents worth...
[quote]ultra lol wrote:
It’s a form of white flight. When the going gets tough, while people create sports that are cost prohibitive and/or require less athleticism.
/quote]
https://ultrarunning.com/features/ted-corbitt-an-ultrarunning-pioneer/
comical wrote:
I got into ultra's in my early 30's as a way to lose weight, challenge myself, and I enjoy the outdoors..
This is the problem. Most ultra runners have either weight issues or an alcohol problem. That is also why they are supportive only if the newcomer was fat too when he started. There are very normal people people in ultra running and most of them are not athletes.
And actually, thousands of track stars & marathoners have tried ultras and failed. A few have succeeded.
Failures are buried beneath dnf’s (if you think walking is bad, stopping is presumably worse) or false names or they just hope no one will notice.
Because IMO it’s fundamentally a different sport than the one LR was made for.
And also because everybody here is an a**hole.
Coffee Bacon wrote:
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.
From competing in school I know exactly how fast the paces for the 5, 10 and the marathon are and 4:03, 4:13 and 4:38 are mind boggling. Walmsley pace for the WS 100 is undoubtly fast considering the distance, terrain and changes in elevation, but it's still crawling.
Trail racing is not a spectator sport. You really can't watch in person and it will never be on TV. I went up to Foresthill one year to watch some of the runners go through during the WS 100. They ate some food, were weighed and then continued their journey. It was not a riveting sports viewing experience for me.
I don't make fun of ultra runners, but it's not a sport that interests me.
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.
Didn't I say the same thing about Walmsley's pace in the WS 100:
"Walmsley pace for the WS 100 is undoubtedly fast considering the distance, terrain and changes in elevation, but it's still crawling."
There is no caveat about watching Kipchoge crank out 4:38 pace in a marathon and for me it's as exciting as watching a major team sports championship. If a helicopter was used to broadcast the WS 100, it would be excruciating for me to watch someone run 8:00 pace for 14 hours.
The marathon is about the distance and not the difficulty of the course. 4:38 pace, alone, is difficult. If the marathon was run only hilly courses in the Olympics, there would no point on having an Olympic record.
I didn't say that a world class marathoner could definitely beat Walmsley in the WS 100. It's effectively a different sport. If Bekele ran it, it would come down to whether he could run downhill on a rocky trail without taking a face plant or if he would bonk. He doesn't care and neither do I.
I do want to make the point that I believe the WS 100 to be absolutely brutal. In my prime, my legs couldn't have taken the pounding and although wasn't a bad athlete I was prone to rolling my ankles and would have had to walk the downhills as a result. I used to run 100mpw, but I didn't like running more than 12 miles, so just the distance itself was a dealbreaker.
I have never come close to even running a 1/2 marathon, much less an ultra and admire the effort involved, but ultras aggravate an existing problem. Distance running is a marginal sport and less important than it used to be and it has an even more marginal sport nested inside of it-ultra running.
I have noticed that many pro runners have become self-promotion machines to survive in the sport. Imagine the amount of self-promotion that ultra-running requires. Despite the grit and courage involved, it is by definition one of the worst spectator sports in the world. It seems you need to be a Bear Grylls type of character to make it as an image means everything in a sport that is just plain hard and boring to watch even if you like running!
Because ultras are dumb
because Ultrarunners post stuff like this...
Sage is the best.
ronald mexico, esq wrote:
because Ultrarunners post stuff like this...
https://youtu.be/IPY9isAbWqk
Sage Canada is the best
That’s good for a runner, no lie.
If there were actually any fast distance runners in LR(not washed up has beens), this hatred might have merit. But there aren't. Ultras are much harder than a fast 5k.
I did one ultra in celebration of turning 30 with a friend (we had done all other distances before, why not a 50K?). When we crossed the finish line, my friend cried and said "I can't wait to do this again!"... I looked at my husband who was waiting for me and cried and said "I'm NEVER doing this again." No injuries, no problems, just didn't enjoy it.
Listen, I'm all for people picking their sport and rocking it. You want to run all day Saturday (and I mean, all day) good for you. It's not good for some things (weight, etc.) but hey, it gets you moving and that's better than not moving.
For me? I really disliked the distance and the mentality of some of the other runners. We started in a pack of 50 people on a small trail and stayed that way for 5 miles going at a 13:45 pace... essentially brisk walking (for FIVE miles. It was so long!). If you didn't get ahead of everyone right away you were stuck. The people were chatting around me (which is okay, I mean, I had my friend and we talked occasionally) but were so nonchalantly "running" I could barely stand it. I didn't train for months so I could power walk behind you, Karen.
I also didn't like the eating during running bit. Just... didn't enjoy it.
To each his own, though. I'm not a great, super fast runner myself so I'm not going to judge how others like to workout. I'll stick to my half marathons, with all of their cheesiness and annoyances, because it gets me home faster to my kids.
Here are some criticisms I can actually agree with, at least some of what you said. I for sure don't like conga lines and tend to do my best to start in front even if I know I will not finish in the front. I dont really like all the chatting in big groups and usually try to go my own pace or run with a smaller group who are more interested in trying to move rather than walk and talk.
I remember my first ultra I started in the back, right off the bat this chatty group were talking about pooping their pants and how your not a real ultra runner if you haven't crapped yourself or crapped in the woods or whatever. I quickly realized I did not in fact belong in the back and moved up ahead as quickly as I could.
I also don't really enjoy the eating aspect and tend to drink most of my calories. So I can see where you are coming from.
I still enjoy the overall experience though. But to each their own.
OkBoomer wrote:
Just my observation from my 40+ years of running, there used to be "couch to 5k, 10K, half marathon etc. programs", but what I see lately is pretty much Couch to Ultra.
Skip the work, the progression, (i.e. 5K's, 10k's etc), go down to your local Fleet Feet, buy a camel back and jog, walk and power hike at 50K or 50 miler.
And damn, it is sad to say, but these people are putting on the weight.
Chunky monkeys.
I am a 1500m to half marathon guy, but I do respect all distances of running.
And I have run on various parts of the WS100 course, and for me it was a beotch. Brutal
But in some ways I feel a disservice is being done to beginning runners by glamorizing the ultra distance, and even the marathon at times.
Neither should be taken lightly.
Just my 3 cents worth...
I thought about going up to 50k to try it once even though I know I'd be slow, but talked to a few Ultrarunners and running in the dark and possibly tripping on roots, twisting ankles, etc. is not worth the risk. Also, I'm not sure how true this is but are kidney problems a factor later on in ultrarunning?
Testing the system wrote:
Sage is the best.
Love him or hate him, Sage at least comes on here and is honest about what Ultrarunning is about.
I respect him a ton.
amigo wrote:
Bearded hipsters, running vests, “finding themselves” types running from reality, tattoos, bro culture, ugly white women, shoe companies that cannot make a decent road shoe, trucker hats , New Age hustlers, balding white guys with ponytails or worse, a man bun, running in flannel shirts.
That’s why I hate them.
You forgot Patagonia, REI, trust funds, voting Dem/Green party, Subarus, bumper stickers, Ivy League or wealthy colleges, and did I say trust funds?
Eat, Pray, Run types. And yoga (although I don't mind yoga in and of itself, but some of these runner types are obsessed with it).
A funny thread. If you really love what you do, you don't care what others think about it.