Plenty of people lack imagination. Can't see beyond their nose.
Hey, when I was 20, I "knew everything" too.
Plenty of people lack imagination. Can't see beyond their nose.
Hey, when I was 20, I "knew everything" too.
I don't really get the hate either. I enjoy track, road, and ultra races even though I only do road races myself. The only events that I think are truly lame are the sprints. You run for 10 or 20 seconds and then celebrate like a jackass forever if you are someone like Bolt who is probably doped to the gills. That is way worse than any ultra race. Anything below 1500 seems like a waste.
And Sage is a cool dude for coming to this board and taking the heat and questions. He's very honest about his road speed. He happens to be better at longer distances on the trails compared to the road. What's wrong with that? He couldn't afford to live in Boulder off being a 2:19 marathoner so he found a way to get paid. Kudos to him.
People on LRC will continue to hate on ultrarunners until Jamin achieves his next goal of qualifying for Western States. Breaking 15 in the 5k didn't get him any girls so he moving up this summer.
spartanrunner97 wrote:
I've been reading some threads on here the past few months and just about any time ultra running is brought up, there's been an overwhelming amount of negativity towards it. Why is that?
If you've spent any time on these boards, you have to acknowledge just about every topic is met with overwhelming negativity. Ultra runners are a special kind of crazy no doubt, bit more power to them. If you're racing, whether it's 100 meters or 100 miles, good on you!
Generic Username 1223334444 wrote:
extreme - the marathon is already a race of who can outlast who and therefore not a speed race
^ This. Well said, this is exactly the reason for the lack of respect.
The Marathon already existed as the event to determine who can control their pace without breaking down over an extended, endurance time period. The only reason anyone needs to go further - in competition - is because they simply aren't good enough at the already existing event.
Note: This in no way demeans trail / hill / marathon + distance running, just the necessity to "enter" an event in the case of ultra distance "running".
One element that brings ultra-runners some much deserved hate is the jackassery of some of its more outspoken participants. They won't shut up about their "accomplishments" and are very dismissive of any achievements in distances shorter than theirs. They laud merely finishing any ultra, but if someone runs a 2:2X marathon, they say "when are you moving up to a real distance?" Guys like this are often frauds, like the one Doubler recently wrote about. And even though they only make up a small percentage of the sport, they are a very loud minority. And often finish top 10 at the races without much competition.
I have also met a few road marathoners like this. They scoff at sub-elite 5k and 10k times while never breaking 4 hours. But unlike the ultra-runners, they aren't ever near the front of the pack, so it's hard for anyone, including themselves, to take them too seriously.
Caveman wrote:
Ultra running is the most pure form of running for us humans. Go try to run down a deer with your 16 minute 5k. It won't happen. You need to be able to run for 8 hours to fully exhaust a deer, hold it in your arms and carry it back to your village. Running fast is for kids.
honest questions:
why would we want to "run down a deer" and why is "running down a deer" pure??
running fast is fun.
New Age Beardy wrote:
Generic Username 1223334444 wrote:
extreme - the marathon is already a race of who can outlast who and therefore not a speed race
^ This. Well said, this is exactly the reason for the lack of respect.
The Marathon already existed as the event to determine who can control their pace without breaking down over an extended, endurance time period. The only reason anyone needs to go further - in competition - is because they simply aren't good enough at the already existing event.
Note: This in no way demeans trail / hill / marathon + distance running, just the necessity to "enter" an event in the case of ultra distance "running".
Ultras show no mercy to fast marathoners after 35-40 miles. If you don’t have the slow twitch fibers and enzymes to metabolize fat well, you’re not outlasting anyone. 100K-100 miles takes it a step beyond just metabolism. Then after 100 miles is a jigsaw puzzle of troubleshooting that no skinny @ss fast twitch Kenyan will solve eating heaps of ugali and injecting EPO.
read born to run.
Ultra runners are really competitive people who can’t compete on speed so they compete on distance instead.
What makes them a disgrace is that they claim to be laid back, run in the woods, etc, but really they compete in running far because they don’t have the talent to run fast.
Because they keep moving up in distance where there's less competition to make themselves seem better than they really are.
Time/Distance wrote:
One element that brings ultra-runners some much deserved hate is the jackassery of some of its more outspoken participants. They won't shut up about their "accomplishments" and are very dismissive of any achievements in distances shorter than theirs. They laud merely finishing any ultra, but if someone runs a 2:2X marathon, they say "when are you moving up to a real distance?" Guys like this are often frauds, like the one Doubler recently wrote about. And even though they only make up a small percentage of the sport, they are a very loud minority. And often finish top 10 at the races without much competition.
I have also met a few road marathoners like this. They scoff at sub-elite 5k and 10k times while never breaking 4 hours. But unlike the ultra-runners, they aren't ever near the front of the pack, so it's hard for anyone, including themselves, to take them too seriously.
Hello, straw man.
There's not enough straw in the world to create all the strawmen in this thread. Get over yourselves, haters. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Has OLYMPIAN Anthony Famiglietti chimed in yet on how easy ultras are to win?
Cuz this wrote:
Any sub-4 miler could show up to almost any ultra and win it. That’s why.
Any sub 2:15 marathoner would absolutely destroy the WR in any ultra (Josh Cox).
Ultra runners to actual pro runners is the equivalent of recreational flag football to the NFL.
Ha ha ha ha
round and round wrote:
Caveman wrote:
Ultra running is the most pure form of running for us humans. Go try to run down a deer with your 16 minute 5k. It won't happen. You need to be able to run for 8 hours to fully exhaust a deer, hold it in your arms and carry it back to your village. Running fast is for kids.
honest questions:
why would we want to "run down a deer" and why is "running down a deer" pure??
running fast is fun.
Some ancient rituals involved skins that couldn't have any blemishes from arrows or knives.
I have competed at all levels of running: track (indoor and outdoor, roads, XC, trails, ultras, and mtns.
While I am not negative toward ultrarunning in general, I believe there are a large number of people who complete ultras and then brag about it as though they did something special and extraordinary.
Finishing an ultra is not an amazing feat. With a little preparation, the average distance runner can finish an ultra. Yes it does take a little more commitment and time to be out there for hours on end in order to cover 50 miles or so than it does to complete a 5k, but it is nothing special.
What is hard about running, and what might be worth bragging about, is making a commitment to train in order to complete a certain distance as fast as possible, and then going out there and finishing that distance in a certain fast time. Competing against yourself and the clock. Trying to cover a certain distance in the shortest amount of time possible. Living like an athlete and trying to get the best out of yourself.
The clock does not lie. Road and Track runners have PR's that brutally define how they stack up as a runner. They instantly know where they stand compared to any other runner in the world based on their PRs. You know that your 14:30 5k is faster (and a relatively better performance) than some guy in any other part of the world with a 14:55 5k PR.
Most ultras (especially in the US) are not run on certified courses (road or track) but instead are run over distances that may not be very accurate, on trails, over hills (sometimes at altitude), and/or with less than ideal weather. so that comparing times is difficult if not impossible.
In my opinion, just covering the distance and finishing the race is only part of the story. I want to know your time. How do you stack up against other people?
But many ultra runners like the fact that comparing relative times is difficult. They hide behind inaccurate courses, trails, hills, weather, etc. as an excuse for not pushing themselves and running a less than ideal time. Instead of trying to run faster, they are content believing they are somehow better because they ran farther.
And I believe its ok for most ultrarunners to not know or care about their PRs, or how they stack up against others. Most ultrarunners are like most runners in general, in that they are not competitive and are not interested in making a commitment to really train in order to cover the distance in the shortest time possible. They just want to participate.
No disrespect, but your 29:30 time finishing Leadville 100 is similar to a 59 minutes time finishing Peachtree 10k in my book. You are not better because you covered a further distance and/or were out there thirty times longer. Your 24:50 finish at Western States is not superior to his 1:59 800, and he would not be flaunting a big belt buckle even if they had one for sub 2.
I understand that most people have real jobs, families, vices, addictions, responsibilities, genes, etc. that prevent them from making big commitments in training just to run fast. I understand why ultras and other events are a haven for the masses, as it would be somewhat embarrassing and disruptive to get lapped 4 or more times during a 5000 on the track.
I respect a choice to run ultras, but going longer does not make you better.
I guess the real problem here is that most people who are into ultrarunning couldn't care less about track or give a rat's ass about Kipchoge, and don't measure people by their PRs. And that has the lot of you, snowflakes, sore.
this and this wrote:
I understand that most people have real jobs, families, vices, addictions, responsibilities, genes, etc. that prevent them from making big commitments in training just to run fast. I understand why ultras and other events are a haven for the masses, as it would be somewhat embarrassing and disruptive to get lapped 4 or more times during a 5000 on the track.
Ultras are not a haven for the masses. Take a look at any regular old 5k, half marathon or marathon. Those are the havens for the masses. Any ultra I have ever been to has a higher fitness level than average by far. Now when you look at the elite level, no they don't but of course they don't. Why would an elite bother? They are too small to have any money, they don't fit into any kind a training plan and they would just be risking injury which could cost them money. Nobody who is fast enough to compete at a marathon distance would bother with an ultra unless they were independently wealthy. That doesn't make ultras a joke or non competitive. Who on this board is legit ever competing with the elite field? If elites show up to any race you all are getting smoked. If they don't you have a shot at winning. Competition is competition and it can be fun even if you don't get a group of paid runners who take off at the front of the field.
Are people making the distinction between ultra and trail/mountain?
They are typically both, right? What % of ultras are not on trails?
I love trail running but have no desire to run all day.
I would almost always prefer to run in the mountains on a trail vs on sidewalks in the city or on a track.
That said, it’s quite hard to run fast at high altitude with massive elevation gains.