Why "runners" hate ultrarunners?

Say what?

mytwocentsagain wrote:

they should whine....they usually charge over 100 dollars to run!

Question?....How far is far enough for these guys?

Maybe they should have a race to see how far they can run until they pass out. The winner would be the person who runs the farthest and still on his feet!

Amen brother! Since the Ultra only tests your endurance just have a race with a Start and no finish line. The last one standing/running/living is the winner.

Yes, indeed but what about Dave Mackey?

becozz they run too much mileage , they have zero speed

middle distance runners are awsome

sprinters are actually sumo wrestlers

Osama bin laden is actually Geogre Bush

Geroge Bush likes Maurice green

Maurice Green is actually an ultra marathoner

Ultra marathoners are

Nuff Said

nice...nice bush...

say what???

come on...

Ultra runners are kinda like streetballers. It seems impressive in it's setting. I mean streetballers can do some impressive dunks, and Ultra marathons can run an impressive distance without stopping. Looks good on the surface for sure.

It's all fun and games until you put the streetballer in a real game and he gets his lunch money taken by less flashy players, because he doesn't have the fundamentals.

You put a ultra runner in the Chicago marathon and they will get killed, when an african drops a 14:30 5k just for fun and they their legs won't turn any faster than 6 minute pace.

Ultra running is just a different sport. Don't confuse it with real running.

your post made no sense what-so-everyou're talking about taking one runner out of his event and putting him in the other runner's event.your analogy goes like this,put gebrselassie in a 400m race, it will be all fun and games until wariner drops a 20.5 second 200m just for fun and geb's legs are stuck at 24 second pacemarathon running is just a different sport, don't confuse it with real runningf*** wad, i agree that many ultrarunners aren't that talented but don't make a stupid argument

Cam wrote:

Ultra runners are kinda like streetballers. It seems impressive in it's setting. I mean streetballers can do some impressive dunks, and Ultra marathons can run an impressive distance without stopping. Looks good on the surface for sure.

It's all fun and games until you put the streetballer in a real game and he gets his lunch money taken by less flashy players, because he doesn't have the fundamentals.

You put a ultra runner in the Chicago marathon and they will get killed, when an african drops a 14:30 5k just for fun and they their legs won't turn any faster than 6 minute pace.

Ultra running is just a different sport. Don't confuse it with real running.

Uhmmm ultrarunners versus REAL RUNNING?

what the hell is real running, every distance up until you blow your carb stores out or what??

"Ultra running is just a different sport. Don't confuse it with real running."

-What the hell is that supposed to mean. Just because a race is run slower for a increased period of time does not mean that it is not "real running". Anyways, I believe real running to be more an aspect of ultra running as it is run mostly on trails and not on some artificial surface. Also, some runners do have a tendency to be faster on rougher surfaces. So just because some runners have found the races that are more suited for them that makes them lesser a runner. Come on now. This is ridiculous.

Actually this bashing ultra runners is ridiculous. As an ultrarunner and a shorter distance runner I believe both have there particular challenges. Running shorter distances requires more finesse with some stragety involved. Ultraruns require stragety in the form of tracking other runners while taking in the right amounts of food and fluids. Ultraruns also require smarter pacing than the shorter races even though shorter race may come down to seconds (or less). The pacing in ultra runs require that you don't tax yourself too early so that you can continue to run the distance throughout the race.

Both types of running have their own challenges and people should respect both.

I have often thought that the animosity towards certain sports comes from their "US Championships" or "World Championships" races. I mean, if you are a 10k runner or marathoner, going to "Worlds" means you qualify out of our nationals, which you must be fast to qualify for and then you wind up posting qualifying times and finishing well at nationals. However, an IronMan or Ultra runner -- they shop around for opportunities to finish up in a certain spot in their age group. Maybe this type of performance is commensurate with a 28:05 10k, but I don't really think so and that's why it's frustrating to think that, as a mediocre runner, I will wind up being less accomplished than the person with way less talent who decides to do ultras or triathlon and winds up "going to worlds" and explaining to the rest of us mortals what it's like to be "in a world championship race"

What do you guys think?

I went to the World Cup 100k this year and I didn't get the impression that any of my teammates were there to have something to brag about.

I think it is like this: regardless of distance the more accomplished runners feel they have less to prove. They compete to compete, both against the competition and against themselves. As you move down in performance I think people become more concerned with appearance and ego. You see a lot more 4 hour marathoners bragging about finishing than you do 2:20 marathoners. They want to be recognized. Same in ultras.

From my experience in ultras I don't think I've gotten to the point where I am "racing" against other people, so much as trying to run as fast as I can (or die as little as possible). In that respect it is different from marathon and shorter races. I don't understand why it can't be to each his/her own. My best for 100k is 7:12 - that is 6:58 per mile and I still consider it running, "real" or otherwise. I don't plan on abandoning ultras because someone else considers them bogus.

But most importantly I think people should avoid passing judgement on Scott Jurek or Matt Carpenter or any of the other specific names listed until they come on here themselves and start singing their own praises. What has been put forth on this and other posts has been a lot of hearsay. Of course that was what the Letsrun message board was built on so where do I get off, huh?

Ultra isn't running, it's jogging. I mean it's impressive like streetball is impressive. But you put these athletes in a mainstream event within thee contex of the real sport, and these athletes can't hang.

Don't confuse a jog-aholic with a real runner.

What sort of pace would a person have to maintain in an ultra to not be considered jogging?

For any runner to be considered a "real" runner, what would a man or woman need to be capable of running a marathon, or say 5,000 meters in?

I'm unclear on the standards.

I think "runners" hate ultrarunners because ultrarunners are often highly regarded by non-runners, even if the respect is undeserved. The guy that ran a 100k gets a lot of awe from coworkers on Monday even if he finished in the bottom third of the race and walked most of it. Meanwhile the guy who ran a 15:00 5k and finished in the top 5 in his race doesn't get fairly recognized even though his accomplishment is more impressive and he placed higher in his race. They don't realize that the 15:00 5k took more talent and harder training than simply finishing a 100k.

I agree.

I ran the 800 (1.48) and 1500 (3.42) in college, was top 10 in the nation, qualified for olympic trials, etc.

I go to work and the people say, "Oh, a runner....so have you done a marathon?" When I tell them I haven't done a marathon they go on to tell me how so-and-so down the hall in the other office has done 7, and this other lady is training for one, etc.

They seem to put greater weight on the distance, rather than the speed or talent of the runner. Same goes for ultra runners.

Seems to help when I tell them that I've done training runs of 14 miles at 5:40 pace. They figure what that would equal in a marathon and then give me a little respect.

i got a 45 yr old guy here at work that gets mad love because he has done over 25 marathons (all in over 5 hours of courseand several ultras- ....all I hear is, "why dont you run the marathon..."

ebrunner wrote:

Meanwhile the guy who ran a 15:00 5k and finished in the top 5 in his race doesn't get fairly recognized even though his accomplishment is more impressive and he placed higher in his race. They don't realize that the 15:00 5k took more talent and harder training than simply finishing a 100k.

But what if a person can run a 15 for 5 km AND crank out a 7 hour 100km? Or 140 miles for 24 hours? Which is the bigger accomplishment? Which is harder? Which took more training? Which required more focus, discipline & persistence? Which was harder on race day?

A big difference is that once you have put the training in for a 5km/10 km, if on race day you feel good on the line, you can just let it fly and 15/30 minutes later you are successful. For an ultra, you can do all the right things in training, feel great on the start line and still will not be successful unless you handle some serious s*** for quite a long period of time on race day. The extended focus and constant exertion of will are the added elements to the ultra racing realm. Most 5km/10km-only folks are just too soft to handle this or even to TRY it.

Ultrarunners are simply tougher than those timid souls who refuse to race past 5km or 10km? Too many of these relatively fast 5km/10km folks just aren't mentally tough enough to handle racing for 6 to 24 hours? Lots of good ultrarunners kick the asses of these wusses at 5km - 10km, yet these wusses rarely back up their claims that ultras are easy by attempting to race an ultra.