a lot of the ultra guys like karnazes and kurpicka feel they're the best thing since sliced bread.
jurek is different, he admired other runners like Geb and Hall, he doesn't think he's a great runner and he really doesn't care what people think of him. He just really enjoys what he does.
ilgore wrote:
I already took Carson Daly down a long time ago. I'm working on Ryan Seacrest now.
Out.
Talk about attention, you talk like a f'ing douche bag, saying "out" every time like we're supposed to be impressed. You really are a loser. No witty jokes here, you're just a loser.
DON'T feed the troll!
ilgore wrote:
I think a hero is anyone who demonstrates excellence in an endeavor. This has to do with quality over quantity.
Mountaineering might be a better example of what I am getting because it has moved in the opposite direction of running. After Everest became a relatively easy thing to do and just another item on people's life lists to check off, climbers turned to more technical ascents. Though Everest is the highest, it is one of the easier mountains to climb. Shorter peaks like K2 actually present more of a challenge. Plus, climbers talk about not just what they climbed but the routes they took and the style they climbed it in.
I don't understand the impulse to go further instead of faster. I don't understand running 50 marathons in 50 states in 50 days. I do understand Ritz busting Kennedy's record because it means Americans might finally be turning the competitive corner with the Kenyans and Ethiopians.
I know I am capable of a Karno feat. I think your average Let's Run poster could do the things Karno does. The biggest hurdle is getting the time and support to take off 50 days to do it. I am more impressed by his getting to the next state in time for the race than I am with his running. Hell, I could just do the same mileage he did in my training for the next 50 days and feel vindicated on that score.
These are stunts. Nothing more. They don't impress me. This is because any fool can run far. I would rather see the transcendence of a great race run than a stunt.
Out.
The goal is not to go as far as you can. It's a set distance, just a very far one. You are still aiming to complete it with a good time, or a time that is faster than everyone else's. That's just the basic concept of racing. The only reason you can't accept it is because it's not mainstream, and therefore, not meaningful to you. If you would think outside the box, though, you would just leave it alone and respect ultra runners' choices instead of grilling them.
I cannot believe this troll thread made it this long. Probably 9/10 for sure?
None of you have convinced me to think differently on this issue. I am right, and the rest of you are wrong. I also think Pam Reed looks like an orange peel left in the sun too long.
Out.
Tim Parr just ran 31:14 at cow harbor!!! I think we can put to rest the fact that the top ultra runners are not just guys that jog a lot.
Big G wrote:
Tim Parr just ran 31:14 at cow harbor!!! I think we can put to rest the fact that the top ultra runners are not just guys that jog a lot.
What is that, a 10k?
31+ 10k is rather mediocre, don't you think? I don't even consider myself "good" and I ran sub 30 in college.
Then you don't know the meaning of good and wasted your time in college.
Check out this National Championship. Running a 1 mile loop for 24 hours.
I have a friend who is an ultra runner. Or rather, he is a runner who also does ultra. I ran into him at a 10k recently. I made a comment about his finishing in the top 3 at a small tough 100 mile trail ultra about 3 weeks previous. He said he had a good race. About 30 minutes in he passed a runner. He did not see another runner for 21 hours. The time alone in the wilderness was what he cherished the most.
Why climb Everest? To see if you can.
Why run 100 miles? To see if you can.
Why try to go faster? To see if you can.
Only those who risk going too far will ever know how far they can go.
Arete wrote:
How about "Marathons are for athletes who can't be competitive in shorter races"? Would you agree?
Kind of ridiculous, eh?
No, not ridiculous. Frames it about right, actually. It implicitly puts ultramarathons further down the spectrum.
The goal of a 1 mile race is to cover the distance faster than all the other runners.
The goal of a 100 mile race is to cover the distance faster than all the other runners.
Racing is racing. Case closed.
Off the Grid wrote:
From the outside, track/XC is the silliest looking sport imaginable.
It is not.
copyrighted - no video wrote:
The goal of a 1 mile race is to cover the distance faster than all the other runners.
The goal of a 100 mile race is to cover the distance faster than all the other runners.
Racing is racing. Case closed.
The first one demands far more excellence, typically, than the other does. Don't try to make a molehill out of a mountain.
not too smart, eh? wrote:
copyrighted - no video wrote:The goal of a 1 mile race is to cover the distance faster than all the other runners.
The goal of a 100 mile race is to cover the distance faster than all the other runners.
Racing is racing. Case closed.
The first one demands far more excellence, typically, than the other does. Don't try to make a molehill out of a mountain.
No, it doesn't. Justify your statement, please.
haah wrote:
not too smart, eh? wrote:The first one demands far more excellence, typically, than the other does. Don't try to make a molehill out of a mountain.
No, it doesn't. Justify your statement, please.
Yes, it does. Far more are trying and have tried to cover the 1 mile distance faster than all of the other runners than is true of 100 miles. Learn the sport, kiddo.
not too smart, eh? wrote:
haah wrote:No, it doesn't. Justify your statement, please.
Yes, it does. Far more are trying and have tried to cover the 1 mile distance faster than all of the other runners than is true of 100 miles. Learn the sport, kiddo.
Probably because most people are too weak to complete a 100 miler.
Most are too weak to turn in a decent mile performance, too. What's your point?
not too smart, eh? wrote:
haah wrote:No, it doesn't. Justify your statement, please.
Yes, it does. Far more are trying and have tried to cover the 1 mile distance faster than all of the other runners than is true of 100 miles. Learn the sport, kiddo.
So you're saying just because more people run the mile than the 100mile that the 100mile is not legitimate? That's bad reasoning, kiddo.