Why Ultrarunning is Dumb

haah wrote:

not too smart, eh? wrote:

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.

Then why did you not only come up with it but also applied it in such a public fashion?

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.

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.

Each demands only that one be fast enough to out run the competition. The objective is to outrun the competition. Racing is racing.

And the greater (deeper) the competition, the higher the demand for excellence. You could also find only noncompetitive 5k's to run if your jones for winning were greater than shooting for true excellence. People who do that sort of thing know deep down that it's a farce. Most aren't even brave enough to admit to that, though.

not too smart, eh? wrote:

haah wrote:

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.

Then why did you not only come up with it but also applied it in such a public fashion?

I really can't tell what you're saying. Do me a favor and define two things:

1. "it" in your previous post

2. "excellence"

I don't know what you're talking about when you saying "why did you not only come up with IT..." what is "it"?

The subject of the final sentence in the post it was a response to.

not too smart, eh? wrote:

And the greater (deeper) the competition, the higher the demand for excellence. You could also find only noncompetitive 5k's to run if your jones for winning were greater than shooting for true excellence. People who do that sort of thing know deep down that it's a farce. Most aren't even brave enough to admit to that, though.

So you're saying that a good time depends on how many people run the event? You think that nothing can be good without lots of other people doing it too? What happened to good individual marks? Just because it's easier to win, doesn't mean the sport is illegitimized. The people who do it may not be the best, but if the best did it, then all of a sudden, it would be a real event. Your concept of good, thus, depends on the popularity of an activity. Nothing can be good without competition and nothing without competition can be good. So from your point of view, new sports would be illegitimate as soon as they started because nobody would do them at first. How do you explain this?

ultras is just people getting bored and trying to do something new and different like all these stupid records people try to break like flying around the world in a balloon I mean wtf who cares it has no relevance to most people

actually this kind of extreme event has a history in six day races and things it could actually be interesting to watch for spectators if it was extreme enough

What the fuck do you still need explained, Einstein?

I still haven't changed my opinion on this subject, but I think I can add something else to the topic.

Ultrarunning is really hiking. I like hiking. Hiking is fun. It is also healthy. Most ultrarunning involves a great deal of walking and would be understood better as speed hiking. But why rush it?

The fact that product makers such as Montrail and The North Face make ultrarunning gear shows that ultrarunning's real roots are not in running but hiking. Seeing an ultrarunner on a trail is not much different than seeing a hiker. The only difference is that the ultrarunner will be wearing running style shoes instead of boots and a camelbak instead of a full backpack.

Road ultras like Comrades are an extension of marathoning. As for Badwater, that is just some madness people do in the desert.

I like to run on the trails but after a certain distance, I am ready to trade in my running shoes for some boots and walk the thing. With that understanding, I have three categories I can put ultrarunning events in:

-Running

-Speed hiking

-Stunts

Comrades would be a running event. Western States would be speed hiking. Badwater is a stunt. I still think all three are stupid but for different reasons for each.

Events classified in running longer than the marathon such as Comrades are really pointless. You can extend just about any marathon and end up with almost identical results at the finish line.

Events classified as speed hiking are pointless because it ruins a good hike and adds an element of competition where there doesn't need to be one. It's like turning surfing into a competition which I also think is dumb. I have always admired Laird Hamilton for eschewing the contests. If you're going to be out on the trails for that long, you should enjoy it and not ruin it.

Events classified as stunts such as Badwater are simply hazardous to health. There is an element of risk in all sports, but we do what we can to mitigate those risks. Badwater increases them. It is all about surviving the excrucating heat, and everyone readily admits that it can't be done without a crew vehicle following you to keep you from dying.

All of these events are designed to amaze people at how crazy they are. That's it. All I am saying is that these things really are crazy and dumb. It is the dumb part that pi$$es people off. It bothers these idiots that some people don't admire what they do. I am one of those people. I don't admire ultrarunners. I don't think they are special or superhuman or accomplished anything of any significant note. Two points have been made abundantly clear in this discussion:

1. Elite ultrarunners are average marathoners.

2. Elite marathoners don't waste their time on ultras.

If it is all about finishing, then ultrarunners are no different than Gallowalkers. I don't think it is a coincidence that Karno shares space over at RW with the Penguin. They may differ in distances covered, but they are in the same philosophical camp.

There is a big difference between running far and running well. Running far is easy. Running well is difficult. At some point, the novelty of these distances and events wears off. Once you've run Badwater, do you really need to run it again? And what do you do after that? Run it while wearing a black raincoat?

The other factor is that the public soon grows bored with these extreme events. Adventure racing is more hardcore than ultrarunning, but it is doubtful that Primal Quest will even be held next year. It will probably join the Raid Gauloises and the Eco-Challenge in the dustbin of endurance athletic history. Most people in the world would rather watch some guys kick a ball around a field.

I think interest in ultrarunning will level off and fade away much as is happening now with adventure racing.

Out.

First of all, ultras have gained a great deal of popularity and only seem to be getting more popular (more races, more races selling out faster) across the country. Let's face it not many people watch track and field in the US and if track and field were not a college and olympic sport it would be dead in the US. If road racing didn't have shufflers and walkers a majority of them would have went by the wayside and there would only be a few around the country.

I think some of the ultras are a bit silly, but just like the local 5k, marathon... there are people walking, running, whatever during the races. Correct that "elites" for the most part don't participate in ultras, but I think there is good reason for that - sponsors. Some elite getting serious change from Nike is not going to get the same from Montrail or TNF unless they are a great salesman. Some previous posts have already listed names of some pretty fast guys out there that if they focused on road racing would, although not "elite", would be pretty competitive.

The other question I have is why is the marathon the furthest distance that someone can achieve "excellence"? Let people run as far as they want, bike as far as they want, race or not, and if someone out there is fast they are fast. If they train hard and make it to the top of their chosen sport then they've accomplished something most of us have not. If you feel like you can knock someone off at 50k or 50 miles go do it, prove your point.

not too smart, eh? wrote:

And the greater (deeper) the competition, the higher the demand for excellence. You could also find only noncompetitive 5k's to run if your jones for winning were greater than shooting for true excellence. People who do that sort of thing know deep down that it's a farce. Most aren't even brave enough to admit to that, though.

I can also find quite a number of "competitive" 5ks and still not encounter the depth and talent you I find at, say, the Western States 100. What of it?

FAIL

copyrighted - no video wrote:

not too smart, eh? wrote:

And the greater (deeper) the competition, the higher the demand for excellence. You could also find only noncompetitive 5k's to run if your jones for winning were greater than shooting for true excellence. People who do that sort of thing know deep down that it's a farce. Most aren't even brave enough to admit to that, though.

I can also find quite a number of "competitive" 5ks and still not encounter the depth and talent you I find at, say, the Western States 100. What of it?

copyrighted - no video wrote:

I can also find quite a number of "competitive" 5ks and still not encounter the depth and talent you I find at, say, the Western States 100. What of it?

not too smart, eh? wrote:

FAIL

FAIL(s to answer the question)

It's a stupid question with an incorrect premise. What of it?

copyrighted - no video wrote:

copyrighted - no video wrote:

I can also find quite a number of "competitive" 5ks and still not encounter the depth and talent you I find at, say, the Western States 100. What of it?

not too smart, eh? wrote:

FAIL

FAIL(s to answer the question)

not too smart, eh? wrote:

It's a stupid question with an incorrect premise. What of it?

It is a perfectly appropriate question with a valid premise based upon your objection to ultra-distance races.

But hey, if typing "FAIL" makes you feel better by allowing you to avoid answering it, more power to you.

Racing is racing.

Anything above 10K is gay (except 12K XC). Why the f*** is it cool to run 26.2 miles at 5:10 pace? If I want to see a 5:10 mile I go to my League track meet and watch the girls run. Road races are cool up to 10K. If you have that little speed that a 10K race is too fast and not long enough running is not for you. Ultra marathon running is by far the worst. Dean K is okay but everything else about it is garbage. Only people who do it have no life, no speed, and just plain weird. I wish Ryan Hall and Ritz would quit wasting their good years of running with shitty marathons.

copyrighted - no video wrote:

not too smart, eh? wrote:

It's a stupid question with an incorrect premise. What of it?

It is a perfectly appropriate question with a valid premise based upon your objection to ultra-distance races.

But hey, if typing "FAIL" makes you feel better by allowing you to avoid answering it, more power to you.

Racing is racing.

Nope, it's complete relativism. Keep telling yourself that to feel better about escaping real competition by going off into the woods. If you can't take the heat......

Ultras would be cool if they were more extreme like more competitors fainting and falling over and dying and shit.

not too smart, eh? wrote:

Nope, it's complete relativism. Keep telling yourself that to feel better about escaping real competition by going off into the woods. If you can't take the heat......

I have no need to "tell myself that" since I do not run ultras.

As for being "a relativism", you were the one who brought that up in the first place. Something about the odds of a competitive shorter distance race usually requiring more "excellence", whatever that is, than an ultra. If you can't handle the subject, you shouldn't introduce it.

It's a race. It's all about getting across the finish line first. The top level ultra runners have a running ability that is metered out over longer distances than 5k runners. Either you can cut it or you can't. You think ultra running is a joke? By all means show up at Western States some day and show Scott Jurek how much he sucks.

A race is a race. Olympians realize this. This is why you don't hear Olympic milers ridiculing marathoners. Mostly the uninformed criticism comes those from the never-was crowd. You fit right in.