Joe Fejes, you can stop posting as stevet now. The 100 mile run does not need to be defended.
Joe Fejes, you can stop posting as stevet now. The 100 mile run does not need to be defended.
Good call out from an earlier poster, the USATF is not recognizing the American Record. Here is the news on athletes that do push the limits,
http://www.usatf.org/News/Kathryn-Martin-named-USATF-Athlete-of-the-Week.aspx
Here there is no mention of Olsen's performance,
http://www.usatf.org/News/2013.aspx
Also, looks like without a drug test there is no validity other than the track lacking cones/railing.
Mr. Fr@ggy wrote:
Or we are true competitors that are tired of mediocrity taking over our sport. Ultra running is mediocrity. Ever wonder why it doesn't attract the best, but only older white guys, who couldn't hack it in the real world of racing.
Scott J, Sage, Anton, Dean K. None of the guys could even sniff an olympic team. so instead of challenging themselves to get better, they take on weak competition in a niche sport.
Ha ha! Dude, I guess to some I may be considered an "old white guy."...(I'm 27 and only half white btw).
While I fully admit not having a chance at making the US Olympic Team in the Marathon ( obviously my marathon PR of 2:16:52 is a far cry from a sub 2:10 that it will probably take in 2016 as it did in 2012) I will be back on the roads trying to qualify for the US Olympic Trials again this winter (it would be my 3rd one).
Ultras are a challenge and the trails and mountains are a more natural place to run compared to urban city streets or some paved bike path. It's a no-brainer to run in beautiful places that the human body was designed to cover. You should a trail ultra sometime..maybe it would make you a better person. I'd like to think mixing it up in distances and surfaces has made me appreciate running more and has opened my eyes to different perspectives. People are generally nice. We like to drink beer and eat tons of great food after races!
Also, come out to The North Face 50 in Dec and see how "weak" the competition is...you can go tell that to Max King and Rob Krar. It's $10,000 for 1st place ...should be easy money!
S. Canaday wrote:
Mr. Fr@ggy wrote:Or we are true competitors that are tired of mediocrity taking over our sport. Ultra running is mediocrity. Ever wonder why it doesn't attract the best, but only older white guys, who couldn't hack it in the real world of racing.
Scott J, Sage, Anton, Dean K. None of the guys could even sniff an olympic team. so instead of challenging themselves to get better, they take on weak competition in a niche sport.
Ha ha! Dude, I guess to some I may be considered an "old white guy."...(I'm 27 and only half white btw).
While I fully admit not having a chance at making the US Olympic Team in the Marathon ( obviously my marathon PR of 2:16:52 is a far cry from a sub 2:10 that it will probably take in 2016 as it did in 2012) I will be back on the roads trying to qualify for the US Olympic Trials again this winter (it would be my 3rd one).
Ultras are a challenge and the trails and mountains are a more natural place to run compared to urban city streets or some paved bike path. It's a no-brainer to run in beautiful places that the human body was designed to cover. You should a trail ultra sometime..maybe it would make you a better person. I'd like to think mixing it up in distances and surfaces has made me appreciate running more and has opened my eyes to different perspectives. People are generally nice. We like to drink beer and eat tons of great food after races!
Also, come out to The North Face 50 in Dec and see how "weak" the competition is...you can go tell that to Max King and Rob Krar. It's $10,000 for 1st place ...should be easy money!
Dude look around an ultra race. How much diversity is there? Let me guess which half you are. I've been running longer than you've been alive sonny. I have run in more place and more distances than you will ever dream of.
But you can't deny that ultra running is a niche sport. While it attracts decent runners, it doesn't attract the best in the world, not by a long shot. You simply cant make that claim. Max King and Rob Krar, who ever the heck they are would be smoked in a normal race.
The competition is weak compared to real road marathons and track and field. Don't play stupid.
From the McMillan running calculator:
Distance
Time
Pace/Mi
Mar
2:20:00
5:21
100Mi
13:28:20
8:05
Olsen's 11:59:28 is equivalent to a 2:04:37 marathon and a 12:47 5k. Not bad. Where's that little D3 guy who said that he and his bros could break the 100-mile record? Sorry fellas. Your 16-minute 5ks probably won't cut it.
From the McMillan running calculator:
Distance
Time
Pace/Mi
Mar
2:20:00
5:21
100Mi
13:28:20
8:05
Olsen's 11:59:28 is equivalent to a 2:04:37 marathon and a 12:47 5k. Not bad. Where's that little D3 guy who said that he and his bros could break the 100-mile record? Sorry fellas. Your 16-minute 5ks probably won't cut it.
Dude look around an ultra race. How much diversity is there? Let me guess which half you are. I've been running longer than you've been alive sonny. I have run in more place and more distances than you will ever dream of.
But you can't deny that ultra running is a niche sport. While it attracts decent runners, it doesn't attract the best in the world, not by a long shot. You simply cant make that claim. Max King and Rob Krar, who ever the heck they are would be smoked in a normal race.
The competition is weak compared to real road marathons and track and field. Don't play stupid.
Very articulate and well said. I can't believe Sage would come on here in full troll mode and try to disrespect you like that. Good job setting him straight.
McMillan Calculator has Paula Radcliffe running under 10hrs!!! Awesome, we just proved Olsen's time is a joke!
You're not even a little bit correct.
Mr. Fr@ggy wrote:
S. Canaday wrote:Ha ha! Dude, I guess to some I may be considered an "old white guy."...(I'm 27 and only half white btw).
While I fully admit not having a chance at making the US Olympic Team in the Marathon ( obviously my marathon PR of 2:16:52 is a far cry from a sub 2:10 that it will probably take in 2016 as it did in 2012) I will be back on the roads trying to qualify for the US Olympic Trials again this winter (it would be my 3rd one).
Ultras are a challenge and the trails and mountains are a more natural place to run compared to urban city streets or some paved bike path. It's a no-brainer to run in beautiful places that the human body was designed to cover. You should a trail ultra sometime..maybe it would make you a better person. I'd like to think mixing it up in distances and surfaces has made me appreciate running more and has opened my eyes to different perspectives. People are generally nice. We like to drink beer and eat tons of great food after races!
Also, come out to The North Face 50 in Dec and see how "weak" the competition is...you can go tell that to Max King and Rob Krar. It's $10,000 for 1st place ...should be easy money!
Dude look around an ultra race. How much diversity is there? Let me guess which half you are. I've been running longer than you've been alive sonny. I have run in more place and more distances than you will ever dream of.
But you can't deny that ultra running is a niche sport. While it attracts decent runners, it doesn't attract the best in the world, not by a long shot. You simply cant make that claim. Max King and Rob Krar, who ever the heck they are would be smoked in a normal race.
The competition is weak compared to real road marathons and track and field. Don't play stupid.
Why should he play stupid? You've already secured the role.
Mr. Fr@ggy wrote:
Or we are true competitors that are tired of mediocrity taking over our sport. Ultra running is mediocrity. Ever wonder why it doesn't attract the best, but only older white guys, who couldn't hack it in the real world of racing.
Dude, taking on board your mediocrity spiel... isn't mediocrity anything that is not at the world level? That 15 minute 5km time might win you some road races. Hell, that 14 minute 5km time might win you some road races also. You might even win some track races! But guess what!? That is mediocre because it won't get you in the Olympics.
Get a grip. If you have the ability to pursue the Olympics, then do it! But for 99.9% of the population that is not a reality. So why not pursue the things you love? Maybe you enjoy the 100m and want to be as fast as possible. Or maybe you are content with winning those local road races. Maybe you want to pursue the 100 mile AR or WR, or run in the Mountain World Championships or just a local ultra.
You're right, ultras are not for everyone. Actually, a lot of people hate them...even people who run them, hate them! But guess what? For those of us who enjoy them, it becomes a lifestyle. There are some out there who do it for fame, but that is not what ultras are about. It is about pushing human limits and discovering yourself along the way. You might not understand that, and that is fine. We don't want your type running ultras anyway.
Are you an Olympics champion? A World Record holder? Did you make the Olympic Team? If you did, congratulations. If not, then join the club and live you life pursuing the things YOU LOVE.
I don't want Mr Froggy to run an ultra. I want him to show up at one so I can shove my fist down his throat. Although he's probably a world class cage fighter as well and would kick my butt.
All sports are niche sports to those who don't participate in them. You talk about mediocrity but the only way you can determine world class is to look at the best in the world and what they are doing. Wilson Kipsang is world class in the marathon. We know this because he runs it. Wilson Kipsang is NOT world class in the 100mile because he hasn't demonstrated his superiority in it. And you can't claim he or any other runner would be superior until they actually step up and do it. The carry over between the marathon and a 50 or 100 miler is akin to the carry over between the 800 and 5k. Just because runners demonstrate speed at shorter distances doesn't mean they will be superior at any longer distance. DO NOT make the mistake of letting your lack of understanding of what it takes to do a 100 or 50 miler cloud your reasoning. The world leading marathoners will rule the ultra world when you have 800m runners winning 5000m world championships.
Mr. Fr@ggy wrote:
S. Canaday wrote:Ha ha! Dude, I guess to some I may be considered an "old white guy."...(I'm 27 and only half white btw).
While I fully admit not having a chance at making the US Olympic Team in the Marathon ( obviously my marathon PR of 2:16:52 is a far cry from a sub 2:10 that it will probably take in 2016 as it did in 2012) I will be back on the roads trying to qualify for the US Olympic Trials again this winter (it would be my 3rd one).
Ultras are a challenge and the trails and mountains are a more natural place to run compared to urban city streets or some paved bike path. It's a no-brainer to run in beautiful places that the human body was designed to cover. You should a trail ultra sometime..maybe it would make you a better person. I'd like to think mixing it up in distances and surfaces has made me appreciate running more and has opened my eyes to different perspectives. People are generally nice. We like to drink beer and eat tons of great food after races!
Also, come out to The North Face 50 in Dec and see how "weak" the competition is...you can go tell that to Max King and Rob Krar. It's $10,000 for 1st place ...should be easy money!
Dude look around an ultra race. How much diversity is there? Let me guess which half you are. I've been running longer than you've been alive sonny. I have run in more place and more distances than you will ever dream of.
But you can't deny that ultra running is a niche sport. While it attracts decent runners, it doesn't attract the best in the world, not by a long shot. You simply cant make that claim. Max King and Rob Krar, who ever the heck they are would be smoked in a normal race.
The competition is weak compared to real road marathons and track and field. Don't play stupid.
I'm faster than you too, Mr Froggy!!!! Wanna race a 1500? :-D
Mr. Fr@ggy wrote:
Or we are true competitors that are tired of mediocrity taking over our sport. Ultra running is mediocrity. Ever wonder why it doesn't attract the best, but only older white guys, who couldn't hack it in the real world of racing.
Scott J, Sage, Anton, Dean K. None of the guys could even sniff an olympic team. so instead of challenging themselves to get better, they take on weak competition in a niche sport.
Teg don't run no damn 100 miler!
Boy do I regret starting this thread. Sorry Jon!
Even though the average marathon time is in the 4 hour range these trolls have informed us that only the truly slow and talentless run ultras.
All you need to do is look at history. Look at it.
The argument that the 100 mile times are world class because they are the times being run doesn't mean the times are good or the runners are great.
It's like that with any niche of a niche sport. Take a look at the women's steeple, the woman's pole vault. The early "champions" times/heights weren't very good and it was because their weren't many people doing it. Not becuase they best people were doing it and those were the best efforts.
The $$ and attention is in road marathons. That's why you see a lot of younger runners skipping the track and going to that. What has happend to the marathon in recent years as more people gravitate towards it?
I'm not claiming ultra marathoners are not athletes or not decent athletes. I never said that. What I did say is that ultra marathors are not the cream of the crop in terms of running. They are mostly guys who couldn't reach the pinicle of their sport - the olympics. (A small handful are elite caliber athletes)
But you already see the whining from the ultra crowd as more and more people get into it, as it becomes more popular and race times go down. The ultra crowd seems to champion mediocrity where "just finishing" is the reward.
One last thing before you get all over me.
What non-masters running record is being broken by a 39YO man?
Physiology tells us that you don't peak at 39. That alone should make you question this record as "world class"
Mr. Fr@ggy wrote:
All you need to do is look at history. Look at it.
The argument that the 100 mile times are world class because they are the times being run doesn't mean the times are good or the runners are great.
It's like that with any niche of a niche sport. Take a look at the women's steeple, the woman's pole vault. The early "champions" times/heights weren't very good and it was because their weren't many people doing it. Not becuase they best people were doing it and those were the best efforts.
The $$ and attention is in road marathons. That's why you see a lot of younger runners skipping the track and going to that. What has happend to the marathon in recent years as more people gravitate towards it?
I'm not claiming ultra marathoners are not athletes or not decent athletes. I never said that. What I did say is that ultra marathors are not the cream of the crop in terms of running. They are mostly guys who couldn't reach the pinicle of their sport - the olympics. (A small handful are elite caliber athletes)
But you already see the whining from the ultra crowd as more and more people get into it, as it becomes more popular and race times go down. The ultra crowd seems to champion mediocrity where "just finishing" is the reward.
No one is arguing against you. Everyone knows that this time (or any mark that exists currently in ultra) is not as close to the limit of human potential as the current marks on the track or roads. Duh. For crap's sake, the North American record is still 31 minutes off the world record, and that could certainly be lowered significantly. The difference between you and the non-trolls is that most people don't wallow in this fact and instead recognize that it's still a very impressive, credible accomplishment that commands respect and recognition.
How do you feel about guys who won the Boston Marathon in the first half of the 20th century? Niche sport losers mired in mediocrity who were just trying to duck competition? If you could go back in time would you do your best to let those guys know how unimpressive they are and how many people would crush them if they bothered to train?
The comparison to the early times in the Boston Marathon isn't applicable.
That was what the best in the world was running at the time.
You can't argue with a straight face the best runners in the world are running ultras.
People certain are trying to argue Jon's time is something special. It ain't