Why do people on here hate ultra runners?

Then why don't they?

One day. It is not as lucrative at all for a top runner to do Leadville as much as it used to be (i.e. back in the Krupicka days). Still a win at 100 miles carries more weight than most 50-milers in the US (save for TNF SF). However a win at UTMB or WS100 (even with no prize money) can lead to a life-changing sponsorship deal. Very lucrative. Even a win at Hardrock would be "worth a lot more"...good luck getting into Hardrock though! I also don't think Carpenter's CR at Leadville is nearly as good as his Pikes Peak records. I think the Leadville one can go down. I think a guy like Zach Miller or Tim T. can take it down. I think Pikes Peak is "untouchable" now though. The interesting thing is both Joe Gray and I have run over 1-min faster than Carpenter ever did at Mt. WA...but we're not touching that Pikes Peak Marathon record. Nobody is at this day and age IMHO.

Same anonymous dude as before wrote:

Are you interested in running Leadville? It seems to be falling out of favour with American elites, but Carpenter's CR there may be harder than winning UTMB. The irony is that a podium at UTMB may be more profitable for a sponsored ultrarunner than a victory and CR at Leadville .

About the animosity here towards ultrarunners, it's based on a lack of knowledge of the sport and taking stereotypes and cliches for facts. That and the general trolling attitude.

Re: Pikes Peak -- not even Walmsley? He seems to have an edge when it comes to intensity and climbing fast. Of course, you raced him so you must have a good idea. From the outside, when you were both running Western States he actually wasn't that much faster and you were facing stomach issues early (if I remember correctly). Only after you imploded he really got away. I don't think he's necessarily faster, but his training leading to that race was probably better. You definitely scored higher on toughness getting through all that mess and making it to the finish line. The day you arrive to that starting line with a few months of focused training, you're taking the CR down. And the same probably applies to Jim (although his problem seems more about pacing himself), Zach Miller, Tim Tollefson. You're all faster than the previous wave of American MUT runners, with the exception of Krar who, in his prime, could definitely challenge the current speedsters. His time at WS doesn't get all the credit it deserves.

It's easy to sit in front of the computer and judge all of you guys without really knowing the compromises you have to make to attract sponsors, coach other runners, and be able to make a living at this sport. Marathon elites can focus on a couple goal races and really dial their training. Not so in ultrarunning.

I am not sure which side you are on but I love this!

That is a very generalized statements.

You can just as easily say the "average" 10k runner just plogs along doesn't do speed and can't break a 10 minute mile, and you would be right.

Back in my prime I ran my 50 mile PR by averaging 125 mile a week at sub 7 minute mile. I ran interval 1000 meters in 3:30 and tempo runs around 6:15 pace. That isn't plodding in any but the top distance runners.

Try educating yourself on something you probably have no experience in before making sweeping statements.

This thread is hilarious. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen so many overreaching generalizations in one thread. Ultrarunners are as varied as road runners. Some do track and road mile repeats (including me), some walk entire ultras, some run incredibly fast (in between episodes of vomiting due to running so fast), some are tourists, some are supremely disciplined athletes, some are in it for nothing more than the fun, some are asses, some are the kindest people you’ll ever meet. No one statement could capture all of them except to say that they are all different. I personally know ZERO ultrarunners who think that running an ultra makes them better than anyone else (and I know many, many ultrarunners ranging from casual one-time participants up to the top of the elite ranks). I personally race everything from 5Ks up to hundred milers, both paved and trail. Each distance has its own characteristics, none is easy for me (short distance means more intense suffering...long distance means longer suffering), and I care a great deal about having fun, performing at my best possible level, and being kind. I love getting out into the mountains or the desert for both training and racing. That’s a big part of ultras for me. And I love that it’s a sport for the entire range of humanity in terms of age and variety of inborn talent vs investment in training. It’s never boring, and it’s unpredictable. Try it. You might like it.

What a great comment.

I only disagree on the suffering part. I don't suffer while I run ultras. There is just some discomfort here and there.

I've read through this thread and a reoccurring theme is that ultras are mainly walked. Having completed several 50milers I can tell you that anyone in the top 20 of the race, say out of 200 or so, you will never see walking. A light jog up a steep hill maybe, but everything else is ran hard.

I think the large amount of hate for ultrarunners is the bottom third of those runners that you will see in any marathon or 5k etc. You're going to have people who run a 5 or 6 hour marathon and the same goes for the equivalent with ultras. For example, if you have a race like the JFK 50 miler where you have 1000 people competing, the first 250 people are really the true runners of the pack as the person coming in 250th place is probably finishing in 9 hours and 30 minutes, which is about an 11 minute mile pace and for 50 miles that's not too shabby. The top ten are going to be right around 6 hours and 5:45, while 15-150 place is running 7-8 minute mile pace. In 2015, Jim Walmsey ran the JFK 50 in 5:21 which is insane. No marathoner on earth could run a 5:21 at JFK simply by siginin up and having not competed a distance greater than the marathon. It seems that you haters just state that any marathoner at 2:25 could simply win a 50 miler by just signing up, and you are dead wrong. That just won't happen. Anyways, the remaining 750 runners are your typical fat, jogging, blogging person who tends to show off on facebook. As an ultra runner, I agree with you guys, that those people have their faults and are annoying, but so are the 6:30 marathoners at your races.

The final thing I would like to add here is that an ultra 9 minute mile is NOT equal to that of the marathon mile. For example, 9 minutes on the road is, well slow, of course, but 9 minutes running in the Eastern States 100 in Appalachia Pennsylvania through mud, stream crossings, jagged rocks, sharp turns on mountains, humid August PA heat, roots, thousands of feet of elevation and sudden elevation drops, you name it. It's not the same. I'm sick and tired of reading that ultra runners are wobbling and walking because they are doing a 9 minute or 10 minute mile. FALSE. It's not the same when running an ultra and the fact is ultrarunning should be considered a different sport than road racing and you guys shouldn't even be talking about it on this forum. In reality, ultrarunning is trail running, which is a it's own sport.

+1

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?

Go read "Once a Runner"

He's got a whole bit about it

AMEN! Take even a 10k road race vs a 10k trail race with varying terrain, and a lot more climbing. Sure, the standard road runner may look at 10k top trail time and laugh it off because they'd never be caught dead running that pace on the roads, but it's a totally different run altogether. So many different variables to account for that a road race just doesn't throw at you. I saw some stuff online about some road runners complaining that the Cleveland HM recently was advertised and flat and fast, but the elevation gain in the end was nearing 300 something? I mean, no offense, but statements like that are absolutely the difference between a road runner and trail/ultra. 300 ft of climb across 13.1 miles is nothing, I can hike 2 miles and climb 300 ft without even trying in Western PA. Running at all distances should be respected and appreciated for the unique challenges each runner face upon toeing the line. An elite marathoner will never understand the power an elite sprinter possess, as an elite ultra runner (in most cases) can't relate to the 27:40 10k guy, and somehow that's been forgotten. Tim Olson maybe past his ultra prime, but is still a damn good runner.. not sure what his 26.2 time is, but let's say if he's properly trained and gives it a shot, somewhere in the 2:30s-2:40s I am guessing, still a damn good respectable time that many runners would dream to run on their best day. He isn't even a sub elite road runner, yet he ran an 8:50ish pace for 100 MILES @ Western States.. I don't care if weather conditions were in his favor or not, that's superhuman thus far. On that day he possessed a level of excellence that still hasn't been topped. Respect all running distances for what it is. End of Rant.

Personally I don’t hate ultra runners or ultra running. I have a lot of respect for people that actually run them.

I think where people and myself get annoyed is at the attitude of mediocrity that is prevelant in many and is also prevalent in local 5ks.

It’s this attitude where we scoff at anyone that is relatively fast or actually takes it seriously (yes these people r often really insecure too). It’s an attitude of dishonor to some that take training seriously yet we celebrate this loser mentality and people that settle for mediocrity. Yay here’s your finisher medal while we scoff at the skinny fast guy.

It’s like what’s more impressive a sub 5 mile or “running” a 50k. Many Ultrarunners will scoff at the idea of pushing yourself and running a mile hard yet acting like it’s nothing yet will act like it’s a big deal that they “ran” a 50k where they walked 10 of those miles and jogged the other 20. Meanwhile it’s pretty common for relatively fast or elite milers/5k to complete 15-20 miles at a decent clip every Sunday.

It’s annoying because you have many athletes training for a fraction of the distance running more that the vast majority of ultra athletes.

It’s like the article from outside magazine about running a fast mile being more impressive than completing a ultra. Running a fast mile/5k/marathon requires talent and hard work (as well as running a fast ultra). I’m very impressed with the athletes that take the ultra distance seriously but can’t stand the attitude of look at me I ran an ultra yet trained half ass, am overweight, and only pushed myself in the sense of completing the distance. Just as I can’t stand that attitude in 5ks-Marathons.

There’s a large element of insecurity in it. So you see a lot of people that just decide to go really long distances while walking a large majority of it so that they can brag and say I ran 50k.

That’s what’s annoying and I think that’s partially what the hate is about

False wrote:

No marathoner on earth could run a 5:21 at JFK simply by siginin up and having not competed a distance greater than the marathon.

LOLOLOL!

some ultra runners are pretty good runners. i know people who finished top 10 in 50 milers who have run 10k's in under 30 minutes, marathons near 2:20 and can consistently run 1:06 in HM's

they've been humbled by the longer distance but it's an adaptation thing.

Im presuming alot here, BUT i think the main reason Letsrun visitors don't like ultra runners (and some marathoners) is that we generally have a competitive running background where certain standards are set for ourselves. We don't care about finishing a marathon or an ultra, we want to place high/win or hit a good time. if we were 14:40's 5k guys in college, there's not much thrill 10 years later just breaking 16 minutes.

Example:

I blew up in a marathon recently chasing a 2:26 and i ended up running 2:32. most people i told were amazed, but i was incredibly disappointed. especially since i could have done way less training to run a 2:32 if that was my goal. the 2:32 is a good time, but not to me

i didn't enter college hoping to just graduate, i thought, "i'm going to graduate first in my class."

it's all relative, but Letrunners, in general, don't care about the virtues of simply completing an ultra race or marathon like many do. it's all about being competitive.

"Many Ultrarunners will scoff at the idea of pushing yourself and running a mile hard yet acting like it’s nothing yet will act like it’s a big deal that they “ran” a 50k where they walked 10 of those miles and jogged the other 20. "

Dude you are painting the broadest brush there ever was here with that comment. This is the definition of stereotyping and baiting.

Myself and the folks I run a 50K with would never walk ten miles and jog 20. That's ridiculous. I think yourself and the other road runners here need to change your mark of what competitive ultra running is. If your bar for a competitive ultra runner is walking and jogging the race then I think you need to change your outlook cause when I run a 50K I am destroyed afterwards. My fondest 50 miler was at the JFK where I sprinted the last 4 miles. Imagine sprinting 4 miles when you've ran and yes I mean ran at a 7 minute pace the previous 46. Those 7minute miles where through the AT which really means I was running much faster but, you know, the rocks, swithbacks, hills, and roots were kinda slowing me down. The fact is running a 7min mile across technical trail is WAY harder than running a 5:45 mile on smooth track and road. Maybe my heart rate isn't redlined as much but as far technique goes it's way more difficult.

What I said was entirely true. You road runners think that running a 6:30 mile on trail is equal to running it on smooth road and it's not. A 6:30 min mile on technical trail for 50 miles is darn near impossible. Anyone could do it on a smooth track or road, trying doing it on technical muddy rocky rooty jagged trail and youll see that 6:30 min mile rapidly increase to a 7:30min mile. The fact is trail running in the ultra form is way harder and much more technical than road running is. It's like playing hockey on pavement with no skates and then moving to the ice rink. Of course the ice hockey is much harder and so is ultra running.

The added dimension of the trail will crush you road runners and you'll probably end up falling and hitting a rock if you try a 6min mile. I thin you are the ones who are scared of transitioning to trail ultras cause you're afraid of pushing yourself and failing. Stick to the roads snowflakes. As that surfer said in the first Point Break, "Go Back to the valley, man".

This is true. That is why XC times are way slower than road and track times. Soft ground gives low energy return, which is great

for the body, because the impact will be low. However, one will have to run harder to generate speed, and then you throw in hills and possibly mud, and a runner will slow down considerably.

You didn't read my entire post. I admire people that actually train and race Ultras. I think guys like Walmsley are incredible. I'm talking about the mentality around the majority not the minority. It's the same mentality that is dominant in most road races as well it's just more prevalent in the ultra scene. 7 min pace on technical terrain is badd*ss. I live in the mountains and the majority of my runs have tons of climbing yet I race road races and track meets. I agree with you. Go back and read my entire post.

Fair enough. I like your mindset and I think we can both get along. The only reason I even posted here was because I'm so tired of reading the general negativity towards ultra runners. If more road runners had your outlook then I wouldn't have even posted my comment. I agree with you 100Percent that ultra running has its fair share of losers in it. In fact, a looped course I did had an overweight "runner" walking her dog through the trail loop for 24 hours. I'm all for getting in shape but that was not the time and place to do it. It's people like that that give trail ultra runners a bad name. Now, for the croad runners complaining that 24 hours is too much. You take your best marathon time and try to do it for 24 hours straight. That's how I approached that 24 looped 1.5 mile run. I didn't walk it and sleep and eat doritoes and then go brag about it at work. You road runners need to stop stereotyping us ultra runners.