Why do runners on this site think that running is only running around in circles or on flat black tar?

Running is beyond wrote:

Why do runners on this site think that running is only running around in circles or on flat black tar? Real running begins somewhere through moutain trails beyond the 42.2km marks. Any takers?

That's fine, as long as you keep calling it running. Don't call it racing though because it isn't. It's called surviving, but not racing.

Running is beyond wrote:

Real running begins somewhere through moutain trails beyond the 42.2km marks. Any takers?

So does that mean those of us in NY or Chicago will never do any "real running"?

Running is beyond wrote:

Why do runners on this site think that running is only running .....or on flat black tar?

I get too buzzed on flat black tar, so I don't subscribe to that type of running. I prefer to run sober.

Running is beyond wrote:

Why do runners on this site think that running is only running around in circles or on flat black tar? Real running begins somewhere through moutain trails beyond the 42.2km marks. Any takers?

there is only one sane reply to this posting, that reply is:

"whatever..."

Yeah.

Running is beyond wrote:

Why do runners on this site think that running is only running around in circles or on flat black tar?

Hey, sometimes I run a rubber belt rotating on spindles. Now THAT takes real fortitude to withstand. Probably the purest form of the sport.

Becuase they are not ultrarunners!

A real runner will run 42.2K in the time most of you require to reach 20K. They RUN you PLOD.

The downside to those long races is too great a risk of injury and the amount of time needed to recover. The rewards are nonexistent. Why only be able to seriously race one or two trail ultras when you can race 10-15 times at shorter distances?

No, real running is many things, it isn't just limited to one set distance or surface.

Running is beyond wrote:

Why do runners on this site think that running is only running around in circles or on flat black tar? Real running begins somewhere through moutain trails beyond the 42.2km marks. Any takers?

don't be mad and sad because you cannot make a dent in the loal 5k.

Keep heading out to the backtrails where you can continue racing the birds and squirrels.

Running is a state of mind. Or, an unfortunate condition associated with the colon. Be at one with your running.

Running is beyond wrote:

Why do runners on this site think that running is only running around in circles or on flat black tar? Real running begins somewhere through moutain trails beyond the 42.2km marks. Any takers?

So if I go out for only 41.2km, in shorts, shoes, singlet, and a watch, and I sweat the entire time because I am moving faster than I normally walk, then what do I call that?

Here's a more detailed answer; comparability. If I run a 5,000 meter track race in 15 something, I know that I'm faster than most people who race the distance but still 2-3 minutes slower than the absolute fastest and since I'm interested in how good or bad I am, that's useful information for me.

If you go to the roads the comparisons aren't as absolute, but most road courses now are fairly similar and allow for pretty valid comparisons, perhaps with a tiny bit of extrapolation. I may know that my time at the NYC Marathon would be a bit faster at Chicago, but not much, so I can look at Chicago's results and see where I'd likely have placed.

But I have no idea what a time for the JFK 50 or Western States 100 equates to in relation to another 50 or 100 mile race. The variations in terrain make such comparisons useless, so I can't run the JFK 50 and then figure out where I'd place at some other 50 mile race nearly as well. And I really can't compare myself to the world record holder.

Also, I think that the Olympics sort of "legitimizes" a distance for many of us, i.e., sort of defines for us what "real running" is. How many threads do you see here about improving your 3km time vs the number you see about improving your 5km time?

In reply to: The downside to those long races is too great a risk of injury and the amount of time needed to recover. The rewards are nonexistent. Why only be able to seriously race one or two trail ultras when you can race 10-15 times at shorter distances?

Yeah I broke my ankle on a "trail" race and now I am out 5 weeks.

Because any halfway decent runner can restyle themselves a trail runner and dominate it unles they are an absolute clutz. Trail ultras are glorified hikes -tough in their own way, but not exactly racing. I like to remind ultra runners that infantry regiments in the Civil War routinely covered the kind of ground in a a few days that ultramarathoners do.

Running is beyond wrote:

Why do runners on this site think that running is only running around in circles or on flat black tar? Real running begins somewhere through moutain trails beyond the 42.2km marks. Any takers?

Because some of us see running, and particularly distance running, as that fantastic mix of speed AND endurance.

What the ultra runners (and the 5 & 6 hr marathon types)have forgotten is the speed part. Just continuing to run forever is not necessarily a race, as much as it a survival contest.

I don't find the Western States to be very interesting and I don't find the indoor 60m very interesting either. Both events go the extreams of the sport.

I'm not a trail defender, but it takes more than a halfway decent runner to dominate trail ultras.

You're saying that army dudes in the Civil War were as fast as ultramarathoners? Which ultramarathoners? It's 2006, and we can't even agree on the accuracy of x-c races and road races - you're telling me you know how far army dudes travelled?

I am saying that when The Army of the Potomac began the day in one place and fought the next day in another, I'd say we know how far they marched. Feats of distance divorced from speed aren't that impressive, or are ratherimpressive for much different reasons. It just isn't racing. Utra guys don't really train - their mileage totals aren't as impressive as most elite marathoners. And they don't really do workouts. Just run alot.

Guys who are sub 15:00 sub 31:00 5k/10k guys can win National Champioships in Trail races without ever having done a trail race. Of course the very best trail racers might have been good all-around runners (Matt Carpenter, Simon Guiterrez), but I argue you can take alot of guys with similar road times and they could also be the best at it. Trail running is what you do when you can't compete at road running. A female friend of mine who had never run a trail race before (but is a sub 18:00 5k runner) beat one of the most celebrated female trail runners in the country - a chick with sponsorships, in a trail race this fall.