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

I am predominantly a track guy but there is nothing like going for a long run on some lonely trail way up in the mountains. If we are talking racing, give me the track or road but just pure running I'll take the mountains anyday!

Trail truth wrote:

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.

Are we talking about trail races, or trail ultras? Which national championship are we talking about?

"Feats of distance divorced from speed aren't that impressive"

24-hour Australian Championship ’97, Adelaide, 4-5/10/97 (303.506 km)-Yiannis Kouros

That's impressive

I can provide an example: 2004 Trail Marathon Championships was won by Chad Newton - a guy who had run 2:21 in the 1996 Trials but hadn't run that fast since. I think he had maybe done one or two trail races before that.

Ultras are their own beast (I would probably agree not exactly racing, but just a bunch of individuals engaging in solo ordeals at the same time and applying the word "winner" the person who does it faster), but I would say that trail racing at shorter distances is populated by folks who probably just enjoy it more and don't really think they would necessarily beat good road/track guys if they bothered to trail race. Put some prize $$ up in a trail race and we'll see some of the local yokels and road mules that chase turnips every weekend beating the well known "trail racers".

Brian wrote:

I can provide an example: 2004 Trail Marathon Championships was won by Chad Newton - a guy who had run 2:21 in the 1996 Trials but hadn't run that fast since. I think he had maybe done one or two trail races before that.

Ultras are their own beast (I would probably agree not exactly racing, but just a bunch of individuals engaging in solo ordeals at the same time and applying the word "winner" the person who does it faster), but I would say that trail racing at shorter distances is populated by folks who probably just enjoy it more and don't really think they would necessarily beat good road/track guys if they bothered to trail race. Put some prize $$ up in a trail race and we'll see some of the local yokels and road mules that chase turnips every weekend beating the well known "trail racers".

Fair enough, but bringing 2:21 marathon credentials to the table for a marathon trail race is a far cry from "sub 15:00 guys" dominating trail running. But, you didn't make the original comment anyway...

Of course I agree ultra running isn't as competitive as road racing. However, I just didn't agree with one of the previous posters who indicated that any decent runner could dominate the sport. That clearly isn't the case.

Your an idiot to make such a statement---

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?

Running is running. as long as its not walking or shuffling. what does it matter whether you do it in the mountains or on a track or on the road or even trails?

step up wrote:

"Feats of distance divorced from speed aren't that impressive"

24-hour Australian Championship ’97, Adelaide, 4-5/10/97 (303.506 km)-Yiannis Kouros

That's impressive

Exactly.

Running is running.

But other than Bruce Fordyce, Yiannis Kouros, and a few others their feats could be easily surpassed by those who are great in cross country and on the track.

So, yes, it's just not that impressive. Though, to the original poster: you're right there is more to running than cirlces and asphalt. And it's all running, if you are running.

–verb (used without object) 1. to go quickly by moving the legs more rapidly than at a walk and in such a manner that for an instant in each step all or both feet are off the ground.