Why Ultrarunning is Dumb

Funny stuff wrote:

If you read the Lore of Running by Noakes you will see that African runners have a difficult time in the long ultra distances. There is something about the genetic makeup of Northern Europeans that allow them to dominate at the longer distances. The Africans legs are too skinny and bird like to withstand mile after mile. Many world class African runners have tried and failed. Just look at a short ultra like Comrades and you can see that.

Geb would get the 50k road WR but would without a doubt get smoked in the 100 mile mountain races. No contest.

I disagree but anyway you still didn't answer my question though. Does the 50K road WR, or the 12 hr track world record, or 100 mile road or track world record etc "count" toward his quest to get 30?

Who really cares what these people do in their free time?

For most, life is boring and dull so it is cool when people find something they are excited by or interested in.

Trail running long events is extremely difficult and some of these people are indeed great runners. Some are also masochistic and/or crazy, but you could probably say the same for people in every sport.

I personally have no interest in running for more than several hours at this time, but I would never rule out an ultra in a cool location. I may want to do this some day.

As for an event like Badwater, I agree these race concepts seem pretty dumb to me, but it's no skin off my nads if some dope wants to go burn up in the desert. If people like this end up killing themselves in the process...well...they knew the risks going in.

My two cents..... the majority of "ultrarunners" I know personally started out as terrible 5k to marathon runners. So naturally rather than working hard and improving at those distances they run these silly ass 50k to 100 mile races to "set" themselves apart from the crowd. They also carry some of the largest egos I have ever seen.

However there are a couple of good ultrarunners that I know who can run respectable times at all distances. One guy can run 17 low for 5k while training for 100 mile races, which in my book is pretty good. But when the guys who can't break 21 for 5k want to move up to 100 milers to set themselves apart that is just a joke to me.

On a side note I'm not a great runner by any stretch but I've run 16's for 5ks and 33's for 10ks. I ventured to do one 50k to see what it was all about ( which I only ran about 10 miles a week for 6 months leading up to it and I finished in the top 25% of finishers at a race that is considered one of the toughest 50ks in the nation). So for these Ultrarunners to think they are special or great because they can avg 11 min/mile for 50k that is just absurd.

asdf--asd0 inexplicably wrote:

But for me, I simply like running long much more than I luck running fast. I don't need to justify this to anyone, ever.

You do need to explain what the hell it means to "luck running fast."

What race did you run and by how many minutes/hours did the overall winner beat you?

Also do you think that you would have a hard time getting in the top 25 percent of some big city marathon? That is extremely easy to do as well.

That is my point it was easy to finish "well" and I didn't train for it. I think most people would have to train to some degree to finish in the top 25% of a major marathon, and I don't think 7-10 miles/week would do the trick.

So when I hear about these Ultrarunners training for 4-5 hours at a time to finish in 6+ hours in a 50k that is just stupid. The distances in and of themselves aren't dumb I should clarify but unfortunately ultrarunning gets a bad rap because of the guys who are pretty bad runners that hype ultrarunning and themselves out. Great for you "ultraman" you can't break 21 minutes for 5k so you want to shoot for 6 hours for 50k. Great you can't break 6 for 50k, so lets shoot for 30 hours for a 100 miler. Great you can't do that either lets shoot for 150 miles in 48 hours.

Where does it end, they never seem to shoot for excellence as the original poster said.

Finishing in the top 25% of a major race is nothing to brag about. Half the runners are probably obese, this is America.

Agreed. I am not sure why that person was bragging about being in the top 25 percent of an ultra. If you run a marathon with 16,000 people you only have to get in the top 4,000 (4 hour marathon) to be in the top 25 percent.

Ultras are every bit as competitive as shorter distances. For example while training for a 100 I jumped into a big marathon with zero speedwork or taper and came in the top 50(out of 20,000). I then ran my 100 and came in 9th out of 100 runners. Which distance is more competitive?

kilgore you're just jealeous

You have to be extreme in some way to achieve ANYTHING. You have to have an excess of something to be anything. Perhaps the best marathoners and 10kers should stop trying to be so fast and just run for fun? Because you know being fast takes a lot of dedication and excess to do.

Julio down by the school yard wrote:

Which distance is more competitive?

the marathon, obviously. If the 40 guys that beat you in the marathon ran the ultra too, they'd probably all beat you

Save your judgement and anger people.

No, not everyone can sub a sub-16 5K or sub 2:20 marathon, etc, but why are so many on here disrespecting and discouraging the average person from going out and being active. I don't get it-am I missing something? There is no sense in calling other people fat asses, talentless, or anything of that nature. Personally, I think it is much more impressive when an average person works their ass off for months at a time in order to complete ANY distance of running, then a naturally talented person with limited training doing a fast 5K. Give me a break-who worked harder?

I discovered ultrarunning after several years of being a road marathoner. For me, ultrarunning was the perfect way to blend my love of the outdoors and wilderness with my enjoyment of distance running, and discovered I was fairly decent at it. No I am not an expert runner, survival expert, or that impressed with people who can run 50 miles in a day. Its really very simple-I do ultrarunning because I enjoy it.

Some people like to sit on there asses and play video games, while others just like to spend a day with nature on a long, slow trail run, others like to run a sub-15 5k then get on with their day. Why is there really shame in any of these is my question?

There is shame in bumping a thread this old.

The problem with your argument, is that it's specious, even though well put.

All sport is equally futile - it serves no purpose other than to amuse us. So, running 1000 miles is no more stupid, valid, dumb, extreme than running 1500 meters. What is not extreme about training for years and years to run 100 meters down a track at the fastest speed you possibly manage? - you think ultras are dumb and that's your personal opinion. But that's all it is - your opinion.

I'm ashamed I mindlessly bumped this thread.

I miss Kilgore. That dude was darned funny.

I'm still around.

That is why you will never understand ultrarunning! Ultradistances are not to beat people! The level of competition on this races are against yourself! You should try a race a see why it is so different!

Have you ever seen people stop running to help others? Have you ever seen people talking like friends for long hours while racing? No? Try ultrarunning...