Why aren't super long-distance, ultra/mountain runners respected?

Only if they ran for Cornell

Because anybody can do it.

Next question...

Because anyone who can't run as far as you is lazy and anyone who can run farther than you is either genetically gifted or doping.

Or maybe it is "faster".

I can never remember.

NotPC wrote:

Because anybody can do it.

Next question...

Anybody can run 100m. 100km should be the most popular and prestigious event because we evolved for it. People love combat sports but don't love the 100km. Doesn't make sense.

Seems like a self absorbed addiction. Any real good athlete could win if he bothered to run all day but why do that? You want the world champ to be the best at that particular craft, not just the best who happened to bother showing up. You don't need an athletic skill set to win this stupid event. Any uncoordinated and weak addict can nerd out 100k cuz he has nothing better to do. I don't have anything against these joggers. But I'm pointing out why no one cares.

sageisararename wrote:

Humans evolved to run very long-distances, to outlast other animals. That's very special but people don't appreciate that, why?

1. It's not in the Olympics.

2. It's not in the IAAF World Championships.

No element of speed

Not a spectator sport

Don't have to have any athletecism

Generally slow people

I think it says far more about the denizens of Letsrun.com. You guys don't seem to like anybody but Trump. It's so weird, when I started running in the '60's everyone else that did it was a liberal hippy. If Letsun is the norm, runners now are almost all small minded bigots. Go Youtube Zach Miller vs. Hayden Hawk to see an exciting ultra.

A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:

1. It's not in the Olympics.

2. It's not in the IAAF World Championships.

Yes, that's the question. Why?

It is all just different flavors of pain.

There is no accounting for taste.

It is ALL delicious in its own way.

Also...

It is my experience that almost everyone who can beat me for one mile, can also beat me for 100 miles (if we train the same).

And vice Versa...

(At the age of 46, talent alone does NOT guarantee a fast mile. 99% of the 45+ guys that ran sub 5:00 for the mile last year, also ran fast 10ks, marathons and/or ultra marathons.)

So which is more fun to watch?

Which has more participation?

Which stimulates the imagination more?

Guys the OP question is why aren't long-distance runners held in as high a regard as their lesser distance peers. It has nothing to do with ultras not being competitive. In other words, why do the sprinters get the glory?

For the same reason that people wouldn't care about football if it was played on a field that is half a mile long.

sageisararename wrote:

Humans evolved to run very long-distances, to outlast other animals. That's very special but people don't appreciate that, why?

Because most of us find that race walking has much more riveting action.

Ha I would love to see half of the people on here try to run an ultra race-especially 100 miles with at least a 10,000+ elevation gain on difficult mountainous terrain. Yep definitely don't have to be athletic to do that.

And the top ultra runners are definitely not slow. Sure you have to run slower when you are on a mountain, but a lot of these runners were former collegiate runners, Olympic trials or olympians (Magda boulet) and could probably crank out a decent road marathon.

"If you can't run fast then run far"

That's why. Nobody wants to see amateur runners duking it out for multiple hours.

sageisararename wrote:

Humans evolved to run very long-distances, to outlast other animals. That's very special but people don't appreciate that, why?

Tastes vary, but I find accounting a more exciting sport.

A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:

2. It's not in the IAAF World Championships.

Yes it is an IAAF World Championship event, just not part of the track World Championship.

The fastest 100km runner should be respected as much or even more than the fastest 100m runner is my point. Running farther fast has served humans better than running shorter fast.

rudishaslegs wrote:

Guys the OP question is why aren't long-distance runners held in as high a regard as their lesser distance peers. It has nothing to do with ultras not being competitive. In other words, why do the sprinters get the glory?

It has everything to do with not being competitive. They are the best at what they do because they are one of the few who do it. It's like getting a medal just for turning up.

When there are 50 guys who can break 11 hours for 100 miles then I'll respect them.