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

Velocibuddha wrote:

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...

If it's not so much a matter of weight differential, I don't think this is true. It even goes beyond physiologically differences.

zohan wrote:

Whatever dude... Look at the jokers out the walking around on the trails and then look at the dudes doing the 100m and tell me who the athlete is.

Nice troll thread btw

Why run anything beyond the sprints then? But ok, sprinters are the best and the real athletes.

For the others then, how is a 10k better than a 100k?

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD IS THAT RUNNING A 10K ISN'T INHERENTLY BETTER THAN RUNNING 100K. That means we ignore competitiveness.

100k is inherently better than 100m because we evolved for that.

XY wrote:

No element of speed

Not a spectator sport

Don't have to have any athletecism

Generally slow people

Why are you bringing up the 10K?

B. Mills wrote:

XY wrote:

No element of speed

Not a spectator sport

Don't have to have any athletecism

Generally slow people

Why are you bringing up the 10K?

Insert any event. Are you a better runner because you can run one distance relatively faster than another?

I assure you the reason for this is that there is zero testing in this distance.

In 2016 the ONLY athlete tested by USADA was Joe Grey. That means all the other elites including Walmsley could be doping like crazy. In an interview before WS100 Walsley admits hes never been tested a single time.

Top end elite marathoners are too much fast twitch and will cramp and have a hard time burning fat after 40 miles. The best ultra runners are good marathoners but not great- have more slowtwitch fibers to better burn fat.

Super long-distance and ultra/mountain runners like to deal with those big numbers, but they lack the personality to become accountants.

Lol.. Slow twitch blah blah.... There's no money in that stupid stuff for anyone with any ability to do it.

That's why second and third tier marathoners do it.

If there's ever real money offered you'll see actual talent come to the event. By talent I mean East African runners.

sageisararename wrote:

Velocibuddha wrote:

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...

If it's not so much a matter of weight differential, I don't think this is true. It even goes beyond physiologically differences.

Age definitely plays a role here.

At a young age a fast mile runners may very well be a different athletes from the fast ultra -marathoners.

But not for older runners....

Fast at one. Fast at the other.

Even the training requirements are similar for older people.

Funny story...

I am a 46 year old triathlete.

Running is my weakness.

Last fall I decided I wanted to try to run a 5 minute/mile.

One week after racing a good Ironman I time-trailed 5:10.

Two months later (after considerable speed work, short intervals, but lower training volume)- I time-trailed 5:18

Not an accountant wrote:

Super long-distance and ultra/mountain runners like to deal with those big numbers, but they lack the personality to become accountants.

This is probably correct. I've met a few, and all were nice people, but they are generally snoozers. I once bought a book that was a collection of stories written about ultrarunning by ultrarunners and it was mostly unreadable. You would think that between the 25-30 runners at least one interesting thing would have happened, but it didn't.

I do admire and respect what they do though, I know that I couldn't likely complete a 100k, nor do I even want to consider it.

sageisararename wrote:

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.

Like the guy you responded to said, Anyone can do it. Running 100k is only a measurement of toughness and fortitude. Both fine qualities, but not exactly a measure of athletic supremacy. Not to mention the hours and years of LSD running required to what amounts to competing with mostly walkers throughout a race where the locals volunteering try to take you seriously when you come through the aid station at 14 minute pace.

Max King would not get through 5k heats at a D2 college dual meet. Why enshrine slowness as equal to athletics?

zohan wrote:

Lol.. Slow twitch blah blah.... There's no money in that stupid stuff for anyone with any ability to do it.

That's why second and third tier marathoners do it.

If there's ever real money offered you'll see actual talent come to the event. By talent I mean East African runners.

Comrades has about the same prize money as most big city marathons. Why don´t your beloved East Africans just go there and collect the money?

sageisararename wrote:

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD IS THAT RUNNING A 10K ISN'T INHERENTLY BETTER THAN RUNNING 100K. That means we ignore competitiveness.

100k is inherently better than 100m because we evolved for that.

LOLOLOLOL!!!

We evolved for running 100k??

According to whom?

Cave drawings showing stick men running 100k chasing game?!!

Sorry, I'll take Gatlin & Bolt for cheetah hunting.

Or are you a vegan strain that also believes the ancient farmer/gatherers needed to run around the corn fields for 100km?

Ultra dudes and gals need to ditch the chip on their shoulders and run 100k for the love of it.

....Cause, really, nobody cares who finished first "running" 12 min pace for 20 hours!

(Don't get me wrong, volunteering for Hard rock allows me to appreciate the toughness involved, still, only 100 people care)

Because it's easy to be extreme. It's hard to be excellent.

I'm the biggest fan of East Africans but I don't believe they would dominate like they do in track. The physiology of super long distance is different and robustness has its role as well.

If you finish top at a World Championship you will be tested after the race and put in a pool for random testing.

From an US national champion blog -

I thought all of this was behind me after that day, but every year, USADA selects a batch of athletes to include in the International Testing Pool. These athletes have to record their whereabouts on a weekly basis, including a 60-minute daily time frame when they will periodically be tested for steroids and other performance-enhancers. It keeps the sport honest. Ostensibly, the top-performing athletes are more likely to be taking drugs because they are standing out in some significant way, so this is a good thing. I personally don’t want to race against people who are physiological cheaters.

I was having a a similar conversation with a colleauge this week. Comrades pays out about $30,000 to the winner, depending on the exchange rate. That's pretty decent money. Most of the top ten were from the region (South Africa, Lesotho, Zim) and none were from east Africa. Two explanations-either East Africans can't compete at super long distances or they prefer not to as they can't race distances that long often enough to make it worth it.

If they (or their coaches/handlers) decide it's worth it, they'll be there and do well.