LOL jokes on you. I, ME AM the biggest hater of ultra mountain runners. Every time I think of Paula Radcliffe I laugh hysterically. Can't she lift her knees like a real runner? I am the biggest hater of anything above 200m. You have 0 clue of how much I detest non-sprinters. I laugh in your face bruh. LOLDo you know why I hate wide receivers in the NFL? Because half of them can jump but are slow AF. They're overrated scrubs and fake athletes.100k is a real "long distance" and should be respected just as much as anything above 200m. I am the first one to say there is no competition outside of track but again the best 100k runner would be no less of an "athlete" than any other non pure sprinter.
Fastlier than Thou wrote:
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)