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

If the market does not lie ~ Then only Olympic runners are worth a damn. It is the only time running on TV might make the ratings list. Overall 1% of the people in the world care about regularly spectating a running event.

I care about running, but rarely can find it on TV. Baseball, Football, Soccer ~ Must be real sports because I see them on TV all the time.

If I go to a high school track meet and a high school football game the football game will have 50 times the spectators, so it must be 50 times the sport.

How many runners make > $1MM a year? Actually how many runner make more than $250k a year? How about other sports?

Track and Field, Road Racing and Cross Country are amazing sports - But if you judge them by spectators or how much money the athletes make ... running is not very high up the list.

Okay I'll bite. I was actually 11th at Western States...not 10th. And yes, I walked most of the last 30-miles. It was really hard. Guys that haven't cracked 2:30 for a road marathon blew by me and crushed me.You know what though? A 3km or a 5km on the track is equally as "hard". Sure, shorter events you can race more frequently and recover faster from...but the intense feeling of lactic acid and running at Vo2max is tough! 800m is also very tough...I ran NCAA DI and 2 US Olympic Trials and several National Champs on the roads...I've raced behind some pretty fast guys and know the pecking order of "competitive distance races." There is a lot more competitive depth on the track obviously. And I'm not impressed by just race distance. Yeah, I do 100-milers now (which I've struggled at)...but I also want to try to qualify for the US Olympic Marathon Trials marathon again in 2020. I missed by 12 seconds for the 2016 Trials...it was also very tough. I respect the process and the guys that made it. A sub 2:19:00 marathon is no joke. Longer distances, longer duration races...there is more stuff that can go exponentially wrong. Massive dehydration, bonking, muscle failure/cramps and sleep deprivation (not to mention falls on sharp rocks that require stitches!). Yeah, you get reduced to a powerhike and walk a lot. Try running up a 30% grade trail on slippery rock when you're 60-miles deep into a 100-miler after 20,000' of climbing already...it's not going to happen. A race like Western is not a super competitive race in terms of depth because "elites" can't just enter (they have to qualify with a "golden ticket"...same thing with Hardrock....only a select few get in. If you want competitive depth in ultras then the ultimate is Comrades....UTMB for mountain 100-milers but even then there will be all sorts of Euros that not many know (yet) that will probably crack the top 10. Some might be on EPO (again). If one is trying their hardest at any distance event, then every distance race should be equally as hard and challenging. 5km or 50km or 100-miles. On the track, on the roads, xc, or in the mountains. All hard.As far as getting respect? Well I respect an #AnySurfaceAnyDistance guy like Max King. He gets top 12 in the Olympic Trials, has run 2:14 in the marathon, does short and long mountain races, top 10 at Comrades, and has a sub 14-min 5km and an 8:30 3km steeple PR to boot! He's not afraid to mix it up with Killian as well as pure road and track guys. You definitely get more recognition as a mountain-ultra-trail runner. Being in a niche helps. When I ran 2:16 in the marathon at Hansons I was just another (slow) guy on the team with a bunch of 2:14-2:15 guys. My 16th place at Boston in 2015 was a zero dollar pay day. Much more lucrative to be a mountain-ultra-trail runner than a 2:16-2:17 marathoner again (it is also a lot more fun!).

Not Fast but Furious wrote:

Remember when Sage Canaday and Jim Walmsley both blew up at Western States 100 after going out way too fast under course record? Sage later said that he spent long stretches in aid stations puking and laying on the side of the trail and mostly walked the last 20 miles or so. I think he still ended up in 10th place. Explain that? If you can blow up that badly and lose that much time and still be top 10 it can't be that competitive or an event.

Deer Sage,Thanks for taking the time to respond to these plebs. I named myself after you. Without a doubt, 100km road and ultra/mountain running are not as competitive as the lesser distances. The point I have been trying to make is that 100km as a DISTANCE is just as legitimate as any other DISTANCE and even more so than some because it is more unique in its required physiological demands. Aerobic lipolytic people!http://slideplayer.com/slide/5860320/19/images/20/ENERGY+SYSTEMS:+Effects+of+Exercise+Duration.jpg

First off, mad respect for Sage Canaday to pop into the boards and respond. Secondly, I have nothing but admiration for his ability on the track, road, and in ultra running. 99.9% of the people on these boards will never touch his times despite what people say.

But I stand by my lack of competition comment. It's harder for the general public and other runners to get behind an event where people can walk/hike long sections and still place fairly highly such as 11th at Western States.

I think you made a smart move because there is more exposure and money for you than trying to get paid as a 2:16 marathoner.

I also dig your videos and find them funny and you have a smoking hot girlfriend so you have nothing to worry about.

Deer Sage,

Thanks for proving my point that only hacks or mid-pack burnouts dabble in ultra or trail.

"You definitely get more recognition as a mountain-ultra-trail runner. Being in a niche helps. When I ran 2:16 in the marathon at Hansons I was just another (slow) guy on the team with a bunch of 2:14-2:15 guys. My 16th place at Boston in 2015 was a zero dollar pay day. Much more lucrative to be a mountain-ultra-trail runner than a 2:16-2:17 marathoner again (it is also a lot more fun!)."

I'm glad that it's a lot more rewarding to get the recognition of sometimes winning one of these mindnumbingly dull "races" than sticking around as a mid-packer and getting beaten. Big time confidence boost.

Gotta pay the bills though. I totally get that.

Good luck on your next jog. Keep inspiring generations of sub-mediocre runners to find new competitionless frontiers to conquer.

Keep us posted!

So quick with the hate.

Does Emma Coburn do the 3000 steeple because it has less competition and she would get blown away in the 5k or 10k? Maybe. Does Mo Farah avoid the marathon for the same reason? Bolt sticks to sprints because he would lose at 1500 etc.

I think its reasonable that each athlete finds the event that best suits their abilities. I know its often said but I highly doubt any random East African distance runner could dominate in ultras just because they are good at the marathon. Maybe they aren't built for climbing and technical down hills or would bonk easily do to lack of fueling.

Jesus are you even trying?

You're asking if the World Champion steepler avoids a competition that is utterly dominated by Kenyans?

Mo's a shitty example because the 1500m is his best event but he can't sit and kick on scrubs in that one so he goes where there is less competition.

Right. The Kalenjin don't know how to run hills and have no idea how to eat. 🙄

I bet that prize money for ultra marathons would evaporate the second a pack of D-squad no-name Kenyans start taking scalps because it would force all the existing ultra "stars" on to some other bullshit spectacle that they can win. Let's be real: No one in the ultra/trail community could stomach getting beaten at yet another discipline so entries would decline overnight.

Imagine if Kimetto had decided to start running ultras instead of real races! 🤣 Can we get a gofundme going? Let's put a nail in this coffin.

slowtwitch. wrote:

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.

This. If the East Africans really wanted to take on ultras they'd dominate Comrades, but they don't. There's enough money and bonuses there for the taking, but not even D East Africans have been successful. The results (and science) speaks for itself.

/END

Are you suggesting that muscle fiber type somehow determines if you're able to burn fat for fuel?

This part: "It's harder for the general public and other runners to get behind an event where people can walk/hike long sections and still place fairly highly such as 11th at Western States."

Because at longer and longer distances, walking uphill becomes far more energetically efficient than running.

No human on earth, right now, could run every step of, say, the Hardrock 100. No person. No amazing marathoner, no matter how they trained, could do it. Because it is so absurdly steep. And to run uphill there would eventually crater you within a mere few hours.

If that's one extreme, and the other extreme is a flat road 100 miler that can be run the full way, then mountainous races like Western will be somewhere in the middle.

What? I thought you got more respect for racing longer distances. If a marathoner gets more respect than 5k runners, a 100k runner should get more respect than a marathoner, right?

Media Darling wrote:

The media along with their siblings in marketing and advertising determine what you and the public will like. Isn't there like ESPN 27 where they might show "Emerging Sports" like Ultra Running, along with Hacky Sack Championships of 1996.

The sad thing is track can't even get on to ESPN, let alone ESPN69.

Baseball players would not be good at 1 or 2, they are too fat.

BioRunner wrote:

As a biologist (ecophysiology), I can tell you that there are three physical areas where humans can outperform any other animals of our body mass:

1) Running distances in excess of 100K, especially in heat or rough terrain.

2) Climbing rocks

3) Throwing objects with speed and accuracy.

From this you could derive an all-animal-world champion tri-sport athletic contest. The victor would be extremely good under primitive survival conditions, at least from a physical perspective.

We know elite sprinters are athletes. Athletes who end up racing sub-3:42/sub-4:00 1500m/one mile are talented athletes. Individuals who end up racing sub-3:42 1500m usually were sub-2:00 800m runners while teenage/school age runners. Marathoners racing sub-4:50 per mile are well respected. Ultras: racing 100 miles at sub-8:00 a mile. Not easy. Suffering on Bataan/Corregidor death march. Not easy. I believe all sub-2:08 Marathoners have raced sub-4:10 one mile or 1500m equivalent or were capable of said 1500m/one mile performance. If ultra athletes show respectable performances at shorter distances, they will get respect.

ironside wrote:

We know elite sprinters are athletes. Athletes who end up racing sub-3:42/sub-4:00 1500m/one mile are talented athletes. Individuals who end up racing sub-3:42 1500m usually were sub-2:00 800m runners while teenage/school age runners. Marathoners racing sub-4:50 per mile are well respected. Ultras: racing 100 miles at sub-8:00 a mile. Not easy. Suffering on Bataan/Corregidor death march. Not easy. I believe all sub-2:08 Marathoners have raced sub-4:10 one mile or 1500m equivalent or were capable of said 1500m/one mile performance. If ultra athletes show respectable performances at shorter distances, they will get respect.

From Sage's website, personal bests:

1500m: 3:55 (2009)

Mile: 4:17 (2009)

3k: 8:22 (2009)

5K: 14:29 (2009)

8k: 23:48 (2008)

10k: 29:47 (2009)

10-miles: 49:01 (2011)

Half Marathon: 1:04:32 (2011)

Marathon: 2:16:52 (2011)

Those are pretty respectable times to me. I think he just happens to be better and more competitive in the ultra scene and can make more money.

As for the hobby jogger crowd, I think it is true that they respect distance more than time. A woman at my work did IronMans and everyone thought she was the best athlete in the world. I later found out her marathon split was around 6 hours and lost all respect for her.

sageisararename wrote:

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

Humans didn't evolve to run 100km+ for time. Persistence hunting tends to be over shorter distances (~35km) and time frames (3-5 hours). It also isn't remotely clear how many societies actually did that.

At some level you can ask why certain sports get more respect. A lot is random. There is no reason why China didn't invent a football game and the US focues on playing Cricket other than where the inventors of those games grew up AND the society needs around them. As it is there is pretty much nothing entertaining about long distance racing much less ultra distance racing. Doesn't mean it isn't a fun hobby but it doesn't make good entertainment

Something similar is triathlon. The hot s#it studs compete in the Olympic distance on the itu circuit where the times are very fast. As such, many folks have this idea that when you can no longer compete you "move down" to the longer and slower distances as if the ironman was some kind of masters league. However, when these guys make the switch to longer distances they usually seem to say the same thing, which is, "equally as hard, just in a different way".

Jko98 wrote:

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.

That sounds incredibly boring. Why would you possibly have any interest in watching that?