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

It's the depth of competition. At the very top of the ultra ranks, runners understand there is real talent. But if you're top 2% in 100 you come in second. If you're top 2% in 10000 - you are 200th. It's really a numbers game with a smaller talent pool, and a focus on completion and not as much on competition.

I believe however, what comprises talent for about 10K up until 100K is much more similar than when you start to go beyond 100K. The specificity drift is larger. A number of Western States champs who weren't running Trials marathon times.

Ned Vlaanderen wrote:

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.

When Roger Bannister or Zatopek or even Jim Ryun were running, they were among the few running their races. Yet we honor them because they were head and shoulders above their peers - multiple standard deviations and so on. Same with today's top ultrarunners - there are a few who are simply head and shoulders above the rest, and they would still be if the field were 10X the size it is now.

No Kenyan or Ethiopian, and I mean NONE, could do what Kilian does, which is handle dangerous, technical mountain terrain as if it is a paved sidewalk, while going aerobically full-tilt. He is in a class of his own, separate from all other ultra guys. I am an alpinist myself, and deal with that kind of terrain on the reg, but his ability to fly over it is truly ridiculous.

UltraHack wrote:

It's the depth of competition. At the very top of the ultra ranks, runners understand there is real talent. But if you're top 2% in 100 you come in second. If you're top 2% in 10000 - you are 200th. It's really a numbers game with a smaller talent pool, and a focus on completion and not as much on competition.

But that's not how it works in "real life". Otherwise small countries would produce proportionately fewer top athletes. People in ultrarunning - in any sport, really - are self-selecting: if you find yourself naturally good at something you're more likely to pursue it. So that competitors smaller sport - like milers in the smaller country - are going to be disproportionately good, once it passes the super obscure stage.

1) Look at Ann Trason, whose 90s records still stand even though the field is 100x bigger than it used to be.

2) For more confirmation that the sport *now* is "competitive" by this board's definition, look at the women's field now, with Magdalena Boulet - a world class distance runner & Olympian, or as well as the men mentioned earlier like Canaday and King.

3) In one key way, the field of ultra runners is potentially deeper than that of track stars. Many ultra runners find their way to the sport as adults, sometimes in their 30s. You can't really do that for the 5K or track events, with their feeder program structure and the short lifespan of a typical track star career.

[quote]sconehead wrote:

3) In one key way, the field of ultra runners is potentially deeper than that of track stars. /quote]

lolololololololololololololl

UltraHack wrote:

I believe however, what comprises talent for about 10K up until 100K is much more similar than when you start to go beyond 100K. The specificity drift is larger. A number of Western States champs who weren't running Trials marathon times.

This is very true. 100-miles is a totally different event...especially in the mountains. I've failed miserably at the few I've tried.

You guys know I really respect guys like Max King (who started MUT running events like 8-9 years ago and would clean my clock at anything 50km and below that isn't a net uphill race). Sub 14-min 5km guy, 8:30 steeple....but even his success/results at 100-milers is more iffy.

5km track times certainly don't correlate to direct success at 100-milers....even road marathon PRs don't always. Having NCAA DI track experience and Olympic Trials marathon experience certainly helps (aerobic fitness and running experience in general), but to be perfectly honest I'm over here in Chamonix France now pretty scared sh1tless about UTMB and the pure "mountain guys" that have 2:25-2:30 road marathon PBs. Guys like Dave Laney (14:00 5km and 2:17-2:18 marathon) and Tim Tollefson (2:18 marathon) have gotten 3rd at UTMB recently for men, which gives me some hope... they've got 3-4 years in MUT Running experience and a couple Olympic Trials marathon qualifiers under their belts (like myself...although I failed in 2016).

Of course ultra-mountain races don't have nearly the competitive depth as track and road marathon races....that is very obvious. Comrades has some pretty good competitive depth, but again a lot of the trail-mountain races are actually hard to get into. There is also a financial barrier to entry sometimes (travel, gear, etc). UTMB this year will be "the most competitive trail-mountain ultra ever in the history of the sport," but like I said earlier there is likely some "under the radar" European mountain runner that will probably still crack the top 10.

I never ran at a very high level on the track (as seen from my 14:29 5km PR), but I know a lot of post-collegiate runners on the scene and I know how hard it is to hack it at 1500m, 1mil3, 3km, 5km and 10km. Making the Olympic Trials 10km is a heck of a lot harder than making the Olympic Trials marathon in the US. Of course marathon depth on the road is pretty stacked in some races as well. Just thinking back to the 2012 Olympic Trials the US had like 22 guys under 2:15 at Houston....all in the same race! I was way back in the mid-pack like 43rd place with a 2:18-mid.

#AnySurfaceAnyDistance (although I'm never racing on the track again probably...or under 10km for that matter!)

Ok Sage

In Retrospect... Wow. wrote:

Only if they ran for Cornell

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.

You make a very good point here. The Olympics should be about the best living animal on planet Earth in any event. That would be true excellence as opposed to the current form of human protectionism that we currently have in the Olympics. People like Phelps should be competing against tunas, sharks and dolphins so we can understand their real performance level in the animal kingdom.

Animals like cheetas should be allowed to line up against sprinters like Bolt; if the organizers are worried about safety then I am sure that they could quite easily cage the lanes apart in the stadium- the technology is there.

If humans actually have a chance of winning something in the ultra events then I am sure that many on these boards would actually start rooting for them - I for sure would want to see a fellow human win an event in a true form of Olympic competition.

Dr S pacito rip pin wrote:

Seems like a self absorbed addiction.

[/quote]

Can't you say the same thing about any form of elite sports or any pursuit such as music, career, art or science, done to the elite level?

So with this mentality, an open water swimmer is better than a pool swimmer because they may have sharks in the water?

UltraHack wrote:

I believe however, what comprises talent for about 10K up until 100K is much more similar than when you start to go beyond 100K. The specificity drift is larger. A number of Western States champs who weren't running Trials marathon times.

Yes, that is true BUT I say 10k success has a better correlation with the 100m than with a four hour event (100k track record ~6 hours). Marathon is still middle distance.

blah... wrote:

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?

Comrades offers R300,000 prize to the winners. This is about 26,000 USD. In contrast, New York offers 100,000 USD to the winner.

So you have a single Ultra Marathon that offers 25% as much as one of many big marathons. Plus, the typical elite marathon runners can do 3 or maybe eve 4 marathons at peak fitness per year, while 2 ultras in a year would be about the limit for a durable athlete.

So the best case scenario is to win maybe 40k or 50k USD in prize money by winning the two biggest ultras over the course of the year, while a marathon runner can get in 2 wins out of 4 attempts at one of 8 or 10 marathons with big money and end the year with 200k USD in prize money.

Plus the marathons have much deeper prize money. 4th at New York is about equal to 1st at Comrades, and you can turn around and get 4th in Berlin a month or two later for the same payday.

I'm 57 my current workouts are at 100M race pace...