Just an onlooker wrote:
The Other Ultraboy wrote:
Ok, so most Americans equate ultra with trail. Trail is not really about times and records but about the challenge, it is only one branch of ultra running, and yes it attracts a good number of people who have absolutely no intention of running all the way, but so do marathons or even your local 10k run.
Ultra's also include road and track, with some easier flatter road courses. If, like me, you watched some of the great ultra races of the 70's and 80's in the UK on track and road you would see small fields of highly trained athletes, who were also working full time jobs running under 6 minute miles for hours on end. It's so far removed from running/walking multi terrain mountain courses that it looks to be a different sport, but it isn't, it's the wide ranging category of ultra distance running.
A close finish may be minutes apart, such as when Cavin Woodward broke the 100 mile world record, with Tom O'Reilly second in the third fastest time at that point, or it could be 7 seconds, over the London to Brighton race, but there is rarely such a thing as an unassailable lead because over those distances things can always go wrong.
I get what you're saying, but half of the documentaries I watched took place on the road (some at high altitude), in the desert, or on relatively flat terrain. And the top guys still walked a bunch of the way. So, I personally don't associate Ultra with trail, but that doesn't negate the fact that walking is a big part of it. And I think that's what throws off much of the running community that comes from other running disciplines where walking is frowned upon.
I doubt any of the top finishers of Western state 100 mile race walk any flat section of the course. What ultra race were you watching? They were obviously not representative of the competitive ultra running landscape.