NewtotheSouthSide wrote:
I think one of the more difficult things for ultra marathons is trying to figure out how to make them accessible to runners/fans. For obvious reasons, it can be more difficult to travel to an ultra race.
"As far as "change and evolution goes"....well certainly there have been 2:10-:2:20 marathon type runners doing ultras for decades
Not many ultrarunners have been 2:10-2:20 marathoners.
I like to see some names to back this up.
Some top ultrarunners where in the 2:25 -2:30 range like Yiannis Kouros 2:24 I believe or Wolfgang Schwerk 2:29.
But sub 2:20 probably just some 100k racers.
Yiannis Kouros and Camille Herron for greatest of all time with their World Records.
S. Canaday wrote:
Well of course I have bias....but you may have bias for the 100-mile distance, you think?
I agree that a lot of the 100-milers are highly valued...esp by the US (some would say "over hyped).
In Europe they don't care that UTMB is 105 or 106 miles. It could be 83 miles and it would still be "The Race."
But lets look at this objectively:
1. What is the finisher density of the top 10 guys at Western States vs TNF SF on any given year?
2. Note I talk about all the restrictions (in field size, lottery etc).
Again we talk about the "most competitive ultra" in the world and its Comrades (NOT 100-miles).
I would be interested in the 50 if you are talking fall of 2020. Not super fast but would like to chase sub 6.
Forest Gump here wrote:
"As far as "change and evolution goes"....well certainly there have been 2:10-:2:20 marathon type runners doing ultras for decades
Not many ultrarunners have been 2:10-2:20 marathoners.
I like to see some names to back this up.
Some top ultrarunners where in the 2:25 -2:30 range like Yiannis Kouros 2:24 I believe or Wolfgang Schwerk 2:29.
But sub 2:20 probably just some 100k racers.
goats. wrote:
Yiannis Kouros and Camille Herron for greatest of all time with their World Records.
Her career is still early, but she’s already surpassed Ann Trason at multiple distances and does better the longer the distance. The speed to win Comrades, the strength for 24h and beyond.
Well first of all we had Salazar winning Comrades in the early 90s...sure maybe he wasn't in sub 2:10 shape when he did it, but at least sub 2:15 shape.
And there was 8-time winner Bruce Fordyce (a sub 2:20 guy). Don Ritchie was a sub 2:20 guy....this was decades ago.
Actually look at the top 10 at Comrades or (IAAFWorld 100km Champs) many years in the past 10 years and you will
find some sub 2:20 marathon types quite often.
Now in the mountains (esp at 100-miles) I will say there is more of a lack of "road speed." People of course realize that marathon road and track times PR correlate quite well to "flatter and runnable courses" (ie. Camille Herron for 24 hours on the track or 100-miles on a track/tunnel hill or Comrades win etc), but in the mountains I'd be more worried about a guy like Francois Dhane or Xavier (who both probably couldn't creak 2:25 for a marathon)...Kilian of course as well since he is the "mountain GOAT" but I think he might be able to crack 2:25 in a flat marathon actually....maybe even 2:20. And it is still the 2:25 marathon types can be the most dangerous at 100-miles in the mountains (right now still). Could Kipchoge or a 2:05 guy come out and crush some ultras? Probably. One of our most consistent top American guys at UTMB in the past 5 years has been 2:18 marathoner Tim Tollefson (got 3rd twice).
As far as Western States being the ultimate in the US and "highly valued"....yeah for a lot of the old guard in the US is it. I believe they are quite biased though. And the times are changing. TNF50 in SF is a relatively new race compared to a WS or a JFK, but the $10,000 prize money and accessibility for all faster guys it is lucrative. Again, the top 10 depth at Western States is simply not as dense as a race like TNF50 if you look at it objectively and quantitatively. Part of it has to do with the entry process (aka "needing a golden ticket" or wigging one's way in on an UTWT or sponsorship slot). Part of it has to do with limiting the field size to only a few hundred people.... (whereas UTMB has thousands of people).
And finally the fascination for "100-miles" and "longer is better".....people like to talk about extremes I think. They ask if I want to do a "200-mile race" now because it is so much more "hardcore." There is definitely a niche to that but again I think a lot of it is US based. Like I said before the Euros probably don't care if UTMB was 83 miles or 105 miles. It is simply a logical route around Mont Blanc. I mean do you think "161km" is something special to most of the world?! If anything ultra races around 100km is a more international benchmark and hotly contested event. "Distance run in 24 hours" actually makes more sense than a round and even 100-miles. I'm all for the extreme and longer distances (And want to focus on 100-milers as I get older), but at the same time realize that the MUT Running scene on the international scale does not care about 100 milers as much as some Americans do.
1.5 cents wrote:
Forest Gump here wrote:
"As far as "change and evolution goes"....well certainly there have been 2:10-:2:20 marathon type runners doing ultras for decades
Not many ultrarunners have been 2:10-2:20 marathoners.
I like to see some names to back this up.
Some top ultrarunners where in the 2:25 -2:30 range like Yiannis Kouros 2:24 I believe or Wolfgang Schwerk 2:29.
But sub 2:20 probably just some 100k racers.
I think where the real change in this regard will be the depth of 2:10-2:20 marathoners converting to the trails. We've had them in year's past, even recently in the last 3-5 years, this appears to be a growing trend though. For example, Matt Daniels winning Black Canyon 100k this year, getting a golden ticket to WS. This is WS's first sub 4 miler, correct me if I am wrong please.
I could see a race like TNF50 or Lake Sonoma becoming even more in depth with sub 2:20 guys chasing this race in the future, particularly TNF like Sage noted.
The magic lies past the 100k distance though in Ultra lore. How many "speedy" type guys vs the strength runners in the 2:30-2:40s range can really convert that elite road speed to the 100 mile distance. As a fan, I am intrigued to see where that progresses to. One of my favorite OG runners, Hal Koerner was a mid 2:30s marathon runner in his prime, but ran several strong 100 mile mountain races and won. That was fairly common within his era of ultra guys. Who in this era and beyond will take their 2:15 speed and find dominance in the mountains too at the 100 mile distance? Sage has noted before, it's almost one or the other past a certain point.
Great thread.
Huge Camille fan, and Sandy Barwick (1000-mile WR) was a close friend, but Eleanor Robinson is the GOAT for the ladies.
Won Badwater when it still had trail, multiple WCs & WRs from 100K & below to 1000 miles. Multiple wins at Sydney-Melbourne, indoors, stage races, you name it. And like so many icons, she was extremely busy because she never got tired or injured (or ran well despite fatigue & injuries).
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
In my opinion, Comrades is the best Ultra because the winners of that are also elite marathoners. The winners of most of the other Ultra's until recently were individuals who could never even make the OT marathon qualifier. I know guys like Walamsley have changed that but Jim is not a guy who could sniff a spot of the Olympic team. But Commrades is a different story. The top guys at Commrades are all individuals who would be one of the best marathoners in the US. The top ten is full of guys who have run 2:08-2:12 for the full.
I feel like a lot of the Ultra's are like the marathon used to be 50 years ago. The marathon used to be guys who didn't have the talent to be competitive on the track. Then as the money shifted to the roads and elite runners transitioned to the marathon the guys who had been world class were no longer competitive. The Ultra world was the same way for a long time. Guys like Jurek and Dean could never be anywhere close to elite in the marathon but because the money was in the marathon they could dominate their competitions. If the top talent were to shift their focus those guys would have been non-competitive.
Comrades is the exception. You need to be an elite level marathon talent to win Comrades. That is also not just a recent trend. Comrades has had world-class talent for years. Decades ago Salazar ran there in his prime. Josh Cox, not world class but a 2:13 guy, went there a few years back and got crushed. Commrades definitely doesn't have the insanity factor of races like Badwater or Leadville but from a top end competitive standpoint it wins by a huge margin.
Rojo: How do we capitalize on Sage's popularity on our site?
Wejo: Huh? I'm taking a dump? What do you mean?
Rojo: Dude's like a lightning rod, people either love him, or hate, him, but dammit, he puts butts in the seats, err eyeballs on our site
Wejo: Okay, what can we do?
Rojo: I know, let's invent some phony baloney, contest, about best Ultra runner ever, and best race ever
Wejo: Brilliant our sheep will eat it up!
Rojo: Gimme that handy you owe me!
Wejo: Lemme call Sage first and make sure he's down with it.
Brojos, rubbing their palms together like Lenny and Squiggy?
Exit stage right--
That about right?
What is the most prestigious/most competitive ultramarathons in the world to win: Comrades and UTMB. WS in the US. It may not be the most competitive at the top but it’s the most prestigious. It’s the Boston of ultrarunning in terms of prestige and tradition.
Who is the GOAT of ultra running?
Female – Trason. She dominated at all distances 100 miles or less and on all types of terrain. Her 2 Comrades wins were course records and still among the fastest all-time. 14 WS wins, 100k WR, Leadville record holder, etc. BTW, her 100k and Comrades times are still faster than Camille’s.
Male – this is tougher. Kouros’s accomplishments speak for themselves, and no one has come close to his 24 hour and Spartathlon records. On the other hand, how do you compare Yiannis to Kilian? They are completely different athletes.
Looking back on it, I think Jurek’s career is under-appreciated. He won on courses as diverse as Hardrock, Spartathlon, and Badwater. And of course there are the 7 straight WS titles. He may not have the talent or speed of some of the younger runners like Walmsley but his body of work is still impressive. I think of him as the bridge between the old-time sport of ultrarunning and the sport today. He did bring focus and discipline to his training and did a lot to popularize the sport.
What is your favorite ultra? What is the most beautiful ultra? For me, probably Hardrock. Yes there are issues with the entry process, but the course itself and scenery is spectacular. But now that I’m in my 60s, given the entry process and difficulty of the course it won’t happen.
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
Decades ago Salazar ran there in his prime. Josh Cox, not world class but a 2:13 guy, went there a few years back and got crushed. Commrades definitely doesn't have the insanity factor of races like Badwater or Leadville but from a top end competitive standpoint it wins by a huge margin.
noamericanos wrote:
I can assure all of you Americans who think Hardrock and Leadville are competitive races - they are not. Elite American ultra runners don't even think so. Yes, the course records are special, the races are historic and important. A lot of fast runners want to run these races, but their lotteries make them insignificant in terms of competitiveness. Western States is competitive though because they invite the top 10 runners from the previous year back. There are "golden ticket" races that ensure high quality and the Ultra Trail World Tour organization is feeding the race top international runners.
Well I agree that at least the Western States entry process is better than a Hardrock (or Barkleys) or Leadville when it comes to bringing in fast runners and top level competition. I realize a lot of runners (the majority of the runners) don't necessarily like this as it creates harder lottery odds for everyone else. Some in the ultra community even want to "do away" with golden tickets and not have "elites" or fast runners....even at races like Western States. But then again, I think if there were no "fast runners or top guys" at a race like Western or even Hardrock then the race would start to lose some of its appeal....IMO. ..as that has been a part of the history (at least at Western).... I almost forgot Hardrock is a "run" not a "race."
Again though, compared to North Face 50-miler San Fran (or even Comrades or UTMB or even a Run Rabbit Run 100) I think it waters down the competition and as there are lots of barriers to entry with these systems in place....especially with something like the Hardrock lottery that heavily favors repeat runners with increasing lottery odds, and discourages newbies (and women from that matter) from being able to gain entry...
Say three 2:05 marathoners from East Africa want to run Western States this year (which of course seems crazy because there is no prize money at Western States!). They will pay all their own travel, pay their $400 entry fee etc... Well unless they come out and go 1-2-3 at "Canyons 100km" this weekend (a Golden Ticket race) then they simply can't enter Western States. Furthermore, if they go 1-2-3 in a Golden Ticket race only the top 2 would be allowed into Western States.
So there are still considerable barriers to entry...and Western States limits its field size to like 400 runners tops. Hardrock is like what, 160 runners or less? UTMB has several thousand runners...and many of the top 50-100 are highly ranked on the ITRA international scoring system. I had a really bad day at Western (walked most of the last 30-miles and still got 11th place). I had a really bad day at UTMB (walked most of the last 30-miles and got like 50th place). That is a rough indicator of the difference in the depth of competition (although I will admit my 1+ day at UTMB was probably a bit rougher and more of a disaster).
If the 2:05 marathoner wants to do North Face 50-miler they can. If they want to do UTMB they are going to have to earn enough points by racing several 100kms races over the course of a year and developing a high ITRA score...but then they can still 100% enter UTMB (bypass the lottery and not have to worry about earning any special "Golden Ticket")....they can get in eventually.
wejo wrote:
noamericanos wrote:
I can assure all of you Americans who think Hardrock and Leadville are competitive races - they are not. Elite American ultra runners don't even think so. Yes, the course records are special, the races are historic and important. A lot of fast runners want to run these races, but their lotteries make them insignificant in terms of competitiveness. Western States is competitive though because they invite the top 10 runners from the previous year back. There are "golden ticket" races that ensure high quality and the Ultra Trail World Tour organization is feeding the race top international runners.
Is it true that Walmsley wanted to run Leadville and couldn't because he didn't get accepted by the lottery? If that's the case how can a race like that be considered one of the best when we're talking about in terms of competitiveness. It may be a really cool race like Marine Corps Marathon or something but it's hard to call it one of the best then when talking competitive.
It might make the best list in terms of races people want to run but I figured all these races would take a star.
S. Canaday wrote:
Well I agree that at least the Western States entry process is better than a Hardrock (or Barkleys) or Leadville when it comes to bringing in fast runners and top level competition. I realize a lot of runners (the majority of the runners) don't necessarily like this as it creates harder lottery odds for everyone else. Some in the ultra community even want to "do away" with golden tickets and not have "elites" or fast runners....even at races like Western States. But then again, I think if there were no "fast runners or top guys" at a race like Western or even Hardrock then the race would start to lose some of its appeal....IMO. ..as that has been a part of the history (at least at Western).... I almost forgot Hardrock is a "run" not a "race."
Again though, compared to North Face 50-miler San Fran (or even Comrades or UTMB or even a Run Rabbit Run 100) I think it waters down the competition and as there are lots of barriers to entry with these systems in place....especially with something like the Hardrock lottery that heavily favors repeat runners with increasing lottery odds, and discourages newbies (and women from that matter) from being able to gain entry...
Say three 2:05 marathoners from East Africa want to run Western States this year (which of course seems crazy because there is no prize money at Western States!). They will pay all their own travel, pay their $400 entry fee etc... Well unless they come out and go 1-2-3 at "Canyons 100km" this weekend (a Golden Ticket race) then they simply can't enter Western States. Furthermore, if they go 1-2-3 in a Golden Ticket race only the top 2 would be allowed into Western States.
So there are still considerable barriers to entry...and Western States limits its field size to like 400 runners tops. Hardrock is like what, 160 runners or less? UTMB has several thousand runners...and many of the top 50-100 are highly ranked on the ITRA international scoring system. I had a really bad day at Western (walked most of the last 30-miles and still got 11th place). I had a really bad day at UTMB (walked most of the last 30-miles and got like 50th place). That is a rough indicator of the difference in the depth of competition (although I will admit my 1+ day at UTMB was probably a bit rougher and more of a disaster).
If the 2:05 marathoner wants to do North Face 50-miler they can. If they want to do UTMB they are going to have to earn enough points by racing several 100kms races over the course of a year and developing a high ITRA score...but then they can still 100% enter UTMB (bypass the lottery and not have to worry about earning any special "Golden Ticket")....they can get in eventually.
wejo wrote:
noamericanos wrote:
I can assure all of you Americans who think Hardrock and Leadville are competitive races - they are not. Elite American ultra runners don't even think so. Yes, the course records are special, the races are historic and important. A lot of fast runners want to run these races, but their lotteries make them insignificant in terms of competitiveness. Western States is competitive though because they invite the top 10 runners from the previous year back. There are "golden ticket" races that ensure high quality and the Ultra Trail World Tour organization is feeding the race top international runners.
Is it true that Walmsley wanted to run Leadville and couldn't because he didn't get accepted by the lottery? If that's the case how can a race like that be considered one of the best when we're talking about in terms of competitiveness. It may be a really cool race like Marine Corps Marathon or something but it's hard to call it one of the best then when talking competitive.
It might make the best list in terms of races people want to run but I figured all these races would take a star.
You got me...I agreed it is flawed a bit. That was probably a bad example.
The race size (total field size) doesn't necessarily correlative directly with the competitive depth of the top 10 or top 50. That is why I like to look at "finisher density of the top 10."
For example, I think with Comrades (with over 24,000 runners) the competitive depth is the best of any ultra. But is it really because there are 24,000 runners vs the 400 at Western States? No. It probably has more to do with the $38,000 USD in prize money and the fact that you don't have to jump through hoops to earn a "limited golden ticket."
However, I could be running in the US Olympic Trials Marathon (I haven't qualified for 2020 but I did in 2012 and finished mid-pack). That marathon race only has like 100-200 guys in it (very small field size!)...but all these guys are sub 2:19:00 guys. I could run 2:18 and finish 50th place or even worse. I have no chance of getting top 5 in the Trials.
However, at Comrades (with 24,000 runners) I've already been top 15 (and I think I actually have a shot at top 5). Furthermore there are a lot of US marathons with several thousand runners (more than all ultras in the US!) and I could go out and win in 2:25-2:23. They are simply less competitive at the top end....but then again it is all relative. ..and it depends who shows up (or who gains entry).
randomperson wrote:
S. Canaday wrote:
Well I agree that at least the Western States entry process is better than a Hardrock (or Barkleys) or Leadville when it comes to bringing in fast runners and top level competition. I realize a lot of runners (the majority of the runners) don't necessarily like this as it creates harder lottery odds for everyone else. Some in the ultra community even want to "do away" with golden tickets and not have "elites" or fast runners....even at races like Western States. But then again, I think if there were no "fast runners or top guys" at a race like Western or even Hardrock then the race would start to lose some of its appeal....IMO. ..as that has been a part of the history (at least at Western).... I almost forgot Hardrock is a "run" not a "race."
Again though, compared to North Face 50-miler San Fran (or even Comrades or UTMB or even a Run Rabbit Run 100) I think it waters down the competition and as there are lots of barriers to entry with these systems in place....especially with something like the Hardrock lottery that heavily favors repeat runners with increasing lottery odds, and discourages newbies (and women from that matter) from being able to gain entry...
Say three 2:05 marathoners from East Africa want to run Western States this year (which of course seems crazy because there is no prize money at Western States!). They will pay all their own travel, pay their $400 entry fee etc... Well unless they come out and go 1-2-3 at "Canyons 100km" this weekend (a Golden Ticket race) then they simply can't enter Western States. Furthermore, if they go 1-2-3 in a Golden Ticket race only the top 2 would be allowed into Western States.
So there are still considerable barriers to entry...and Western States limits its field size to like 400 runners tops. Hardrock is like what, 160 runners or less? UTMB has several thousand runners...and many of the top 50-100 are highly ranked on the ITRA international scoring system. I had a really bad day at Western (walked most of the last 30-miles and still got 11th place). I had a really bad day at UTMB (walked most of the last 30-miles and got like 50th place). That is a rough indicator of the difference in the depth of competition (although I will admit my 1+ day at UTMB was probably a bit rougher and more of a disaster).
If the 2:05 marathoner wants to do North Face 50-miler they can. If they want to do UTMB they are going to have to earn enough points by racing several 100kms races over the course of a year and developing a high ITRA score...but then they can still 100% enter UTMB (bypass the lottery and not have to worry about earning any special "Golden Ticket")....they can get in eventually.
wejo wrote:
noamericanos wrote:
I can assure all of you Americans who think Hardrock and Leadville are competitive races - they are not. Elite American ultra runners don't even think so. Yes, the course records are special, the races are historic and important. A lot of fast runners want to run these races, but their lotteries make them insignificant in terms of competitiveness. Western States is competitive though because they invite the top 10 runners from the previous year back. There are "golden ticket" races that ensure high quality and the Ultra Trail World Tour organization is feeding the race top international runners.
Is it true that Walmsley wanted to run Leadville and couldn't because he didn't get accepted by the lottery? If that's the case how can a race like that be considered one of the best when we're talking about in terms of competitiveness. It may be a really cool race like Marine Corps Marathon or something but it's hard to call it one of the best then when talking competitive.
It might make the best list in terms of races people want to run but I figured all these races would take a star.
While I agree with your point overall about the competitive depth of American ultras relative to European ones and the impact to the competitive depth with the entry process to Western States relative to UTMB, I think your particular example is flawed given the differences in the sizes of those two races. Coming in 11/400ish versus coming in 50/2500ish puts you in roughly the top 2-3% of runners in both races--a roughly similar outcome numerically.
Montane Spine Race
'The British ultrarunner Jasmin Paris is celebrating after becoming the first woman to win the gruelling 268-mile Montane Spine Race along the Pennine Way. What made the performance even more extraordinary was that she shattered the course record by 12 hours – while also expressing breast milk for her baby at aid stations along the route.'
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jan/17/jasmin-paris-first-woman-win-gruelling-286-mile-montane-spice-race-ultrarunning
Thanks.
Most Ultras are hard to get into because of the limited field size and the long lead time to sign up. A lot can change between sign up time and race day. A challenge with current US ultras is that for the most part all that gets any ink are those in the West. Barkley gets some ink but it is much different than the typical ultra and of limited appeal in terms of desire of most people to enter. Races like the Marquette Trail 50 and Superior have great courses. There is more to it than the person that crosses the line first. The age of many ultras skews older and older runners have a much different reason for running. The top runners are not what draws me to participate in an ultra and I would propose that is the case for the vast majority of entrants. So if the desire is to raise interest and participation maybe that is what the focus should include. (and for some merit to the post, I qualified and finished Boston 18 and grew up in a pod of runners that included the WR holder for the HM)
