What are the best ultras in the world? (Sponsored by HOKA ONE ONE)

---

Wannabe Ultra runner wrote:

---

---

Wannabe Ultra runner wrote:The most popular/deep 100 km ultramarathon in Italy and arguably in Europe is the 100 Km of Passatore, that has been run since 1973 and usually has a field of 2000+ runners. The course record is 6:25, which is mind-boggling given that the course has 4000 feet of elevation and the race is run in 80 degrees weather.

---

I would be careful with labeling ultras as "slower". I think speed is relative to terrain and distance.

---

SpencerW wrote:

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.

---

---

mgc wrote:

Before deciding on a best / most competitive ultra or GOAT, it would be helpful to break down ultras into categories. Then we could decide the best ultra(s) and GOAT in each category. After doing that, we could see if any one course is the best overall, and whether there is an overall GOAT overall. As a start (adjust these as needed):

Road Ultras (50km - 100km)
- Roughly speaking an extension of road marathons (but typically hillier).
- Runners excelling here typically have a road or track background.
Most Competitive/Prestigious:
- Comrades
- Two Oceans
- IAU 100k World Championship
- GOAT: ?

Trail Ultras (50km - 100km)
- Substantially more vertical change than a road marathon, but runnable (see Mountain Ultras below for non-runnable courses).
- Typically a fast marathoner is likely to be a fast trail 50km - 100km runner (aside from extreme/outlier courses), with proper adaptation to vertical change
Most Competitive/Prestigious
- North Face 50
- ???
- GOAT: ?

Trail Ultras (100 mile)
- Separate from 50km-100km, reasons:
1. Historically, fast runners in marathons, road ultras, and 50km-100km are typically competitive, but not automatically near the top when moving to 100 miles.
2. More per-race variance due to fueling, course conditions, and race duration, as compared to 50km-100km.
3. There are a substantial number of 100 mile races;
Most Competitive/Prestigious
- Western States
- UTMB (which is interesting competitively since it almost crosses over into a mountain ultra)
- GOAT: ?

Mountain Ultras / Sky Running
- Characterized by extreme ascents and descents, often requiring scrambling and hiking.
- A very fast and competitive sky runner may be slow (relatively speaking) on a flat marathon course.
- A very fast road marathoner is typically competitive, but the terrain and race is so vastly different than a flat road marathon that they are not automatically near the top.
Most Competitive/Prestigious
- Zegama
- ???
- GOAT: Killian Jornet

"Extreme" Races (this could be broken down further)
- The race format itself is extreme, due to time, distance, or unique characteristics.
- 24 hour record (on a track)
- Barkley
- Tour de Geants
- GOAT: ???

---

---

wejo wrote:

---

mgc wrote:

Before deciding on a best / most competitive ultra or GOAT, it would be helpful to break down ultras into categories. Then we could decide the best ultra(s) and GOAT in each category. After doing that, we could see if any one course is the best overall, and whether there is an overall GOAT overall. As a start (adjust these as needed):

Road Ultras (50km - 100km)
- Roughly speaking an extension of road marathons (but typically hillier).
- Runners excelling here typically have a road or track background.
Most Competitive/Prestigious:
- Comrades
- Two Oceans
- IAU 100k World Championship
- GOAT: ?

Trail Ultras (50km - 100km)
- Substantially more vertical change than a road marathon, but runnable (see Mountain Ultras below for non-runnable courses).
- Typically a fast marathoner is likely to be a fast trail 50km - 100km runner (aside from extreme/outlier courses), with proper adaptation to vertical change
Most Competitive/Prestigious
- North Face 50
- ???
- GOAT: ?

Trail Ultras (100 mile)
- Separate from 50km-100km, reasons:
1. Historically, fast runners in marathons, road ultras, and 50km-100km are typically competitive, but not automatically near the top when moving to 100 miles.
2. More per-race variance due to fueling, course conditions, and race duration, as compared to 50km-100km.
3. There are a substantial number of 100 mile races;
Most Competitive/Prestigious
- Western States
- UTMB (which is interesting competitively since it almost crosses over into a mountain ultra)
- GOAT: ?

Mountain Ultras / Sky Running (100 mile)
- Characterized by extreme ascents and descents, often requiring scrambling and hiking.
- A very fast and competitive sky runner may be slow (relatively speaking) on a flat marathon course.
- A very fast road marathoner is typically competitive, but the terrain and race is so vastly different than a flat road marathon that they are not automatically near the top.
Most Competitive/Prestigious
- Zegama
- ???
- GOAT: Killian Jornet

"Extreme" Races (this could be broken down further)
- The race format itself is extreme, due to time, distance, or unique characteristics.
- 24 hour record (on a track)
- Barkley
- Tour de Geants
- GOAT: ???

---

Great post. If you have used a registered name you might have one a free pair of shoes!

I like the category idea.

I also like the idea of in addition to coming up with the Best Ultras in the world to also coming up with, a) The GOATS of the Ultra world and b) The toughest records to break.

Maybe starting separate threads on those on those questions.

Do you all think we should separate the topic of debate each week or just let this go in this one thread. We're about to have our weekly LetsRun call and will discuss some of these things.

---

Overall I like these categories and vote that you use them going forward.

Another aspect of ultra running that should probably be considered is FKTS (Fastest Known Times) as these efforts often receive as much press and applause as results at major races. do I think that the importance of FKTS will continue to grow as the sport progresses. Trail runners are often very concerned with the aesthetic beauty of the routes they want to put down an effort on, and our wilderness restrictions make it very difficult to hold races in wild places. This is also why our trail races are typically 'flat' in comparison to their Euro counterparts as they don't have such restrictions. Often these routes require even more technical skills (and risk) as they tackle routes that involve rock or alpine climbing.

Some big ones here are:
Grand Canyon (R2R and R2R2R)
Zion Traverse
Four Pass Loop
Nolans
John Muir Trail
Appalachian Trail
.....

Interesting to consider that mountain/sky category is by far the most competitive in Europe with UTMB being the exception. Even in the US these races, while not near as steep or technical, boast far deeper fields than the majority of 100s: think races like Broken Arrow and Speedgoat. In Europe the shorter distances garner nearly as much prestige as longer races (there are vertical K specialists) while in the US the 100 is king.

While the terrain in these races certainly requires a technical proficiency not required in other areas of running, it also changes the physiological traits necessary to succeed. Runnable terrain is highly dependent on the combination of economy and aerobic capacity, where as steeper and more technical terrain places a greater emphasis on the aerobic component. While very fast road and track athletes certainly possess impressive aerobic engines, they might find that they are not as dominant in terrain that begins to negate running economy. An example would be cyclists that can't break 15 in the 5K throwing down impressive times on steep climbs such as Sanitas in Boulder.

*What are the most prestigious/most competitive ultramarathons in the world to win?
Prestigious: Western States 100 is easily the most prestigious ultramarathon. It is the world's oldest 100 miler. The inception of this race is a major part of what got ultramarathoning to where it is today.
Competitive: UTMB has to be the most competitive. It attracts an enormous pool of talent from all over the world.
*What is your favorite ultra? What is the most beautiful ultra? Is there a bucket list of ultras that most amateurs should aspire to run?
This one is tough for me to answer, as I've only run two ultramarathons so far.
Favorite: Western States 100 is my favorite one to hear about. Its also an event that is celebrated like a holiday within the ultramarathoning community. Its something that 'brings the family together' so to speak.
Most beautiful: This one I really don't feel qualified to answer, due to not having actually seen very many. I do know of one in New Zealand called the Tarawera Ultra. I've seen some good scenery photos and I think New Zealand is a beautiful place.
Bucket List: There are so many awesome races out there that could be good bucket list races, because of their challenge, prestige and beauty. Some include Hardrock 100, Leadville 100, Western States 100, Comrades Ultramarathon and Lake Sonoma 50 mile.
*Who is the GOAT of ultra running?
This must be broken into sub categories. There are different types ultramarathons.
Mountainous: Killian Jornet. Trail: Ann Trason (14x winner of Western States 100)
*What are the hardest course/world records to break in ultra running?
Brett Maune's 52:03:08 Course record at the Barkley Marathons will stand for a very long time. I can't think of a harder record to break than that. Just finishing that race is a feat in itself.

---

army_runner wrote:

*What are the most prestigious/most competitive ultramarathons in the world to win?
Prestigious: Western States 100 is easily the most prestigious ultramarathon. It is the world's oldest 100 miler. The inception of this race is a major part of what got ultramarathoning to where it is today.
Competitive: UTMB has to be the most competitive. It attracts an enormous pool of talent from all over the world.
*What is your favorite ultra? What is the most beautiful ultra? Is there a bucket list of ultras that most amateurs should aspire to run?
This one is tough for me to answer, as I've only run two ultramarathons so far.
Favorite: Western States 100 is my favorite one to hear about. Its also an event that is celebrated like a holiday within the ultramarathoning community. Its something that 'brings the family together' so to speak.
Most beautiful: This one I really don't feel qualified to answer, due to not having actually seen very many. I do know of one in New Zealand called the Tarawera Ultra. I've seen some good scenery photos and I think New Zealand is a beautiful place.
Bucket List: There are so many awesome races out there that could be good bucket list races, because of their challenge, prestige and beauty. Some include Hardrock 100, Leadville 100, Western States 100, Comrades Ultramarathon and Lake Sonoma 50 mile.
*Who is the GOAT of ultra running?
This must be broken into sub categories. There are different types ultramarathons.
Mountainous: Killian Jornet. Trail: Ann Trason (14x winner of Western States 100)
*What are the hardest course/world records to break in ultra running?
Brett Maune's 52:03:08 Course record at the Barkley Marathons will stand for a very long time. I can't think of a harder record to break than that. Just finishing that race is a feat in itself.

---

Wejo,

In my opinion, the most important step in wrapping your head around ultra/trail/mountain racing is that it can not be looked at from a track/cc/road mindset.

In track/cc/road, the only principal difference among them is the duration. Yes, the racing surface is different, but not to such a degree that the training surface needs to be specific. Dirt, pavement, track, it's all pretty similar. Smooth enough to run a fast as the engine can work. Insignificant hills to really affect anything. Take the biggest downhill vs the biggest uphill, the pace difference might be 2 min/mi at the very most? So in these flat running events, you could say they all exist along a single dimension or spectrum from short duration to long duration. And even that 'long duration', at the elite level, is mostly in the glycogen fuel department.

But in ultra/trail/mountain, there are multiple dimensions and those dimensions span further too. That is why records aren't a big deal here. The only ones that are kept are organized and run by people with track/cc/road backgrounds. Even at the largest and most coveted ultras, the course records aren't as coveted as for the road marathon record for example, because extreme weather and trail conditions can vary immensely from year to year.

But anyway, there is the
flat vs steep,
less than 1 hour vs ~24+ hrs,
smooth surface vs technical surface,
sea level to over 10,000ft altitude,
hypothermic vs extreme dehydration challenges, and
the fueling demands,
among others

There are so many dimensions that no two races are similar enough to thoroughly prepare for simultaneously. Most often, success or failure in any race comes down to how well and for how long someone prioritizes the specific training for it over the others. The very best talents, the freaks of nature like Kilian Jornet, can get away with crossing zones but even they are very detail oriented and know what could sabotage their races and usually prepare accordingly.

My point is, to try to categorize, rank, or compare ultra/trail/mountain races, is the wrong approach to fully understanding the sport. A more accurate way may be of looking at it more like a complex multi-positional sport like MMA, or maybe even a team sport like football. Determining the greatest depends on much much more than looking at numbers. In my opinion, appreciating the uniqueness of the events leads to the greatest enjoyment of participating and following the sport.

I think FKTs are a whole another can of worms/category... (because then you have "short trail v. long trail"...and they get pretty obscure pretty fast)

You include the AT but left of the PCT?!

It could be considered though in an athlete's total body of work: (i.e. "Kilian is a Western States champ, UTMB champ and has the Tahoe Rim FTK")

Furthermore, how many people actually go after something like the Zion crossing FKT each year? A lot these (John Muir etc) you need special permits months in advance and they are in fairly restrictive national parks.

I got in an argument with Buzz Burrell because he stated that "FKTs can't be set in a race." I countered with: then who has the "FKT up and down Pikes Peak?".....not Matt Carpenter in one of his marathons?!

I agree with what you wrote, except you say:
"Runnable terrain is highly dependent on the combination of economy and aerobic capacity, where as steeper and more technical terrain places a greater emphasis on the aerobic component. "

That last part are you sure you didn't mean "running economy"?.....more so in my book I like to say "variable running economy". It is the determining factor I think. Top marathoners usually have plenty of aerobic development. It is the "Running Economy on technical mountain trails" that is the issue (also depends on the distance of the race and the lengths of the uphills/downhills). Efficiency over the terrain which is governed more by specific muscle use/fatigue and fueling/hydration more so than by any limitations in lactate clearance or Vo2max.

A lot of times you get these "high Vo2max guys" or guys like a Matt Daniels (sub 4 min miler) or an Andy Wacker (13:40s 5km guy) or a Pat Smyth (1:02 half) and you put them in a race like Zegama or Ring of Steall or Mont Blanc Marathon and we hit the technical downhills (and super steep 20% grade uphills) in the mud/rocks and Kilian pulls away. The worst cramps I've ever experienced in a race was probably only 12 miles into Sierre-Zinal (where I got totally destroyed!). It is a matter of efficiency (movement patterns and muscle development) on technical terrain....Mountain terrain that can wreak havoc on a "road/track runners" flat speed and running form/movement patterns. Its like if you try to run a mountain race without doing any hill training....you often instantly feel the hills and your legs start screaming at you because you are "unprepared" from the skeletal muscular standpoint. Heart and legs are ready to work....but the legs are not!

Some of these races require actual "climbing" with the hands/arms on class 3 rock ridges and a lot of powerhiking....coming from a road/marathon/track background it is exhausting. Running in the mud can be hard enough too! Furthermore on the technical downhills one just feels like they are doing to fall and hurt themselves...Kilian dances down the rocks and you worry about breaking your femur with a fall! I actually am starting to really think Skimo is the perfect winter sport for summer mountain running....

---

gimpyrunner wrote:

Overall I like these categories and vote that you use them going forward.

Another aspect of ultra running that should probably be considered is FKTS (Fastest Known Times) as these efforts often receive as much press and applause as results at major races. do I think that the importance of FKTS will continue to grow as the sport progresses. Trail runners are often very concerned with the aesthetic beauty of the routes they want to put down an effort on, and our wilderness restrictions make it very difficult to hold races in wild places. This is also why our trail races are typically 'flat' in comparison to their Euro counterparts as they don't have such restrictions. Often these routes require even more technical skills (and risk) as they tackle routes that involve rock or alpine climbing.

Some big ones here are:
Grand Canyon (R2R and R2R2R)
Zion Traverse
Four Pass Loop
Nolans
John Muir Trail
Appalachian Trail
.....

Interesting to consider that mountain/sky category is by far the most competitive in Europe with UTMB being the exception. Even in the US these races, while not near as steep or technical, boast far deeper fields than the majority of 100s: think races like Broken Arrow and Speedgoat. In Europe the shorter distances garner nearly as much prestige as longer races (there are vertical K specialists) while in the US the 100 is king.

While the terrain in these races certainly requires a technical proficiency not required in other areas of running, it also changes the physiological traits necessary to succeed. Runnable terrain is highly dependent on the combination of economy and aerobic capacity, where as steeper and more technical terrain places a greater emphasis on the aerobic component. While very fast road and track athletes certainly possess impressive aerobic engines, they might find that they are not as dominant in terrain that begins to negate running economy. An example would be cyclists that can't break 15 in the 5K throwing down impressive times on steep climbs such as Sanitas in Boulder.

---

Difficult to summarize the situation with multidays/sleep deprivation, but generally there are positive health effects, as with other distances. Sleep deprivation is certainly not for everyone, and I went with the staged format in races I organized.

Ability in multidays varies among ultra runners, but it says a lot about a runner’s talent doing all distances well; it’s quite rare.

The categories from the quotes post still have a lot of overlap. Trail ultra vs mountain ultra, needs clarification. A race like Leadville is at elevation and has serious weather changes, but isn't technical. So is it a mountain race or a trail race? Also, sky running shouldn't be in the mountain 100 category. Sky running is typically shorter races but very extreme.

Probably one of the better ways to classify 100ish mile races would be by the course record. UTMB may not be super technical but it takes 19-20 hours for the winner, compared to WS100 or Leadville that take 14-16 hours to win. Hardrock takes 22-23 hours. This classification system only works for the races with some history and good competition, obviously (for there to be good course records and fast winning times)

Wejo, I think that you'd need separate threads for each category, because a lot of Americans probably don't know enough about the mountain/technical races to have good answers. This way more people with narrower experiences/interests can participate in the discussion. You'll probably end up with a much smaller thread discussing the mountain 100 milers, and a much bigger thread discussing 50k-100k trail races, because those are the types of races that more runners hear about or follow (especially in the US).

I think that some types of races aren't worth including in the discussion. Road/flat ultras over 100k in distance are pretty rare, other than the 24hr races. Few enough people race these seriously that you won't end up with any agreed upon GOATs anyway. I also think we can omit discussion of any trail races that take less than a couple hours, for the same reason (not raced that much and too diverse so hard to pick GOATs)

I see your point with the difficulty of classifying FKTs and yes they can get obscure pretty fast aaand they aren't contested all that often. However, I think this brings up an interesting point; are we talking about 'competitive races' or races that have the most prestige? I think it is very difficult to tease these two out in this MUT world.
Setting an FKT can land you a story in outside magazine or make you the star of a film at a mountain film festival, both of which have a greater reach than Trailrunner, Irunfar, or Ultrarunner Magazine. Sure these efforts aren't as competitive, but a lot of 100 milers or other ultra races aren't either.
Because there are so many races, and so many different types of races(distance, terrain, etc) we will always be speculating a bit as to what races are the most competitive. 100 milers, and I suppose 200 milers now, captivate people's imagination and as such the ultra world will always place more emphasis on these events. They also start to require a different skillset than shorter races do. However, outside of a few hundreds, many of these races simply aren't all that competitive compared to shorter races. Typically, the most prestigious and lucrative races attract the best talent, but because many athletes don't want to run 100 miles these prestigious events often aren't as hotly contested. Yes races like Western and TNF 50 boast deep fields, but other well covered events such as Hardrock and Leadville often have pretty soft fields.

With regards to the AT PCT comparison, the AT record has gotten a lot more attention than the PCT with Meltzer and Jurek making appearances on Good Morning America etc but they are probably equally as competitive.

I get what you're saying about economy on different surfaces, but I think you're misunderstanding my point a bit. Undoubtedly it requires a strong aerobic engine to run a sub 4 minute mile, however, there are plenty of athletes out there who possess a similar V02 max but will never run that fast because they don't possess the mechanics or the economy to do so. My point is simply that some athletes might perform better on the trails than we would think ( Zach Miller or Tony K) because they have a very strong aerobic engine, where as others might not perform quite as well as one would expect because their ability is due to amazing economy. While successful road runners do have good aerobic engines, it is this engine combined with their ability to move correctly and efficiently that allows them to excel. In sports such as cycling it is largely just the aerobic engine that determines how fast someone can ride up a hill. Trail running is a bit more dependent on the aerobic component than road running. For example, I know a few Skimo athletes who can beat up on some fast runners in a VK but would get their asses handed to them in any race that requires 'running.' To be clear, I am not saying that road/track athletes can't or don't excel in the trail/mountain world, I am just saying that athletes who aren't very talented on the flats might excel in steeper terrain if they possess a big aerobic engine.

Unfortunately, Skimo races in the US don't have a ton of ridge scrambling in them, save for a few steep bootpacks most of the technical aspects of these races has to do with the difficult skinning and skiing. But if you do actual ski mountaineering, like really go ski some gnarly lines, then yes, that will definitely help to redefine your definition of what is technical or steep. The ability to apply a ton of aerobic stress and the relatively similar motion to running (or perhaps hiking), seems to make Skimo a pretty great training option for mountainous running events though. Francois, Killian, Emelie, Ida, etc seem to suggest that this sort of cross training is a great tool for trail runners.

Let me address some of your points:

1. I don't think 200-milers will ever really catch on....super niche and mainly a US only crowd.

2. Again the "aerobic engine" is directly tied to "running economy." AND Running form/mechanics is directly tied to oxygen usage for that Running Economy value. It is a pure efficiency measure and it is more variable in MUT. I think guys like Anton and even a Zach Miller probably don't have a great "aerobic engine" (in Lactate Threshold or Vo2max terms or even compared to a sub 2:20 marathoner or sub 30-min 10km runner), but their Economy is relatively very very good (at ultra paces on trails in the 50-mile range...or Anton at 100miles on a course like Leadville etc.) and much better than the "faster road and track guys" at some ultras (not flat roads). High mileage training and lots of long runs on trails (and lots of vert.) allow for that specific economy/speciality to shine more. ..as well as probably a lot of slow twitch fibers. It's not the "strength of their aerobic engine" its their skeletal muscular strength allowing them to move efficiently in the mountains on long climbs and big descents (both do do a lot of high altitude training though!) where they can grind. They are both fairly good at technical stuff as well.

3. From my biased perspective "competitive" and "prestige" go hand in hand.

4. Hardrock is "well covered" maybe because certain entities like to be favored into maybe being one of Dale's special picks and bypassing the lottery perhaps? There are also "sponsor biases" and the whole "good ol' boys club" influence. It also is one of those "extreme events" (much like Barkleys) that tends to make a "good story" for the media. It also helps that it is in the most beautiful mountain range in Colorado.

---

gimpyrunner wrote:

I see your point with the difficulty of classifying FKTs and yes they can get obscure pretty fast aaand they aren't contested all that often. However, I think this brings up an interesting point; are we talking about 'competitive races' or races that have the most prestige? I think it is very difficult to tease these two out in this MUT world.
Setting an FKT can land you a story in outside magazine or make you the star of a film at a mountain film festival, both of which have a greater reach than Trailrunner, Irunfar, or Ultrarunner Magazine. Sure these efforts aren't as competitive, but a lot of 100 milers or other ultra races aren't either.
Because there are so many races, and so many different types of races(distance, terrain, etc) we will always be speculating a bit as to what races are the most competitive. 100 milers, and I suppose 200 milers now, captivate people's imagination and as such the ultra world will always place more emphasis on these events. They also start to require a different skillset than shorter races do. However, outside of a few hundreds, many of these races simply aren't all that competitive compared to shorter races. Typically, the most prestigious and lucrative races attract the best talent, but because many athletes don't want to run 100 miles these prestigious events often aren't as hotly contested. Yes races like Western and TNF 50 boast deep fields, but other well covered events such as Hardrock and Leadville often have pretty soft fields.

With regards to the AT PCT comparison, the AT record has gotten a lot more attention than the PCT with Meltzer and Jurek making appearances on Good Morning America etc but they are probably equally as competitive.

I get what you're saying about economy on different surfaces, but I think you're misunderstanding my point a bit. Undoubtedly it requires a strong aerobic engine to run a sub 4 minute mile, however, there are plenty of athletes out there who possess a similar V02 max but will never run that fast because they don't possess the mechanics or the economy to do so. My point is simply that some athletes might perform better on the trails than we would think ( Zach Miller or Tony K) because they have a very strong aerobic engine, where as others might not perform quite as well as one would expect because their ability is due to amazing economy. While successful road runners do have good aerobic engines, it is this engine combined with their ability to move correctly and efficiently that allows them to excel. In sports such as cycling it is largely just the aerobic engine that determines how fast someone can ride up a hill. Trail running is a bit more dependent on the aerobic component than road running. For example, I know a few Skimo athletes who can beat up on some fast runners in a VK but would get their asses handed to them in any race that requires 'running.' To be clear, I am not saying that road/track athletes can't or don't excel in the trail/mountain world, I am just saying that athletes who aren't very talented on the flats might excel in steeper terrain if they possess a big aerobic engine.

Unfortunately, Skimo races in the US don't have a ton of ridge scrambling in them, save for a few steep bootpacks most of the technical aspects of these races has to do with the difficult skinning and skiing. But if you do actual ski mountaineering, like really go ski some gnarly lines, then yes, that will definitely help to redefine your definition of what is technical or steep. The ability to apply a ton of aerobic stress and the relatively similar motion to running (or perhaps hiking), seems to make Skimo a pretty great training option for mountainous running events though. Francois, Killian, Emelie, Ida, etc seem to suggest that this sort of cross training is a great tool for trail runners.

---

---

yeah, but.. wrote:

---

S. Canaday wrote:

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.

---

---

Sage, I have to ask..and be honest about this..if you had won WS in 2016 and or set the record, would your opinion of the race be different? You cite in the last 8 years or so TNF 50 for example is more competitive than WS. I respect your opinion as a pro athlete, but could one not argue at least state side WS is the most competitive ultra race?

I mean WS brings back the top 10 and golden ticket qualifiers, which seems like a pretty legit way to stack a field. Many past runners have even cited in this decade the competitiveness at WS is per runner more deep than it ever has been. Guys not just vying for top 10 but the podium spot too, and ultimately the win.

---

---

wejo wrote:

---

SpencerW wrote:

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.

---

When I hear of someone breaking a course record by 12 hours that to me means the previous course record wasn't that tough. However it is pretty cool she was pumping breast milk during the run.

Nonetheless an 83 hour race is very different than a 2 hour marathon or even a 100 mile race. It seems like with the really long feats in a concentrated time period a lot of it might be how much sleep can you give up? And what are the health implications of this? Just such a different beast.

---

Again Sage is on the right track with competitive & prestigious being linked. Also more runners of various abilities helps to form an unbroken pace line that pulls everyone forward. The faster the front of the line moves, the faster the middle & back move.

In regards to the original post,

Most prestigious race in regards to what most Americans care about would be Western States, TNF50, or maybe UTMB.

My favorite ultra is the Georgia Death Race. Very tough event. Not too long or too short. Great volunteers and good aid stations. Fantastic views along the ridgelines.

GOAT of ultrarunning on the women's side is Ann Trason (although Courtney Dauwalter could eventually challenge that)
GOAT of ultrarunning on the Men's side is Kouros on the roads, Killian for the trails (although he has shown weakness in the heat)

Hardest course record would probably not even be for an ultra but would fall into the same category which is Matt Carpenter's Pikes Peak Marathon record. Even Killian did not come within 15 minutes of it I don't think.

A different type of question, but where do most of you go for ultra running news and updates? I've enjoyed checking irunfar.com every Monday for their weekly recaps and their race interviews are quality, but the site leaves me wanting more on other days, in terms of just general information or training updates