51 replies to this topic

[redbackrun]

interesting article about the accomplishments of completing ultra marathons. I wonder how far the author has run?

http://www.theglobea...article4396223/



"Californian Julie Weiss is only the latest incarnation in a phenomenon that was best illustrated in the film Forrest Gump. Ms. Weiss is in the process of attempting to run 52 marathons in 52 weeks. If this sounds familiar, it is. In 2006, another American, Dean Karnazes, “accomplished the seemingly impossible” by running 50 marathons in 50 U.S. states in 50 consecutive days. Not inclined to rest on his laurels, Mr. Karnazes proceeded to run 3,000 miles, beginning in California and ending, not in Greenbow, Ala., as Gump did, but in the city of New York, finding time along the way to talk to kids about the value of exercise and eating a balanced diet. Michelle Obama would later honour Mr. Karnazes’s “tireless commitment to help the country get back into shape,” by permitting him to run through the White House.

In a sedentary culture there is certainly something refreshing about previously ordinary people camping out on the extreme end of the endurance spectrum, but it’s worth considering the societal value of running 52 slow marathons or covering thousands of kilometres in events that are, largely, made up. Perhaps most underwhelming isn’t that Ms. Weiss’s average pace in the Duluth marathon was a sluggish 6:40 per kilometre, but that her weekly mileage would constitute a rounding error in any serious marathon runner’s training log.

Ms. Weiss hopes her ordeal will raise money for pancreatic cancer research, certainly a noble goal, but beyond a treasure chest of participant medals and race T-shirts that form the detritus of today’s marathon culture, it’s questionable as to whether dozens of plodding marathons should be considered significant athletic feats worthy of notice.

Mr. Karnazes’s feats initially appear more impressive, but again – racing essentially against the wind, on a course where there are no time standards because no one else has bothered running a marathon in every state in the union – it takes the notion of “personal best” all too literally.

Mr. Karnazes’s marathon results stand out not simply because of their sheer volume, but in an era where the average runner completes 42 kilometres well north of four hours, his occasional three-hour marathon generates the illusion of incredible speed. At least, in his case, standardized times exist. For ultra-runners like Canadian Ray Zahab and Spaniard Kilian Jornet, meaningful results are much harder to find. Both Mr. Zahab and Mr. Jornet stay well away from events that don’t ascend a high pass in the Alps or cross the Sahara. Yet even these arcane events haven’t protected Mr. Jornet from getting run over by former 2:17 Kiwi marathoner Jonathan Wyatt. Despite the occasional incursion of fleet-footed marathon burnouts, the odds of climbing the podium remain markedly better when lining up against 300 or so runners in the Leadville 100-miler as opposed to being one of 40,000 attempting to cross the George Washington Bridge. Last year, Leadville boasted 350 athletes in the 100-mile trail run, the Western States 100-Mile Endurance Run, 316, and for the Badwater Ultramarathon, arguably the most gruelling of all three, 94 athletes finished.

Even the idea that races such as the Western States and Leadville constitute running is fraught with the kind of complexity only a professor of postmodernism could appreciate. Leadville race director Karen Jayne confirms what pictures from their website imply – walking is an essential part of the race: “It is possible but not probable for more than a handful of participants to avoid walking during the ultra running experience.”

The Western States 100 is faster due to less demanding geography. However, race director Greg Soderlund is quick to point out that although some athletes complete the course without walking, all of them, at some point, stop at aid stations for indeterminate lengths of time. In Badwater, there is even the possibility of breaking up the race by sojourning at the Panamint Springs Resort, located halfway through the 135-mile course. It’s hard to imagine a Boston marathon where the leader stopped to walk or had a layover at an aid station, but this is par for the course in ultra-distance running.

Run far enough and the “loneliness of the long-distance runner” moves from metaphor to reality, and the further you go past 26.2 miles, the less the competition and the less coherent the results. Undoubtedly, running 100 miles or back-to-back marathons represents some kind of athletic accomplishment, but until more elite distance runners choose to contend in ultra-events, luminaries of the sport will continue to be big fish in a very small pond."

[undercover brother]

yep

[Davo]

undercover brother, on 10 July 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

yep

Ditto.

It also applies to age groups. I'm looking forward to later this year, when I turn 70. I may even be able to get an occasional age group placing with less competitors to deal with. All I have to do is find events that reward such efforts.

[Colin]

redbackrun, on 10 July 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

interesting article about the accomplishments of completing ultra marathons. I wonder how far the author has run?

He is a 2:30ish marathoner doing over 160km/wk so I guess he could run very far...if he wanted to...and probably fairly fast too.

He appears to write quite a few articles of the same vein re the way the sport has grown in numbers but gone backward in quality, unlike many other sports...can't say I disagree.

Now where is my best chance at a podium?

Edited by Colin, 11 July 2012 - 12:53 AM.

[Rico]

Well let's not pretend road events are as good as trail events.  It's nice to be inclusive and nonjudgemental and all that, but nobody who has done both knows how second rate road is in comparison.

That said, the competition and professionalism in road events is much higher at this time.  But I think it will change, and one day big trail events will have the big names from around the world targetting them.  And probably in the future people will scratch their heads at the fact that you used to be able to win WS with >14 hours or 6 foot track with > 3 hours etc.

[undercover brother]

payback for this thread perhaps...

Edited by undercover brother, 11 July 2012 - 07:44 AM.

[Mile27]

Running 52 marathons in 52 weeks may not be that big a deal ( considering people have run 365 in a year ) and if her goal was to "achieve a significant athletic feat worthy of notice" then she would fail. What any fundraiser is trying to do is get enough attention to raise some money for charity , I am sure ms Weiis would be the first to admit she'll never be a fast runner.

because Kilian got beaten by a 2.17 marathoner in a road race that somehow reduces the impressiveness of his feats in ultras? Has the author ever tried to run around Mt Blanc in 20 hours or the Zegama mountain marathon in 3 something hours?

Why is a fast marathon a better achievement that that.

The author has a crack at even the top runners WALKING during a race and still setting a course record. What a joke the sport is when someone can go for a casual stroll in the middle of a race and still set a course record. ( let's not mention that this walking is done up steep inclines on rocky terrain with 2-3 marathons already in the legs )


So winning a race is less valid if it has less competitors, seems to be one argument . So by that standard winning the London marathon is a significantly better achievement than winning the world champs or Olympics where the competitors number 100-200.


The winners of ultras may be big fish in a small pond but criticising them because of this is meaningless.

The author is essentially saying ultra trail runners aren't real runners because not many people do them and they walk some of the way and therefore don't deserve the kudos they are given.


Colin - I am not sure what you mean in agreeing the sport has gone backwards - if you are referring to marathons then yes the average finishing time of marathons has declined ( due to greater participant numbers and the realisation that it is an achievable goal for most fit people with the right training ) but it seems to me we are entering a golden age of marathon running. The world record has dropped steadily over the last 5-10 years and there is a number of runners all capable of going under 2.05 .

In terms of ultramarathons , the sport is going forward in leaps and bounds  on the trails, greater competition, prize money,sponsorship  are attracting more and more numbers which will improve performances and records

I would agree that performances in Road ultras aren't progressing and for example the world 100k record hasn't changed for 10+ years.

[halfwaydown]

If the first part of the article opines that the accumulation of uncontested mileage is not worthy to be 'considered significant athletic feats worthy of notice', then fine. Maybe they are just 'significant athletic personal feats worthy of notice'.   I was sent an invite recently to a talk by Pat Farmer entitled 'The Greatest Run in History' https://www.facebook...46206792065577/.  The Pole to Pole event was an outstanding achievement - and no offence to Pat, but whether we'll still be talking about it in a hundred years time after Pheidippides is long forgotten is doubtful.

But with regard to the latter part of the article I would have to take a different view from the author. I haven't seen an ultra event yet that has a pre-qualification banning anyone that can run faster than 2.17 marathon pace.  If the elite of the elite are not interested in running over a mountain for a few hundred dollars prize money rather than compete for the more rewarding distances that's a matter of choice - not a fault with ultras or with those willing to compete.

Michael Wardian I would think is quite a good yardstick for comparable - a 2.17 marathoner - but rather run a lot more often and longer than try and squeeze his marathon down to a time that might start paying the rent. To quote:

A lot of people say, "Oh, you could be a 2:12 guy or a 2:14 guy if you just focused on one race a year, or two races a year and really built up." And I think the counter argument is that you could get hurt and you wouldn't have any races a year. There are so many opportunities out there and, I love to toe the line. I love to see what I can do and just push the limits and try and experiment with myself. I like that people can look at me, and say, "Wow, if that guy can do 13 marathons a year and do pretty well maybe I can do one." I think a lot of people can relate to that. Like, that guy works a real job. He's not a professional runner.

http://en.wikipedia....Michael_Wardian

[Colin]

Mile27, on 11 July 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

Colin - I am not sure what you mean in agreeing the sport has gone backwards - if you are referring to marathons then yes the average finishing time of marathons has declined ( due to greater participant numbers and the realisation that it is an achievable goal for most fit people with the right training ) but it seems to me we are entering a golden age of marathon running. The world record has dropped steadily over the last 5-10 years and there is a number of runners all capable of going under 2.05 .

In terms of ultramarathons , the sport is going forward in leaps and bounds  on the trails, greater competition, prize money,sponsorship  are attracting more and more numbers which will improve performances and records

I would agree that performances in Road ultras aren't progressing and for example the world 100k record hasn't changed for 10+ years.

Just my opinion - with 35 yrs of running-of both the quality and the structure of the sport- and I guess the former could come from the latter. Running is one of the few sports where the "quality of play "across the board- not the WR- has gone backward, and doesn't have any structure at all - not in Australia nor where the author is I npresume anyway. A topic for another day.

Are ultramarathons going forward in leaps and bounds? Perhaps you can say it has had a recent resurgence on trails or that it hasn't gone backward as much. The only Ultra that is accessible, cheap etc that has grwon massively is Comrades. The rest are pretty much arising out of what the author talks about in other posts- bucket lists for extreme sports, doing races that cost $3,500 (way out of range of ordinary third worlder) etc.

And I am not sure how the 100km ultras can improve much without 'real' quality races and championships rather than those belonging to a club doing it. It will need incentive for the 2:05'ers to step up and crack it.

[MrUniqueName]

There must be something wrong with my computer?!? I tried opening the article and all I could see was:

"Blah blah blah whinge blah sook blah blah..." etc etc. Very strange!

But in all seriousness, I've often wondered how the pro-marathoners would go in a trail race. Haile doing Western States - wouldn't that be a sight to see!

[Colin]

Rico, on 11 July 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

Well let's not pretend road events are as good as trail events.  It's nice to be inclusive and nonjudgemental and all that, but nobody who has done both knows how second rate road is in comparison.

That said, the competition and professionalism in road events is much higher at this time.  But I think it will change, and one day big trail events will have the big names from around the world targetting them.  And probably in the future people will scratch their heads at the fact that you used to be able to win WS with >14 hours or 6 foot track with > 3 hours etc.

Not sure what you mean by "not as good"   I suppose you are talking about scenery and so forth. At the competitive end the guys are not running to enjoy the scenery, but there are many road marathons and ultras that are equally scenic and better than bashing around in a bush.

The underlying point that he makes is one of 'measurement'. It is the "how long is a piece of string' analogy. There are many people that I know for a fact -and some have told me so- who run, and yes enjoy, trails because they "don't think they are fast enough, and don't like the spotlight on that 'measurement' of time vs distance' ". You could say it was controversial if I 'just made that up'.
If you run any marathon (or half or standard ultra) then one knows that 4hrs here , equals 4hrs there and 4hrs elsewhere etc. With a trail, over any permutation of distance you could run 'any time' and there is no benchmark, and therefore the need to push to certain barriers - which some of those have told me- is not as imnportant, and the 'justification' (for want of another word) of time vs distance is irrelevant.

So his argument is not about "how nice" trails are, but it is about the relevance of performances. Each separate race may have its own comparison against other yearly instalments of it, but that's where the comparison ends and the relevance of performance lost.

Disclaimer: in my case my two 'best performances' relatively came on very tough trail runs. But I rank my marathon PB and other times higher historically because of the relevance of the performance. So what I say I apply to me as well.

cheers

[Rico]

Colin, on 11 July 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

The underlying point that he makes is one of 'measurement'. It is the "how long is a piece of string' analogy. There are many people that I know for a fact -and some have told me so- who run, and yes enjoy, trails because they "don't think they are fast enough, and don't like the spotlight on that 'measurement' of time vs distance' ". You could say it was controversial if I 'just made that up'.
If you run any marathon (or half or standard ultra) then one knows that 4hrs here , equals 4hrs there and 4hrs elsewhere etc. With a trail, over any permutation of distance you could run 'any time' and there is no benchmark, and therefore the need to push to certain barriers - which some of those have told me- is not as imnportant, and the 'justification' (for want of another word) of time vs distance is irrelevant.

So his argument is not about "how nice" trails are, but it is about the relevance of performances. Each separate race may have its own comparison against other yearly instalments of it, but that's where the comparison ends and the relevance of performance lost.

The lack of precise, objective, eternally measurable measurement might be a frustration from one perspective.

But most sports manage to do fine without this. Is Messi as good as Pele was? How would Bradman go against Warne? Who would win between Tyson in his prime or Ali in his prime? Which of the Lion's 3 consecutive premierships was the most impressive?

For most sports the inability to objectively check these things does not diminish the sport.

Edited by Rico, 11 July 2012 - 10:02 AM.

[Colin]

Rico, on 11 July 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

The lack of precise, objective, eternally measurable measurement might be a frustration from one perspective.

But most sports manage to do fine without this. Is Messi as good as Pele was? How would Bradman go against Warne? Who would win between Tyson in his prime or Ali in his prime? Which of the Lion's 3 consecutive premierships was the most impressive?

For most sports the inability to objectively check these things does not diminish the sport.

Rico, I was merely giving a reason for some people's attraction to the 'sport' and the lesser emphasis on performance.

As for Messi vs Pele etc, the same arguments are held in Bekele vs Zatopek despite the time measurement. The value of Messi lies in contributing to his team winning and the bottom line- easily identified parameters- but we are straying from the poinmt here.

[SurfStrider]

What Mile27 said.

Don't understand the point of the article.  I once beat the 800m Olympic gold medalist... in an arm wrestle - what does that say... absolutely nothing, except I had a fun night at the Lowenbrau.

Colin there is always a benchmark for any event where there is more than one competitor - how did you go relative to the best in the event, or your last attempt on the course. What difference is there in that to a marathon or any event?

Is swimming the English channel less of an achievement because the fastest time for that is 30% slower than the 1,500m world record - I don't think so - much tougher in my opinion as the tides, temperature, chop, fatigue, etc.  That would be like saying winning a marathon is less of an achievement than winning a 1,500m run because the speed is about 30% slower - what a stupid argument, distance brings slower overall speed. So having a crack at ultra marathon speeds being slower is just stupid.

[Colin]

SurfStrider, on 11 July 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Colin there is always a benchmark for any event where there is more than one competitor - how did you go relative to the best in the event, or your last attempt on the course. What difference is there in that to a marathon or any event?

A benchmark against what? A standard marathon is benchmarked against all other std marathons which why there is recognition of WR's etc.

Digressing, but it is precisely the reason we cross reference against other performances, marathons and 6ft when working out the factor for a 6Ft qualifier. You can't just run against minimum one other competitor (your words) and say, "hey we have a benchmark".

And BTW, no one was talking about speed vs other shorter races or having a "crack at ultra marathon speeds"--why are you making that up?

Edited by Colin, 11 July 2012 - 12:11 PM.

[SurfStrider]

The Boston marathon has a slower record than Berlin, does that make it a lesser marathon and winning that not a worthy accomplishment? The terrain, means that different results are to be expected, just like in an ultra.

And BTW, speed was mentioned in the article "his occasional three-hour marathon generates the illusion of incredible speed." Saying the illusion of speed suggest that the author believes that you can ignore the marathons that he ran before and after, as 3-hrs is only an illusion of speed - I think given the big distances he did, if he made that time in one (I don't know), then that is a pretty good effort, and no-one considers Dean Karnazes is the Ultra world's best athlete. So I think my point regarding speed in shorter events, not being used as a judgement of longer events, stands.

you did mention speed in your comment - "don't think they are fast enough, and don't like the spotlight on that 'measurement' of time vs distance'" - but then you introduced that line of thought, so why are you making that up?

[Ultramouse]

redbackrun, on 10 July 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

Run far enough and the “loneliness of the long-distance runner” moves from metaphor to reality, and the further you go past 26.2 miles, the less the competition and the less coherent the results. Undoubtedly, running 100 miles or back-to-back marathons represents some kind of athletic accomplishment, but until more elite distance runners choose to contend in ultra-events, luminaries of the sport will continue to be big fish in a very small pond."

I wonder what 'some kind of athletic achievemen't is these days. I would suggest it is an event which can be fitted into global TV schedules and where the runners earn bucketloads of money because of the marketability of their events. Hence the Olympic 100m rates higher than the world champs marathon (although the commentators will squeeze abreviated highlights into the TV sports program).

130 years ago it was the opposite. Short grabs on the TV didn't define what was noteworthy; but the money behind the sport did. The great pedestrian contests of the late 19th century pushed many men to great feats, probably for not necessarily the right reasons. 100yd sprinting was still something that was done at village fetes.

What defines the event for me is what I personally get out of it, irrespective of where I finish. Ultra running, as does marathon running, gets into your system and winning, although very nice once in a while, is not the be all and end all. I never feel that I have achieved something in a second rate competition; I feel I have achieved something personal.

As a medium fish in the very small pond of Australian ultra running I am very happy of where and when I compete in the chronology of the game in this country. One day I hope to see it grow. And what will the author of Redbackrun's article say about that? That it's now OK to talk to ultra runners because now they're real athletes? (Not like Paavo Nurmi - remember him? Won a gold medal in the Olympic 10000m in a piss poor time of 31:45.8. What a loser!)

[crowpower]

ultramouse, on 11 July 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

130 years ago it was the opposite. Short grabs on the TV didn't define what was noteworthy; but the money behind the sport did. The great pedestrian contests of the late 19th century pushed many men to great feats, probably for not necessarily the right reasons. 100yd sprinting was still something that was done at village fetes.

What? TV 130 years ago!

Great thread! I agree with what Colin is saying.

While there is a big resurgence in numbers, most of them are wearing earphones. Will anyone be doing so in any Olympic event? NO.

[SurfStrider]

Crow power and Colin - 40,000 people do the Berlin marathon, and many of them aren't doing it to win and have other motivations for doing the run - does that somehow diminish the efforts of the winners and world record holders - no. So what difference does it make if some ultra runners have different motivations or, heaven forbid, wear an iPod (is that the coolrunning equivalent of Godwin's law?).

Edited by SurfStrider, 11 July 2012 - 02:57 PM.

[Colin]

SurfStrider, on 11 July 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

The Boston marathon has a slower record than Berlin, does that make it a lesser marathon and winning that not a worthy accomplishment? The terrain, means that different results are to be expected, just like in an ultra.

And BTW, speed was mentioned in the article "his occasional three-hour marathon generates the illusion of incredible speed."....

Think you are nitpicking a bit...this is what I referred to:

Quote

That would be like saying winning a marathon is less of an achievement than winning a 1,500m run because the speed is about 30% slower - what a stupid argument, distance brings slower overall speed. So having a crack at ultra marathon speeds being slower is just stupid.

Of course the fact that ultras are longer means they are going to be slower, he didn't criticise that fact.

SurfStrider, on 11 July 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

Crow power and Colin - 40,000 people do the Berlin marathon, and many of them aren't doing it to win and have other motivations for doing the run - does that somehow diminish the efforts of the winners and world record holders - no.

Agreed it doesn't and in some of his other blog posts he references this and criticises not the race nor the winners but the people walking it in 6hrs-- nothing wrong with that on its own- but then getting the most mileage (pun intended) out of it...Katie Holmes as an example.

At the end of the day it is the guy's opinion and observations. I don't agree with all of it, but do with the gist of it. But I can't see why others are compelled to comment on his blog page and abuse him for it.

[SurfStrider]

So on top of me making things up and rolling your eyes, you now want to tell me that I am nitpicking... geez thanks Colin.  The article mentions Karnazes performance and "the illusion of speed" - i.e. a criticism of the speed he achieved his goal in  - I sighted that you don't expect the winner of a marathon to break the 1,500m records, so why expect someone doing back-to-back marathons, to achieve world best results. As I mentioned I don't think Dean's results are world best, given other runners (say Pat Farmer) have runner further each day for more days, but definitely up there.

You also introduced a concept that because some people run ultras, "don't think they are fast enough, and don't like the spotlight on that 'measurement' of time vs distance" - suggesting that runners of ultra's aren't up to scrutiny of running other distances... just as the article mentions that Kilian and others only run in hilly events to avoid being compared to others, and because someone beat Kilian in an event, perhaps his prior achievements are not that great. Again points where speed comes into it.

On those two points - people follow their passions, some like trails, some like 100m, some like marathons.  It is silly to suggest they should not do what they enjoy and run other events that "mean something" to the author - apply that logic to Marathon runners- they must only enter those events to hide the fact they have poor 100m speed.  As to the fact that Kilian was beaten in an event by a 2:17 marathon runner, that might suggest many things, Kilian had a bad day or it wasn't his favourite event, Jonathan has some talent and should apply himself further in the sport if he is interested.  If a 10km runner does his first marathon and wins or breaks a world record, should all the other marathoners now give up the game because they were beaten?

I don't belittling the achievements of the best in any sport and you can't compare the results of one specialty to another.  I have run numerous distances, and if ultra running comes up and someone replies saying "wow, I only entered the city-to-surf", my thoughts and comments will be along the lines of "but you train differently for that and will run at a faster pace for it, so it has its own challenges", so you can't compare it.

[Colin]

Whatever, surfrider..how can one debate against someone that interprets one's written English in the way he wants to.

BTW:

SurfStrider, on 11 July 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Jonathan has some talent and should apply himself further in the sport if he is interested.

An understatement of the year? He think he has already shown how good he is on trails and mountains.

[flyingemu]

In short, the author is a shit stirring idiot.

[trailpuddin]

Friend of yours then Emu? The stirring bit not the idiot bit of course. Sir.

[flyingemu]

trailpuddin, on 11 July 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Friend of yours then Emu? The stirring bit not the idiot bit of course. Sir.

Ha! I have no comeback.

[Running Angel]

trailpuddin, on 11 July 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Friend of yours then Emu? The stirring bit not the idiot bit of course. Sir.

Like

[yeti]

Rico, on 11 July 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

That said, the competition and professionalism in road events is much higher at this time.  But I think it will change, and one day big trail events will have the big names from around the world targetting them.

We may already see the beginning of this in Europe - at least certain companies (Salomon, Gore) are throwing money at trail running, both at races and directly at athletes.

Mile27, on 11 July 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

because Kilian got beaten by a 2.17 marathoner in a road race that somehow reduces the impressiveness of his feats in ultras

Aside from the inaccuracy that Wyatt is a 2:13 marathoner (Hamburg 2003), not 2:17, the article stated that Kilian Jornet was beaten in a trail race ("arcane event").

MrUniqueName, on 11 July 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

But in all seriousness, I've often wondered how the pro-marathoners would go in a trail race. Haile doing Western States - wouldn't that be a sight to see!

While its unlikely that we see 2:05 marathoners in trail ultras until the price & appearance money catches up, there are a few examples of what 2:10-2:20 marathoners can do in trail races.
- Phil Costley (2:13 marathoner) winning Kepler (2x, IIRC)
- Giorgio Calcaterra (2:13) winning Swiss Alpine 78k
- Christian Seiler (2:18) winning Rennsteiglauf (Germany, 73km, 2500 Finishers) this year, improving course record by ~5min
- 3x Swiss Alpine and 2x Biel 100k winner Peter Camenzind (SUI) is a 2:21 marathoner
- 5x Swiss Alpine winner Jonas Buud (SWE) is a 2:24 marathoner

Yeti

[SurfStrider]

I'm sorry Colin, obviously I am misinterpreting the writing as you and he aren't underwhelmed with the speed that ultra atheletes achieve, but some other determinant of quality. Perhaps the distance isn't long enough or they don't run with enough heart? Or is it competitor numbers or prize money that suggests quality of performance in events.  Or is it more that the back end of the field who don't like being measured for speed or wears an iPod means that the entire event is compromised.
Next time I'll just teply telling people they are making stuff up, nitpicking, roll my eyes - that kind of good heathly debate. Thanks for the lesson.

[slowbonKeR]

My personal experience with, and interest in ultras is that there is an increased mental (versus physical) weighting to the challenge. Does this dilute its "athleticism", or does it add something that goes beyond athleticism?(I ask this as an open question)

I note the author constructs a straw man argument by observing that leaders of marathons don't take layovers. I might add I've never seen the leader in an ultramarathon running in a chicken suit, so using his logic what does that say about marathons?!

I respect elite marathon (and sub-marathon distance) runners for their dedication, but if I am to be honest I find the challenges presented by the sport at these shorter distances are a bit more one-dimensional. They probably make for better TV, but when it comes to books I suspect I will get more mileage out of the ultramarathoners.

Edited by slowbonKeR, 11 July 2012 - 10:50 PM.

[Colin]

SurfStrider, on 11 July 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

I'm sorry Colin, obviously I am misinterpreting the writing as you and he aren't underwhelmed with the speed that ultra atheletes achieve, but some other determinant of quality. Perhaps the distance isn't long enough or they don't run with enough heart? Or is it competitor numbers or prize money that suggests quality of performance in events.  Or is it more that the back end of the field who don't like being measured for speed or wears an iPod means that the entire event is compromised.
Next time I'll just teply telling people they are making stuff up, nitpicking, roll my eyes - that kind of good heathly debate. Thanks for the lesson.

Thanks for the sarcasm. My last comment at you...

The bit that I responded to that you "made up" is this:

SurfStrider, on 11 July 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

That would be like saying winning a marathon is less of an achievement than winning a 1,500m run because the speed is about 30% slower - what a stupid argument, distance brings slower overall speed. So having a crack at ultra marathon speeds being slower is just stupid.

Neither the author (nor me for that matter) had a crack at ultra speeds being slower because the distance is longer. You made that up. Then you start picking out selective sentences to infer he is criticising the speed of specific people when he was making 'global' comnments about projects such as 50 or 52 marathons etc.

And so yes, I am not underwhelmed by the speeds that ultra runners achieve at all you are right there. I will leave it at that.

[iRonnie]

I love trail running.  Howevert, I prefer to race on a measured course where my times mean something.

It seems to me that some ultra runners are being a bit egoistic - going on some of the responses above.  A marathon run hard is quite an experience.  I have only run one 84k ultra and it too was quite an experience.  For me, the marathons and the training for a marathon are very challenging . I don't know, maybe i am a slacker or somehting

Anyway, i wonder whether the ultra runners who go on about how the ultra's take them to a new level of being are not running their marathons to the best of their abilty  -or maybe they(or i) don't have the abilty needed to find the edge in the marathon .  I have spoken to few ultra runners who tell me that a hard marathon is harder than anything they have done in their ultra running.

Maybe it is just a matter of some runners finding their niche. I like to run 1500m but i can't run them very fast. I recover quick and all is good.  A mate who has 1500m abilty can wreck himself for days.  I just wonder whether ultra runners are not getting the true marathon experience because they haven't the abilty; whereas, with an ultra it is a completely different ball game requiring different attributes that they are able to develop.   Ultras allow runners with limited speed to bring into play other atrributes to compensate.
And vice a versa.

I am a marathoner, so for me Karnarses is okay  but Patrick Makau is f**king incredible.  Trail runs are fun but a good fast road race is my first love.

I am sick of the ultra runner vs marathoner carry on.  Just accept that we tar babies wiil rule the airwaves/world one day and you lesser beings will be subject to abject humilation.  Blah, ha, ha ha, hah.

Edited by iRonnie, 12 July 2012 - 05:23 PM.

[Davo]

iRonnie, on 12 July 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

I love trail running.  Howevert, I prefer to race on a measured course where my times mean something.

It seems to me that some ultra runners are being a bit egoistic - going on some of the responses above.  A marathon run hard is quite an experience.  I have only run one 84k ultra and it too was quite an experience.  For me, the marathons and the training for a marathon are very challenging . I don't know, maybe i am a slacker or somehting

Anyway, i wonder whether the ultra runners who go on about how the ultra's take them to a new level of being are not running their marathons to the best of their abilty  -or maybe they(or i) don't have the abilty needed to find the edge in the marathon .  I have spoken to few ultra runners who tell me that a hard marathon is harder than anything they have done in their ultra running.

Maybe it is just a matter of some runners finding their niche. I like to run 1500m but i can't run them very fast. I recover quick and all is good.  A mate who has 1500m abilty can wreck himself for days.  I just wonder whether ultra runners are not getting the true marathon experience because they haven't the abilty; whereas, with an ultra it is a completely different ball game requiring different attributes that they are able to develop.   Ultras allow runners with limited speed to bring into play other atrributes to compensate.
And vice a versa.

I am a marathoner, so for me Karnarses is okay  but Patrick Makau is f**king incredible.  Trail runs are fun but a good fast road race is my first love.

I am sick of the ultra runner vs marathoner carry on.  Just accept that we tar babies wiil rule the airwaves/world one day and you lesser beings will be subject to abject humilation.  Blah, ha, ha ha, hah.

iRonnie, once again I find myself in total agreement with you. (Something must be wrong with the universe somewhere.....)

[iRonnie]

Swaggerer just passed out.

[slowbonKeR]

iRonnie, on 12 July 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

It seems to me that some ultra runners are being a bit egoistic - going on some of the responses above.

Not sure how much of that comment was directed at me but If so its probably a fair cop, I am prone to being overdefensive. I was trying to convey my personal experience, having been a sprinter at school, got up to marathon distance a couple of years ago and tried ultramarathons more recently. Whilst I am by no means a front of the pack runner, I also dont consider myself to be limited by speed. Perhaps I could have chosen my words more carefully, but I found that the further the distance the more facets to the challenge there were. That's not to say that the challenge was greater or lesser, but it certainly had some different dimensions to it for me. It's also not to say others won't have different perceptions either, thats why (as you have noted) people are drawn towards different distances, different sports even.

But my question remains; does the challenge at longer distances stray outside the notion of pure "athleticism" and into some different sort of challenge? My view that there is an increased mental aspect to the challenge of longer distances might be rejected by others, but I can't help thinking this is the crux of where the author's views seem to differ from those of us who see greater legitimacy in the sport of ultramarathons.

Also just an aside, but I should add that all ultras aren't run on trails, there are very much benchmark-able ultra distance events such as 6, 12, 24, 48 and 6 day track races, where times can "mean something" if this is how one interprets meaningfulness.

Edited by slowbonKeR, 12 July 2012 - 10:50 PM.

[KevinCassidy]

SurfStrider, on 11 July 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

What Mile27 said.

Don't understand the point of the article.  I once beat the 800m Olympic gold medalist... in an arm wrestle - what does that say... absolutely nothing, except I had a fun night at the Lowenbrau.

Colin there is always a benchmark for any event where there is more than one competitor - how did you go relative to the best in the event, or your last attempt on the course. What difference is there in that to a marathon or any event?

Is swimming the English channel less of an achievement because the fastest time for that is 30% slower than the 1,500m world record - I don't think so - much tougher in my opinion as the tides, temperature, chop, fatigue, etc.  That would be like saying winning a marathon is less of an achievement than winning a 1,500m run because the speed is about 30% slower - what a stupid argument, distance brings slower overall speed. So having a crack at ultra marathon speeds being slower is just stupid.

Glad to see the English Channel swim crack it for a mention.

[cjr]

I run and enjoy both road marathons and trail ultras. Personally I find running a road marathon in 3.5 hours tougher than completing a 50km trail run in 5.5 hours as it requires a far more sustained effort.  I am constantly watching the clock and pushing myself, whereas on the trail there is no time benchmark so I have no trouble walking up steep hills and stopping for a chat and a feed when needed, making for an overall more relaxed experience.

Family and friends however are far more impressed with the accomplishment of completing a 50km trail run in 5.5 hours than a 42 road race in 3.5 hours

[Mile27]

In an effort to comment specifically on the article and keep this thread on track .....



"Californian Julie Weiss is only the latest incarnation in a phenomenon that was best illustrated in the film Forrest Gump. Ms. Weiss is in the process of attempting to run 52 marathons in 52 weeks. If this sounds familiar, it is. In 2006, another American, Dean Karnazes, “accomplished the seemingly impossible” by running 50 marathons in 50 U.S. states in 50 consecutive days. Not inclined to rest on his laurels, Mr. Karnazes proceeded to run 3,000 miles, beginning in California and ending, not in Greenbow, Ala., as Gump did, but in the city of New York, finding time along the way to talk to kids about the value of exercise and eating a balanced diet. Michelle Obama would later honour Mr. Karnazes’s “tireless commitment to help the country get back into shape,” by permitting him to run through the White House.

In a sedentary culture there is certainly something refreshing about previously ordinary people camping out on the extreme end of the endurance spectrum, but it’s worth considering the societal value of running 52 slow marathons or covering thousands of kilometres in events that are, largely, made up. Perhaps most underwhelming isn’t that Ms. Weiss’s average pace in the Duluth marathon was a sluggish 6:40 per kilometre, but that her weekly mileage would constitute a rounding error in any serious marathon runner’s training log.



Why the author finds it necessary to criticise someone for trying to raise money for charity I'm not sure. If she is marketing the project as one of the most  difficult athletic feats ever to be attempted , then yes by all means criticise . But running consecutive marathons in x number of days, states, continents etc has opened up a completely new way to find raise for charity.



Ms. Weiss hopes her ordeal will raise money for pancreatic cancer research, certainly a noble goal, but beyond a treasure chest of participant medals and race T-shirts that form the detritus of today’s marathon culture, it’s questionable as to whether dozens of plodding marathons should be considered significant athletic feats worthy of notice.


It may not be a significant athletic feat worthy of notice in the athletic community but it may be a significant athletic feat to Ms Weiss. Who cares if it's significant or not in terms of the athletic community. If she was awarded athlete of the year or similar then yes I would agree that her feat is nowhere near worthy of anything like that. But she is just raising moeny for charity and instead of harassing people on the street with a clipboard she's running a marathon every week.


Mr. Karnazes’s feats initially appear more impressive, but again – racing essentially against the wind, on a course where there are no time standards because no one else has bothered running a marathon in every state in the union – it takes the notion of “personal best” all too literally.


According to that argument , doing something nobody else has done before is worth little because there is no way to judge whether it's a good performance or not. It's only when a large number of people have been doing it for years that we can get some idea on whether the time he did it in was any good or not.

So by that argument , being the first person to do anything has no merit since there is no basis of comparison.

Can we only judge a performances merit when we have a large sample population to compare times. Do we need to wait until a statistically large enough population have run from pole to pole ( Pat Farmer style) before we can say that his run was of any merit?

Dean Karnzes may not be the fastest ultra runner out there ( although he has won a few races ) but some of his feats are remarkable. Anyone else run 300 miles non stop before? ( there may be a female who has also done it but I am it sure)


Mr. Karnazes’s marathon results stand out not simply because of their sheer volume, but in an era where the average runner completes 42 kilometres well north of four hours, his occasional three-hour marathon generates the illusion of incredible speed. At least, in his case, standardized times exist. For ultra-runners like Canadian Ray Zahab and Spaniard Kilian Jornet, meaningful results are much harder to find. Both Mr. Zahab and Mr. Jornet stay well away from events that don’t ascend a high pass in the Alps or cross the Sahara. Yet even these arcane events haven’t protected Mr. Jornet from getting run over by former 2:17 Kiwi marathoner Jonathan Wyatt. Despite the occasional incursion of fleet-footed marathon burnouts, the odds of climbing the podium remain markedly better when lining up against 300 or so runners in the Leadville 100-miler as opposed to being one of 40,000 attempting to cross the George Washington Bridge. Last year, Leadville boasted 350 athletes in the 100-mile trail run, the Western States 100-Mile Endurance Run, 316, and for the Badwater Ultramarathon, arguably the most gruelling of all three, 94 athletes finished.



So because Jornet and Zahab don't run on road there efforts are worth less.

Comparing 40,000 in a marathon to 350 at western States is a plain stupid argument.

The world champs or Olympic marathon are far harder to win because the quality is far higher. Of those 40,000 running probably 39500 or more won't even break 3 hours.

In a major road marathon only 5-10 runners realistically have a chance of winning, exactly the same as in Western States.

Even the idea that races such as the Western States and Leadville constitute running is fraught with the kind of complexity only a professor of postmodernism could appreciate. Leadville race director Karen Jayne confirms what pictures from their website imply – walking is an essential part of the race: “It is possible but not probable for more than a handful of participants to avoid walking during the ultra running experience.”


So because walking is involved it diminishes  the achievement ?


The Western States 100 is faster due to less demanding geography. However, race director Greg Soderlund is quick to point out that although some athletes complete the course without walking, all of them, at some point, stop at aid stations for indeterminate lengths of time. In Badwater, there is even the possibility of breaking up the race by sojourning at the Panamint Springs Resort, located halfway through the 135-mile course. It’s hard to imagine a Boston marathon where the leader stopped to walk or had a layover at an aid station, but this is par for the course in ultra-distance running.



So ultra running is inferior because walking is involved?

This is probably the most insulting argument the author makes. It's the argument that any ultrarunners reading it wants to see how the author would fare trying to run up the Grand col du Ferret over 100km into the UTMB involving a 1400m climb.

Run far enough and the “loneliness of the long-distance runner” moves from metaphor to reality, and the further you go past 26.2 miles, the less the competition and the less coherent the results. Undoubtedly, running 100 miles or back-to-back marathons represents some kind of athletic accomplishment, but until more elite distance runners choose to contend in ultra-events, luminaries of the sport will continue to be big fish in a very small pond."


So because elite ultrarunners are big fish in a small pond it makes there achievements of less value?

Is Dave Scott's and Mark Allens wins in Hawaii of less value since back in the early 80's the participants in Ironman races was only a tiny percentage of what it is now.

By this argument 400 m runners should be tarred with the same brush. I don't know the figures but I would guess there are more ultrarunners in the world than 400 m runners.

The author is obviously  looking for reaction or comment and whilst any attacks or comments on his blog should never be personal , I find his comments  demeaning and insulting and without any purpose.

Non popular comments can be a good way to get people to think about a topic a different way ( the devils advocate and all that ) but his comments seem to stem from a jealousy of the press coverage ultra runners are getting.


My own personal views are that no one event is harder than another. Running western states in less than 15 hours is just as hard as running a 2.05 marathon and vice versa.

Runners naturally choose what they are better at. Some distances suit an individual better than others. Personally I prefer 100 mile races because it suits my strengths better .

I get a bit sick and tired of people considering the marathon to be the defining factor of your ability in running.

If you have never done a marathon you aren't less of a runner than someone who has. And like wise if you haven't done an ultra it doesn't mean you aren't as good as someone who has.

Most people don't move into ultras because they can't do a fast marathon , they move to ultras for all kinds of reasons , usually because they enjoy it more and it suits their particular physical and mental make up.

Does it matter that ultra runners may not have have achieved their best in a marathon? The skills needed to achieve your potential in a marathon are different to that in an ultra.

Running a fast marathon is just as hard as running a fast 100 miles - although in different ways.

Let's leave the who's best and what's hardest arguments aside and appreciate running for runnings sake, regardless of distance.

Edited by Mile27, 13 July 2012 - 09:57 AM.

[BennyC]

A similar debate took place on CR a while ago when all the recent threads were about ultra's with similar arguments from both sides. I wonder why this generates such intense emotions in some people. iRonnie made a good point, having run various distances he has found the distance and surface that he prefers to get what he desires most out of running.

The original article bags the runner because she is doing something that the author does not consider that noteworthy, given that she is not a fast runner and a similar / better version of her goal has already been done. So what, should we give up what we enjoy doing because somebody else has done it before and done it better. Whether she is doing it for personal satisfaction or trying to raise money / awareness for a cause, let her do it and lets not critisize people for trying to achieve their goals.

Remember running and competing is all relative. What is fast for one person is not fast for someone else. What is important to one person may be less important for someone else.

Lets just run and forget about the politics of what is better and what is more important. We all run for different reasons.

As for me, I just love to run and have fun. I've done triathlon's of various distances including the Hawaii Ironman, I've run a few track races, road 5's, 10's, half's, marathons and am now focusing on ultra's with a few marathons and shorter road races thrown in for variety. I'm not the greatest runner and my times are not flash but I love to push myself. Sure I'm competitive but I put it in perspective and realise it's all relative.

BTW - I went to the same school as Jonathan Wyatt (mentioned as the 2:17 marathoner in the original article) and have had the opportunity to be in the same race as him a couple of times, he is a really nice guy and freaky fast on both the flat and the hills.

[iRonnie]

slowbonKeR, on 12 July 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

iRonnie, on 12 July 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

It seems to me that some ultra runners are being a bit egoistic - going on some of the responses above.

Not sure how much of that comment was directed at me but If so its probably a fair cop, I am prone to being overdefensive. I was trying to convey my personal experience, having been a sprinter at school, got up to marathon distance a couple of years ago and tried ultramarathons more recently. Whilst I am by no means a front of the pack runner, I also dont consider myself to be limited by speed. Perhaps I could have chosen my words more carefully, but I found that the further the distance the more facets to the challenge there were. That's not to say that the challenge was greater or lesser, but it certainly had some different dimensions to it for me. It's also not to say others won't have different perceptions either, thats why (as you have noted) people are drawn towards different distances, different sports even.

But my question remains; does the challenge at longer distances stray outside the notion of pure "athleticism" and into some different sort of challenge? My view that there is an increased mental aspect to the challenge of longer distances might be rejected by others, but I can't help thinking this is the crux of where the author's views seem to differ from those of us who see greater legitimacy in the sport of ultramarathons.

Also just an aside, but I should add that all ultras aren't run on trails, there are very much benchmark-able ultra distance events such as 6, 12, 24, 48 and 6 day track races, where times can "mean something" if this is how one interprets meaningfulness.

I think if you look back through my posts you will find that i have often referred to ultrarunners as athletes.  So, yes, you are being overdefensive.

You say that you "found that the further the distance the more facets to the challenge  there were"  How about setting your own feelings aside and trying to be a little more objective and look at it in reverse.  In other words,you could say: "I suppose the faster you run a marathon, the harder you push the limits, the more facets there are to the challenge."

It is patently obvious that all ultras aren'r run on trails. I was referring to trail runs because they are often are not as measureable as track running.  A 10000m track run has quanity as well as quality to gauge your performance.   You just have to look up on the net and compare your times tor thousands of other runners.

As far as times (measurabilty) go, this is not the case with trail races.  You have variable courses, you have less runners and less quality.  Australia's premier trail race, the SixFoot, hasn't attracted too many sub-2:20 runners.   You are competing against other runners on most trail runs unless the course is like the SixFoot where the course doesn't change too much from year to year.   Even then, it is not as precise as a road run.  That is just the way it is.

I recall a 5000m track runner running a  33 k trail run around here and he finished twenty minutes in front of second place - an accomplished trail runner. I even won one and i am old and worn out.  Bye the way, that track runner, now a marathoner, trains with an accomplished ultra guy.  Mutual respect goes a long way.

Now i don't like pointing this out because there are many gutsy ultrarunners and trail runners who deserve respect for their achievements.  Some of you ultra runners have used this article to do exactly what the article has done and diminsh the efforts of other runners which can be seen as  big noting your own discipline . Counter productive and egoistic.  Kudos is earned on the trails/roads/tracks, in the real world, not on a forum.

You say, rightly so, that ultras are held on tracks but then we get this sarcastic nonsense "where times can "mean something" if this is how one interprets meaningfulness".  

I guess us marathoners, and those of us who regard times as important, aren't capable of undersanding the finer points of existence.  Forever, caught in an existential crisis until we pass beyond teh magical point of nirvana that only ultra runners and trail runners ( with a prediposition for self deception) could possibly understand.  You can do better.

BennyC says: "Lets just run and forget about the politics of what is better and what is more important. We all run for different reasons. As for me i jus love to run and have fun."  

  I'll say it again:  Mutual respect goes a long way,

Edited by iRonnie, 13 July 2012 - 01:46 PM.

[Ultramouse]

iRonnie, on 13 July 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

  I'll say it again:  Mutual respect goes a long way,

I'm never quite sure whether a thread such as this is like a bunch of blokes around the barbie - heated, yet good natured, discussion, or whether it could actually come to blows if we were all actually to meet each other. I must be missing something.

However, perhaps iRonnie's call for mutual respect puts it in perspective. It's kind of eerie on Friday the 13th to be agreeing with him but hey, let's live dangerously.

[Lindyk]

What does it matter? Put on your trail shoes, road shoes or take off your shoes & go for a run - a good, long hard run & enjoy every step.
Less talking, more running so the perspective tilts to the optimism & positive outlook on life.

Lindy

[Spud]

Mile27, on 13 July 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

I get a bit sick and tired of people considering the marathon to be the defining factor of your ability in running.

Amen to that! Great post Mile27

[iRonnie]

And I get a bit sick of people considering ultra runs to be the defining factor in your abilty in running.

What Mile27 calls " jealousy" is more like a recognition that the media are ignoring some mighty fine athletic achievements to report on ultra achievements and challenges.  Some of these ultra achievements are newsworthy because we have an uneducated media that is looking for new and interesting things to entertain their audience.  While newsworthy to such a media, they are not as substantial an as many other athletic achievements that are pushed off the page/screen/airwaves.  The media are also tied in with publishers and ultra runners have a penchant for writing books.  They promote these books on the popular media.  The novelty is already wearing off and the media will find another new and exciting ou "sport" to enertain people with.  Then you ultra runners will be just like the rest of teh running community - not newsworthy.

I am more annoyed as a runner about the excess media coverage of football and the private lives of the players.  At least ultra runners are runners.

Edited by iRonnie, 13 July 2012 - 05:19 PM.

[Mile27]

iRonnie my argument goes both ways, whether you are a 10k or half marathon runner or ultra runner, the question many other runners ask - have you done a marathon and if so what is your time. The marathon is a way of ranking someone's ability as a runner and I don't think it should be.

If my 10k time isn't as good as my potential would indicate nobody would say that I moved onto ultras because I could handle the training for a 10k ,  it for some reason if my marathon time isn't what it should be then I'm doing ultras because I couldn't do a fast marathon.  

There is nothing more or less valid running a10k compared to a marathon or an ultra , you aren't a better runner because you run longer distances  or run shorter distances faster. Running on roads is no more valid than running on trails. A course record in an ultra is no less valid than a course record on road. Yes you can't compare times but it still doesn't make a course record any less of an achievement.

I don't think that the media is ignoring the Patrick M's of this world , just look at the prize money involved . There is far more recognition for marathon runners.

In terms of books, a book about ultras is probably more readable to the general public than the training and racing of a 2.05 marathon hence the publishing world has many more books about ultras.

The media does tend to report on some of the more extreme ends of ultra running -ie running from Pole to Pole but in general the big marathons get far more media coverage than WS or UTMB or TNF 100.

Couldn't agree more about excess media coverage of football and the private lives of the players.

[iRonnie]

Quote

....I don't think that the media is ignoring the Patrick M's of this world , just look at the prize money involved . There is far more recognition for marathon runners.

That is just one of my points.  A marathoner has to be the very best in a very competitive arena to get the publicity and kudos that Patrick Makau has with the media.  There are thousands of sub-2:20 runners who don't even rate a mention in their local paper.   This tells me that for the media, marathons are not as "valid" an achievement as a high mileage race. A lot of ultra runners above are more or less arguing that that should be the case.,

Yoshihiisa Hosaka, the current M60 world record holder for the mnarathon, recently ran a marathon in Australia.  The media have had no interest  in this amazing athlete.  He ran 2:36 in 2009.  Even then it only gained media coverage in marathon -appreciating Japan and a few runner- specific, world- wide websites. Someone does an extreme distance run and its all over the media.

Quote

Yes you can't compare times but it still doesn't make a course record any less of an achievement.

Without a reliable comparison the course record could be slow as.  Maybe an individual achievement for that particular runner but on the larger sale it could equate to an ultra-slow time.  I have won 10000m races in slow times.  I can be seen to be a big fish in a little pond immediately because of the time says it all.  Trail runners don't have this aspect to keep them grounded.  Some are sensible and humble enough to see this but, going by some of the posts above, not all.

I have just ordered a few books written by sub 2:10 marathoners - including Salazaar and Ryan Hall.

I have read dozens of books by marathoners and track runners.  I thought they were good reads about what is required to achieve athletic potential, and life in the very competitive world of marathoning, road racing and track racing.

Edited by iRonnie, 13 July 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[Rico]

Well I think I have respect both ways.  There are two reasons I'd love to see Gebrselassie do Western States.  Firstly because I think the standard in road marathons is higher and I'm interested to see if he could destroy all previous records.  But secondly because it's a different type of event requiring different skills/qualities and I'm interested to see if he would struggle against the top trail ultra runners.

[slowbonKeR]

ultramouse, on 13 July 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

I'm never quite sure whether a thread such as this is like a bunch of blokes around the barbie - heated, yet good natured, discussion, or whether it could actually come to blows if we were all actually to meet each other.

Surely we'd be too busy critiquing the barbecuer to be debating running...

I think there is a bit too much room for misinterpretation in a written forum like this, maybe the answer is emoticons but I'd almost prefer to be misinterpreted than resort to those I will however try and clear up the things I feel have been misinterpreted, but then I'd like to take Lindy's advice and get things on a positive track (or trail, or road) again.

iRonnie, on 13 July 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

You say that you "found that the further the distance the more facets to the challenge  there were"  How about setting your own feelings aside and trying to be a little more objective and look at it in reverse.  In other words,you could say: "I suppose the faster you run a marathon, the harder you push the limits, the more facets there are to the challenge."

Sure I can appreciate others will have had a different experience to me, and different opinions. I acknowledge this in my post, but I'm allowed to have my own opinion too, based on my own experience. This is the mutual respect we both value, acknowledging the legitimacy of our different opinions... we can still have banter about our respective preferences however

iRonnie, on 13 July 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

You say, rightly so, that ultras are held on tracks but then we get this sarcastic nonsense "where times can "mean something" if this is how one interprets meaningfulness".  

There genuinely wasn't any sarcasm intended in that statement, I was acknowledging, as others here have, that different people interpret the meaningfulness of their runs in different ways. For those that like their runs to be benchmarkable in a wider context, I was pointing out that ultras are capable of meeting this condition as the thread above seemed to me to be discussing ultras as if they were synonymous with being on trails.

BennyC says: "Lets just run and forget about the politics of what is better and what is more important. We all run for different reasons. As for me i jus love to run and have fun."  

I think it's agreed we all love running, so much so that after finishing running we like to come home, get on the Internet and talk, agree & disagree about.... running!

[SirRatty]

Mile27, on 13 July 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

According to that argument , doing something nobody else has done before is worth little because there is no way to judge whether it's a good performance or not. It's only when a large number of people have been doing it for years that we can get some idea on whether the time he did it in was any good or not.

So by that argument , being the first person to do anything has no merit since there is no basis of comparison.

I have this sudden vision of the papers in 1953 calling Norgay and Hillary's accomplishment trivial because they were so slow in achieving the summit. And they even walked: pussies!

[sportsphysio]

I like running.

The opinion of some writer whos worth is rated on the number of post views and/or social media interactions means little. These writers often take extreme views to generate stats and to improve their CV rather than stating anything of interest or fact (Think back to Samantha Brick from France/England who posted about the burden of being beautiful). This particular writer has been at it for years and still continues to try to stir up debate and controversy for the benefit of his employer. For an example of his earlier articles and typical responses, see http://www.theglobea...article1387987/ and http://chuckmanwords...rory-gilfillan/.

If the opinions of our partners, family and friends doesn't bother us, why should some journalist's thoughts bother us?

In the end, we don't run because it's popular. We run because we like it, regardless of distance or speed.

[Davo]

Lindyk, on 13 July 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

What does it matter? Put on your trail shoes, road shoes or take off your shoes & go for a run - a good, long hard run & enjoy every step.
Less talking, more running so the perspective tilts to the optimism & positive outlook on life.

Lindy

Amen to that, sister!