skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Ultra Running Scene & Scott Jurek: Over-Rated?
Everybody who reads this blog knows my personal hero is Ted Corbitt, who also happens to be the father of ultrarunning - and yes I've seen the video clip of Ted introducing Scott Jurek. I've never met Yiannis Kouros (historic Ultrarunning superstar) or Scott Jurek (modern day superstar), but I have spoken with Pam Reed and Dean Karnazes several times, as well as many others not so well known. I've never ran an Ultra however everyone who has tells me they're easier than racing marathons. Why? You run easy - and just endure, so they tell me. I know few ultrarunners that train more than 40 - 60 miles a week in fact. (countered to marathoners that 
as a matter of practice clock 120 - 140 miles / week). It strikes with me that ultra events comprise distortion & outright nonsense - and is this probably the reason the IOC (International Olympic Committee) refuses to consider ultrarunning as a credible sport worthy of inclusion in the Olympics (Yiannis Kouros & others have tried to get it ultrarunning in the olympics for years to no avail). Running easy for 50 miles or 100 miles is clearly a lot easier on the body than actually racing for 26.2 with total effort as many run 5 or 6 of their events per year (at a competitive level). Most informed people know competitive marathoners can only run 2 or at the very most 3 marathons a year for reasons directly related to the rigors of the endeavor. It's a function of physiology - the human body & time. It takes several months to prepare to race a marathon, 2 or 3 weeks to taper, 5 - 7 days to nutritionally prepare.....all to have a peak performance on race day. That challenge necessitates a regime and time that does not exist in ultramarathoning. Competitive ultramathoners run these events as the come, with no particular regime prerequisite, even the best of the sport. Af
ter racing a marathon it takes numerous weeks for the body to recover from a myriad of damage & stress (microtears, biochemical alterations, etc - all well documented science.) A similar physical penalty to the body does not exist in ultrarunning. If you trot 100 miles one weekend, all you need is a couple of weeks downtime and you can trot another 100 miles - at a competitive level. Ultrarunning attracts an "older class" of runner - like those Ultrarunners above on the right, or those on the right running through the night - or that happy fellow below on the left. It does not strike as a competitive arena drawing talented runners (basically there's no money in it, and it consumes a lot of time). These fact have proven to be an effective barriers of entry in drawing the interest of talented runners (they're busy racing marathons and their professional lives). The Superstar of the sport is Scott Jurek but he racked u
p most of his wins as a 20-something (and 30, 31) racing against mostly guys old enough to be his father. That's a basic fact of the events and who enters them in general. Jurek's known for winning the premier event in ultrarunning, "BadWater" (a 135 mile race) - however what's not widely known is for example there were 67 finishers that completed this race in '05, 17 were under age 40, a whopping 50 were over age 40 - it strikes with me that Jurek's enjoyed a leveraged advantaged playing field being one of the few youthful runners - and this has been the case for the bulk of his wins. Furthermore the men's fields in these events commonly leave much to be desired in the way of running talent (it's taboo for me to say this - but it illustrates as true) - take a look at that very same crowning event "Badwater" '05. The fact are in 2005 the women were actually faster than the men. It's true looking at both the mean and the median, the women were faster. There were a total of 67 finishers (54 men and 13 women) the 54 men had a mean finish time of 44:43:45 and a median of 44:24:33. The 13 women had a mean finish time of 43:19:46 and a median of 41:31:15. Kudos to the women! (draw your own conclusions on what this speaks to of the caliber of the male runners in that race). Now Scott Jurek has been able to dominate ultrarunning to the extent where it's silly and makes no sense, actually hurts the sport in my opinion. Note Jurek was a very good Marathon runner and I don't believe many ultramarathoners were very good marathoners - they don't come from the running base he came from. Hence Scott Jurek enters the sport from an advantaged base (being a very good marathoner) couple this fact with the fact that he's competing largely guys who were not very good marathoners and mostly guys old enough to be his father and that all equates to a win, after win, after win. I believe Jurek's marathon PR is a 2:29. I've examined his WAVA age gradiing and Jurek's 100km and marathon time line up exactly on the WAVA charts. I suspect this too would play out for other marathoners who (if they chose to) run an ultra - and that strongly suggest a high level of mediocrity defines the very top of Ultrarunning in the context of competitive running . Why do I say this? Perspective: note the biggest star in Ultrarunning, Scott Jurek, was never talented enough to qualify to run in the Olympic Trials for example - by serious margin. I was at the '08 US Olympic team trials in '07 and the "A" qualifying standard is 2:20:00 for men (but a 2:22 will get you in). That day I saw 85 runners clock a faster marathon time than Jurek's ever clocked and there are several hundred runners in the U.S. that can go sub 2:29:00 - Jurek's best mark. Like Jurek - these runners could very likely extend their marathon talent to the ultra scene and I would suspect their WAVA tables would line up rather closely to their marathon times - just as Jurek's has. But these guys don't have interest in racing ultras (no money in the sport, and few people have time) and if Kenyans & Ethiopians entered these events? Game over for the current crop of runners on day one. To his 
credit Jurek was clever - able to scope an area of running wherein he could leverage his youth, talent, and exploit the nature of the sport drawing older runners - and become the King - and he did it, I applaud that. But it must be said, Jurek's enjoyed an advantaged playing field being one of the younger guys and as legit and solid marathoner before Ultra-running - he can clean up in a field of "weekend warrior" caliber runners. Jurek has not had to compete against guys like him, guys who can go 2:29:00 at the Marathon. When guys his own age have showed up, even ultra neophytes like Akos Konya has a shot of knocking off Scott Jurek - as he nearly did in '06. Some backgroud, this is a guy, Akos Konya, who working 60 hours / week as a restaurant manager, little time to run or train, he entered this big race, Badwater, with only 1 ultra under his belt and almost beat the Superstar of the sport Scott Jurek. Per the reports "Had Konya not pulled over at 1 a.m. (a 135 mile race) Tuesday and napped for 30 minutes in a sleeping bag, he might have won. Scott Jurek of Seattle, the seven-time Western States winner, won the race in 25 hours, 41 minutes". Konya, this neophyte took a nap for a half hour during race, lost winning by 17 minutes. Speaking of Badwater & Jurek - that guy on the right laying in that cooler with ice covering him (during the Badwater race - this is a technique he uses to cool off during this 135 mile Badwater race in the heat of the desert. Anyone can go to the Badwater website and see the rules state and I quote " So-called "cooling vests" or other types of artificial / technological cooling systems may not be worn or utilized by race entrants. Here's a comment from Jay Birmingham, Badwater Hall of Fame member:"If it uses technology that negates the envioronment, e.g., acts as a refrigerator, uses chemical reactions from manmade materials, and the like--it should be prohibited. A cooler is technology designed to refrigerate & retain cooling - Jurek typically as a matter of practice as you see in the photo lays bags of ice in the cooler, then lays in it with his support crew laying bags of ice on top of him - utilizing this technology - a cooler's thermodynamics to create a cooling chamber. Is it not clear how Jurek violates the rules of Badwater to the letter? I wonder why they never disqualify him? I've always wonder if he was simply viewed as as above the rules of the race. However the single most glaring fact about Ultrarunning that in my opinion gives the sport a "black eye" and illustrates beyond any doubt how overhyped these events are and loaded with "marginal" running talent? Well this was when Scott Jurek won The Western States 100, and then 2 weeks later won the Badwater 135 miler in 2005. This is ridiculous and a poor statement for ultra running courses & the quality of the running talent. 1). I just posted a blog entry publishing an article by Donald Buraglio where he described the Western States 100 Ultra as "the Toughest, Grueling, Unforgiving, Ferocious, "Hardest day of running they will ever encounter". I saw this as a very typical "ultra self-aggrandizing" about their Herculean task and what mighty men they are. 2). Badwater 135 Mile is truly supposed to be the very most grueling - physically and mentally demanding - race in the U.S. - I agree with this. Well then how is it that a man can run the Western States 100 at a level that's required to win the event - indeed win it - and then be physically capable and ready to race another ultra - truly the most grueling 135 ultra mile race, Badwater, - 13 or 14 days later? 1) Where was Jurek's fatigue from the Western States 100? 2) Ultra racing does not require any recovery period - no regime whatsoever - and it's clearly not possible to be physically marginalized by racing the Western States 100 - you can come out of the Western States Ultra 100 with no recuperation and recover price to pay - fit and able to race 2 
weeks later in fact, like Scott Jurek and 3) It seems to me if the Western States was demanding, and you ran hard, Jurek should have entered Badwater seriously physically marginalized and other runners should have whippped up on him. That did not happen - most of those other runners were old enough to be his father, the Western States 100 is clearly not so difficult that it renders you fatigued and unable to competitively race an ultra just days later - there was no competition in either event - the very integrity of ultrarunning as an event suffers (event difficulty, talent of the field, etc.) when a single guy can not only enter but win the 2 so-called most grueling events, within a span of 2 weeks - it's a farce on that fact alone, I don't even need to talk about the - the Sri Chimnoy runners - do I? I've learned the ultra crowd does not like it when their events are examined under the lens of scrutiny - for their athleticism - field of talent. There's a huge "camradery" factor in these events, - an esprit de core - a pride in shared pain, sacrifice, etc. they frown upon anyone who stands out from the whole - Dean Karnazes is not the superstar within the sport - but by far the best known - yet he is despised in general by most of the Ultra running community for this very reason - standing out - and people in the community know there is a serious and extreme dislike of Dean Karnazes for what they characterize as "Grand Standing". I've spoken with Dean about this - I say it's because he's smart, a Yale man, handsome, a master promoter, does stunts and has been very successful at promoting himself in the context of ultrarunning. I like Dean Karnazes a lot in fact for these reasons. Now you see the blog I posted about David Horton (above on the right)? That's your typical Ultrarunner that I see - an old guy - who gets off on the shared misery and pain of it all. Why is it a lot of ultrarunners don't even look athletic? have you seen them? Just go over to Youtube and search "Ultra Race" or the like and take a look yourself. It's not just the men - I've met and spoken with one of the women's Superstars, Pam Reed - the lady does not even look healthy in person - does she? Can easily pass for 10 - 15 years older than she is - even on the women's side of these events - there is just little actual running talent in the fields - and that's seen when in '05 Pam Reed who at age 42 not only wins the Master's Women's field (Women 40+ in age) at the crown jewel event - The Badwater 135 mile race - she also wins the overall field of all women of any age, WTF? This speaks to the poor fields of women in their 20's and 30's in these events - sorry, Pam Reed wining the overall does not reflect well on the caliber of talent of women runners at Ultra races. So I'm not sure what to make of these events - and I'd really like to one day read why the International Olympic Committee dismisses them as worthy of inclusion in the Olympics. I'm the same age & w/the same body as Dean Karnazes - have spoken w/him about entering these - he tells me it all breaks down to being blessed with certain ideal mechanics to run - of which I am - and I thank I can do these events well - and be far more distinguished than I am in marathon running (which is just another face in the crowd). However these events hold no appeal for me. From all I gather form those who engage in them - they boil down to and are motivated by a "Self against the Environment" type of personal challenge, quest and feat. However Jurek is very competitive and keeps keen awareness of his standing with his support team relative to the competition during these Ultra races. Ultrarunners though are big into characterizing the terrain, elevation grades, blah blah blah, I hold not desire to challenge terrain and land - I'm still driven and interested in competing against other runners at standards. I can cherry pick marathons and win the Masters class if I wanted to - 
but that would mean nothing to me. Whenever I speak to ultra runners - I learn they lost interest and appeal in the Marathon. I always want to ask them, "Have you ever ran one (marathon) well"? I find ultrarunners commonly got into the sport by saying they lost interest in the marathon - without disclosing if they ever ran marathons well. It strikes with me that they've chosen to give up on realizing marathon goals - in favor of what are more so characterized as "feats". For example, the stuff that David Horton does? Entirely feat achievement by people with time. Take 1 look at David Horton - he cannot actually race against real runners on any trail, real runners just don't have the time or interest - David Horton does - hence when he asserts he set the "speed record" - it's very laughable in many senses as who in the hell is trying to do it? Who has the time? I see far more fulfillment in goals to be reached in the Olympic standard - the marathon - and running against the best runners - than I do in running 50 or 100 miles against a seriously weak field of runners. I will say this - in the last 2 years - ultrarunning events have been able to attract more runners of real talent - as opposed to the "weekend warrior runner". As they do - you're seeing Scott Jurek's records fall - as again - people coming from his background enter these events - and they are not only breaking Jurek's records - they are shattering them and in the process illustrating Jurek was mediorce talent - per his WAVA grading - relative to others with competitive marathoning backgrounds - Jurek enjoyed the spoils of a shallow pool - it has to be said - not even racing international competition - and what did we see when a legit international runner showed up at Badwater? Well Jurek's talents might be framed in a more accurate perspective then......- as they were when a Brazilian by the name of Valmir (above on the left crossing the finish line) bothered to show up at Badwater. Valmir summarily SHATTERED Jurek's record by 1 hour and 45 minutes. How do you characterize Jurek's performances after a guy from Brazil blows him away by nearly 2 hours? What you thought was great (Jurek) - was all the time good, but clearly not great - you just had marginalized small fields of weekend warrior runners - and Jurek looked great in that backdrop and context - and you would have known ahead of time when you saw Jurek - you say good but not great - if you examined Jurek's performance in the context of WAVA tables and knowing what's out there in the world of running - runners with the talent - just not interested in running Ultras (no money in the events). Again - I am not trying to slam Scott Jurek - I just am taking time to look at ultrarunning and explore what's really going on....when I do - I see all I've spoken to - and the proof is in the points of fact that kind of say it all, no? So when I say Jurek might be overrated, it's all in the context of who he's been racing against and more importantly, NOT racing against - his peers.
as a matter of practice clock 120 - 140 miles / week). It strikes with me that ultra events comprise distortion & outright nonsense - and is this probably the reason the IOC (International Olympic Committee) refuses to consider ultrarunning as a credible sport worthy of inclusion in the Olympics (Yiannis Kouros & others have tried to get it ultrarunning in the olympics for years to no avail). Running easy for 50 miles or 100 miles is clearly a lot easier on the body than actually racing for 26.2 with total effort as many run 5 or 6 of their events per year (at a competitive level). Most informed people know competitive marathoners can only run 2 or at the very most 3 marathons a year for reasons directly related to the rigors of the endeavor. It's a function of physiology - the human body & time. It takes several months to prepare to race a marathon, 2 or 3 weeks to taper, 5 - 7 days to nutritionally prepare.....all to have a peak performance on race day. That challenge necessitates a regime and time that does not exist in ultramarathoning. Competitive ultramathoners run these events as the come, with no particular regime prerequisite, even the best of the sport. Af
ter racing a marathon it takes numerous weeks for the body to recover from a myriad of damage & stress (microtears, biochemical alterations, etc - all well documented science.) A similar physical penalty to the body does not exist in ultrarunning. If you trot 100 miles one weekend, all you need is a couple of weeks downtime and you can trot another 100 miles - at a competitive level. Ultrarunning attracts an "older class" of runner - like those Ultrarunners above on the right, or those on the right running through the night - or that happy fellow below on the left. It does not strike as a competitive arena drawing talented runners (basically there's no money in it, and it consumes a lot of time). These fact have proven to be an effective barriers of entry in drawing the interest of talented runners (they're busy racing marathons and their professional lives). The Superstar of the sport is Scott Jurek but he racked u
p most of his wins as a 20-something (and 30, 31) racing against mostly guys old enough to be his father. That's a basic fact of the events and who enters them in general. Jurek's known for winning the premier event in ultrarunning, "BadWater" (a 135 mile race) - however what's not widely known is for example there were 67 finishers that completed this race in '05, 17 were under age 40, a whopping 50 were over age 40 - it strikes with me that Jurek's enjoyed a leveraged advantaged playing field being one of the few youthful runners - and this has been the case for the bulk of his wins. Furthermore the men's fields in these events commonly leave much to be desired in the way of running talent (it's taboo for me to say this - but it illustrates as true) - take a look at that very same crowning event "Badwater" '05. The fact are in 2005 the women were actually faster than the men. It's true looking at both the mean and the median, the women were faster. There were a total of 67 finishers (54 men and 13 women) the 54 men had a mean finish time of 44:43:45 and a median of 44:24:33. The 13 women had a mean finish time of 43:19:46 and a median of 41:31:15. Kudos to the women! (draw your own conclusions on what this speaks to of the caliber of the male runners in that race). Now Scott Jurek has been able to dominate ultrarunning to the extent where it's silly and makes no sense, actually hurts the sport in my opinion. Note Jurek was a very good Marathon runner and I don't believe many ultramarathoners were very good marathoners - they don't come from the running base he came from. Hence Scott Jurek enters the sport from an advantaged base (being a very good marathoner) couple this fact with the fact that he's competing largely guys who were not very good marathoners and mostly guys old enough to be his father and that all equates to a win, after win, after win. I believe Jurek's marathon PR is a 2:29. I've examined his WAVA age gradiing and Jurek's 100km and marathon time line up exactly on the WAVA charts. I suspect this too would play out for other marathoners who (if they chose to) run an ultra - and that strongly suggest a high level of mediocrity defines the very top of Ultrarunning in the context of competitive running . Why do I say this? Perspective: note the biggest star in Ultrarunning, Scott Jurek, was never talented enough to qualify to run in the Olympic Trials for example - by serious margin. I was at the '08 US Olympic team trials in '07 and the "A" qualifying standard is 2:20:00 for men (but a 2:22 will get you in). That day I saw 85 runners clock a faster marathon time than Jurek's ever clocked and there are several hundred runners in the U.S. that can go sub 2:29:00 - Jurek's best mark. Like Jurek - these runners could very likely extend their marathon talent to the ultra scene and I would suspect their WAVA tables would line up rather closely to their marathon times - just as Jurek's has. But these guys don't have interest in racing ultras (no money in the sport, and few people have time) and if Kenyans & Ethiopians entered these events? Game over for the current crop of runners on day one. To his 
credit Jurek was clever - able to scope an area of running wherein he could leverage his youth, talent, and exploit the nature of the sport drawing older runners - and become the King - and he did it, I applaud that. But it must be said, Jurek's enjoyed an advantaged playing field being one of the younger guys and as legit and solid marathoner before Ultra-running - he can clean up in a field of "weekend warrior" caliber runners. Jurek has not had to compete against guys like him, guys who can go 2:29:00 at the Marathon. When guys his own age have showed up, even ultra neophytes like Akos Konya has a shot of knocking off Scott Jurek - as he nearly did in '06. Some backgroud, this is a guy, Akos Konya, who working 60 hours / week as a restaurant manager, little time to run or train, he entered this big race, Badwater, with only 1 ultra under his belt and almost beat the Superstar of the sport Scott Jurek. Per the reports "Had Konya not pulled over at 1 a.m. (a 135 mile race) Tuesday and napped for 30 minutes in a sleeping bag, he might have won. Scott Jurek of Seattle, the seven-time Western States winner, won the race in 25 hours, 41 minutes". Konya, this neophyte took a nap for a half hour during race, lost winning by 17 minutes. Speaking of Badwater & Jurek - that guy on the right laying in that cooler with ice covering him (during the Badwater race - this is a technique he uses to cool off during this 135 mile Badwater race in the heat of the desert. Anyone can go to the Badwater website and see the rules state and I quote " So-called "cooling vests" or other types of artificial / technological cooling systems may not be worn or utilized by race entrants. Here's a comment from Jay Birmingham, Badwater Hall of Fame member:"If it uses technology that negates the envioronment, e.g., acts as a refrigerator, uses chemical reactions from manmade materials, and the like--it should be prohibited. A cooler is technology designed to refrigerate & retain cooling - Jurek typically as a matter of practice as you see in the photo lays bags of ice in the cooler, then lays in it with his support crew laying bags of ice on top of him - utilizing this technology - a cooler's thermodynamics to create a cooling chamber. Is it not clear how Jurek violates the rules of Badwater to the letter? I wonder why they never disqualify him? I've always wonder if he was simply viewed as as above the rules of the race. However the single most glaring fact about Ultrarunning that in my opinion gives the sport a "black eye" and illustrates beyond any doubt how overhyped these events are and loaded with "marginal" running talent? Well this was when Scott Jurek won The Western States 100, and then 2 weeks later won the Badwater 135 miler in 2005. This is ridiculous and a poor statement for ultra running courses & the quality of the running talent. 1). I just posted a blog entry publishing an article by Donald Buraglio where he described the Western States 100 Ultra as "the Toughest, Grueling, Unforgiving, Ferocious, "Hardest day of running they will ever encounter". I saw this as a very typical "ultra self-aggrandizing" about their Herculean task and what mighty men they are. 2). Badwater 135 Mile is truly supposed to be the very most grueling - physically and mentally demanding - race in the U.S. - I agree with this. Well then how is it that a man can run the Western States 100 at a level that's required to win the event - indeed win it - and then be physically capable and ready to race another ultra - truly the most grueling 135 ultra mile race, Badwater, - 13 or 14 days later? 1) Where was Jurek's fatigue from the Western States 100? 2) Ultra racing does not require any recovery period - no regime whatsoever - and it's clearly not possible to be physically marginalized by racing the Western States 100 - you can come out of the Western States Ultra 100 with no recuperation and recover price to pay - fit and able to race 2 
weeks later in fact, like Scott Jurek and 3) It seems to me if the Western States was demanding, and you ran hard, Jurek should have entered Badwater seriously physically marginalized and other runners should have whippped up on him. That did not happen - most of those other runners were old enough to be his father, the Western States 100 is clearly not so difficult that it renders you fatigued and unable to competitively race an ultra just days later - there was no competition in either event - the very integrity of ultrarunning as an event suffers (event difficulty, talent of the field, etc.) when a single guy can not only enter but win the 2 so-called most grueling events, within a span of 2 weeks - it's a farce on that fact alone, I don't even need to talk about the - the Sri Chimnoy runners - do I? I've learned the ultra crowd does not like it when their events are examined under the lens of scrutiny - for their athleticism - field of talent. There's a huge "camradery" factor in these events, - an esprit de core - a pride in shared pain, sacrifice, etc. they frown upon anyone who stands out from the whole - Dean Karnazes is not the superstar within the sport - but by far the best known - yet he is despised in general by most of the Ultra running community for this very reason - standing out - and people in the community know there is a serious and extreme dislike of Dean Karnazes for what they characterize as "Grand Standing". I've spoken with Dean about this - I say it's because he's smart, a Yale man, handsome, a master promoter, does stunts and has been very successful at promoting himself in the context of ultrarunning. I like Dean Karnazes a lot in fact for these reasons. Now you see the blog I posted about David Horton (above on the right)? That's your typical Ultrarunner that I see - an old guy - who gets off on the shared misery and pain of it all. Why is it a lot of ultrarunners don't even look athletic? have you seen them? Just go over to Youtube and search "Ultra Race" or the like and take a look yourself. It's not just the men - I've met and spoken with one of the women's Superstars, Pam Reed - the lady does not even look healthy in person - does she? Can easily pass for 10 - 15 years older than she is - even on the women's side of these events - there is just little actual running talent in the fields - and that's seen when in '05 Pam Reed who at age 42 not only wins the Master's Women's field (Women 40+ in age) at the crown jewel event - The Badwater 135 mile race - she also wins the overall field of all women of any age, WTF? This speaks to the poor fields of women in their 20's and 30's in these events - sorry, Pam Reed wining the overall does not reflect well on the caliber of talent of women runners at Ultra races. So I'm not sure what to make of these events - and I'd really like to one day read why the International Olympic Committee dismisses them as worthy of inclusion in the Olympics. I'm the same age & w/the same body as Dean Karnazes - have spoken w/him about entering these - he tells me it all breaks down to being blessed with certain ideal mechanics to run - of which I am - and I thank I can do these events well - and be far more distinguished than I am in marathon running (which is just another face in the crowd). However these events hold no appeal for me. From all I gather form those who engage in them - they boil down to and are motivated by a "Self against the Environment" type of personal challenge, quest and feat. However Jurek is very competitive and keeps keen awareness of his standing with his support team relative to the competition during these Ultra races. Ultrarunners though are big into characterizing the terrain, elevation grades, blah blah blah, I hold not desire to challenge terrain and land - I'm still driven and interested in competing against other runners at standards. I can cherry pick marathons and win the Masters class if I wanted to - 
but that would mean nothing to me. Whenever I speak to ultra runners - I learn they lost interest and appeal in the Marathon. I always want to ask them, "Have you ever ran one (marathon) well"? I find ultrarunners commonly got into the sport by saying they lost interest in the marathon - without disclosing if they ever ran marathons well. It strikes with me that they've chosen to give up on realizing marathon goals - in favor of what are more so characterized as "feats". For example, the stuff that David Horton does? Entirely feat achievement by people with time. Take 1 look at David Horton - he cannot actually race against real runners on any trail, real runners just don't have the time or interest - David Horton does - hence when he asserts he set the "speed record" - it's very laughable in many senses as who in the hell is trying to do it? Who has the time? I see far more fulfillment in goals to be reached in the Olympic standard - the marathon - and running against the best runners - than I do in running 50 or 100 miles against a seriously weak field of runners. I will say this - in the last 2 years - ultrarunning events have been able to attract more runners of real talent - as opposed to the "weekend warrior runner". As they do - you're seeing Scott Jurek's records fall - as again - people coming from his background enter these events - and they are not only breaking Jurek's records - they are shattering them and in the process illustrating Jurek was mediorce talent - per his WAVA grading - relative to others with competitive marathoning backgrounds - Jurek enjoyed the spoils of a shallow pool - it has to be said - not even racing international competition - and what did we see when a legit international runner showed up at Badwater? Well Jurek's talents might be framed in a more accurate perspective then......- as they were when a Brazilian by the name of Valmir (above on the left crossing the finish line) bothered to show up at Badwater. Valmir summarily SHATTERED Jurek's record by 1 hour and 45 minutes. How do you characterize Jurek's performances after a guy from Brazil blows him away by nearly 2 hours? What you thought was great (Jurek) - was all the time good, but clearly not great - you just had marginalized small fields of weekend warrior runners - and Jurek looked great in that backdrop and context - and you would have known ahead of time when you saw Jurek - you say good but not great - if you examined Jurek's performance in the context of WAVA tables and knowing what's out there in the world of running - runners with the talent - just not interested in running Ultras (no money in the events). Again - I am not trying to slam Scott Jurek - I just am taking time to look at ultrarunning and explore what's really going on....when I do - I see all I've spoken to - and the proof is in the points of fact that kind of say it all, no? So when I say Jurek might be overrated, it's all in the context of who he's been racing against and more importantly, NOT racing against - his peers.
87 comments:
Are you for real? I'd like to see you shut up and toe the line at any 100 mile race. You'ld be crying for your mommy!
There may be an element of truth in what you say that the 'elite' ultra runners have gained that status in a slightly artificial environment. But then these races are open to anyone and the winner at any event is just the first runner person to cross the line on the day. Jurek has simply been ‘that’ runner on more days than anyone else. If his pace is considered slow in the grand scheme of things, it is also indicative of the infancy of the sport at the moment. As more runners get into it times will undoubted fall - just like it has with marathon running. An increased commercial interest in the sport, which seems to be happening now, will also bring times down as more athletes can devote themselves to training - just like it has with marathon running. The fact that today the majority of runners are masters or older, is more of an indication of the mental stamina needed to endure ultra events. Younger runners tend to burn out because they don't run with patience and they also don't last many seasons of racing because their bodies can’t cope. There is a lot of hype in running, you attest to it frequently with comments on running shoe stores and shoe manufacturers. This hype sets in with commercial interest and marketing, the very thing that many runners scorn Dean Karnazes for. His stunt to run 50 marathons in 50 days, in 50 states a couple of years ago, has been followed by North Face setting up their Ultra Challenge. Was this really intended to benefit the sport and the environment it is conducted in, or was it just another move to exploit the running masses just a little bit more? David Horton can appear to be a prima Donna in the videos of his adventures with his rollercoaster emotions, but he may also be entitled to do that after what his has just achieved. His exploits have captured the imagination of many other runners, both young and old. He directs 3 ultras in Virginia (it used to be 4) and through those races he has enabled countless runners realize an ambition they never thought possible; but you then probably need to witness them at the finish line to understand that. When each one of those runners crosses the line he is there with a huge smile and words of encouragement. His commitment to getting others out there to run and be active can not be faulted.
Running a marathon is an outstanding achievement. It is tough, demanding, requires many hours of training and commitment. If you run it to your personal limit, it also hurts like hell and yes, you will need a lengthy period of time to recover. Running an ultra is no different; maintaining momentum for tens of hours at the limit of what you can physically endure is sickening. But running is such a great sport because it offers many different facets. You don't have to be an expert at them all; you just have to have an enjoyment of at least one of them.
For the record, I am what you might consider to be one of those ultra running ‘old farts’. In September I ran the Bear 100 in Idaho, in December I ran the Hellgate 100k in Virginia and had my worst finish in 5 years finishing out side the top ten. But then that might have had something to do with running the New York
marathon in November, which dare I say, I finish just ahead of you. :-)
> But then these races are open to anyone
_
Not the big ones that require a team & support crew, etc. It's kind of like saying "America's Cup" is open to anyone - presuming you have the time, money, crew, & yacht. Running - in and of itself was never an endeavor wherein you were required to bring support infrastructure of this measure for this many days to compete. Badwater for example has "built in" requirements that in effect function as barriers to entry for those lacking the where with all to have friends willing to sacrifice. A whole class of strong runners are thus not even able to consider the race - most in are live not too far & or have a measure of wealth enabling them to gather the needed resources (and time) to play.
>The fact that today the majority of runners are masters or older, is more of an indication of the mental stamina needed to endure ultra events.
Okay - the nonsense illustrated & a common argument (lacking mental stamina, patience, etc.) You'll hear this all day from the Ultra culture, it simply is not valid.
I know lots of 20-somethings & 30-somethings that have the "mental stamina" to work 90, 100, 110 & 120+ hours per week in very high pressure on Wall St, as Soldiers in the military, as medical interns & doctors in hospitals, etc and do it very very well. We all know people like this.
Is it not outright silly, seriously "nonsensical" to see that 20-somethings & 30-somethings manage the fatiguing rigors, pressures, and demands of every sliver of life - but then say the sport of Ultrarunning....is an "order to tall"?.... a mental demand & rigor requiring a patience they (20 & 30 year olds) don't quite yet have manifested within? Give me a break - you show me a woman who endured a dozen hours of labor before giving birth - I'll show you a woman that can probably smoke Pam Reed in a 50 miler with little problem.
The ultimate mental drain, rigor & demand IS NOT ULTRA RUNNING for crissakes, Stop the Nonsense! Please....LOL.
That's the thing about Ultra culture - you're often asked to suspend logic & reason & buy into the story of these migthy men and their adventures. Okay - it's fun and I've ran this whole blog for a solid year without giving the Ultra crowd "the business"...but this blog is soon coming to an end - and I had to take at least 1 parting shot at the Ultra guys - just to be fair in dishing the dirt :) I have lots of friends that run these ultras - I know the scene - that's how I can zero in on Jurek. I will say this - Dean Karnazes - one of the single most amazing running performances I've ever seen was in '06, NYC Marathon - after he ran the 49 26.2 mile runs in 49 consecutive days - he did show up in NYC - and ran a 3:00:33 NYC Marathon - as a Master (43 I think) in heavy fatiguing trail shoe - his sponsor the e50 shoe he wears. On that course - that performance - after so many days of running was amazing.
And then the next day I was in Central Park walking - and yes - Karno came zooming by - still running - and if you know the story - he ran out the hotel room and to Va or Tx or wherever and did one of those 24 hour races I think...
Lance said: "I've never ran an Ultra however everyone who has tells me they're easier than racing marathons."
Everyone who has? I've run 4 100's and 27 marathons and I'm telling you that's not true. But the fact that you've never toed the line at an ultra shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Clearly you don't know that the terrain at one ultra, Western States or Hardrock, is more varied than every major marathon combined. Anyone can finish a marathon, not everyone can run/walk 100 miles. You whine a lot about things of which you know nothing about. I understand that, you're afraid you couldn't complete one, so you whine about how easy it is. Keep living in your little dream world and you'll never discover the truth.
I don't think there is any heroic status about the claim younger runners don't have the mental stamina. If they put their mind to, of course they do, you are correct that you see this in many walks of life. It is just that time after time, I've seen young bucks steaming off at the start of an ultra only to pass them hours later look like sh*t, hollow eyed and very unhappy. The young runner who shows patience though, usually does do very well. To me it is less about being the hero or claiming to have done something harder than anyone else; it is simply about being active and having a go - there is nothing wrong with that attitude in any walk of life.
And finally, on your 'hero' Dean. At the Vermont 100 he didn't do anything to enhance his credibility by turning up a few minutes before the start, winning and leaving immediately afterwards without staying for the awards ceremony. That wasn't his best PR move; maybe there wasn’t enough onlookers hanging around to kneel and kiss his trail shoes!
Keep blogging and poking the bear Lance, it's all good!
A very arrogant recreation runner who has no idea what he's talking about. My guess is you don't have the balls to train and run an Ultra and therefore are jealous of those who can and succeed. Most elite Ultra marathoners are sub-3 marathoners, which you are not. The often race at altitude over very rough terrain, I think if you do ever break 3:00 in the marathon (I've done it several times), and you have run some Ultras, you will be able to comment intelligently on the differences between the two. In the meantime, can you just shut up?
Your passion for running is very deep. I don't understand why more people can't get past this over-generalization with ultra-runners and marathoners. What percent of the marathon world is slim and and runs(i'll be generous) a 3hr marathon? I'm yet to run an offical marathon. I've run 26 mile "tempo" runs in 3:15, so I have an idea how they feel.
But I've watched a few marathons on T.V.
I must say, I've seen about 20,000 "chunky" runners plodding down the road. Don't the majority of Marathoners finish the race in OVER 5hrs?
I think the percentages are just about the same when comparing the elites to the "average" runner in both marathon and ultra.
Too bad we will never see the African elite run Ultras. You have to love being out on the trails to run an trail ultras. Meb Keflezighi made a comment on how there is no way one could run an ultra at the level one runs a marathon. You have to slow down...to pace youself. He even said that he tips his hat to ultra runners, commenting that he couldn't imagine running for over 5-6 hours.
I run with a group of marathoners and it's funny how they look at racing. The night before the event they're sizing up their "competition". They're finding out what the age group winning times were the year before. When you ask them how they did in a race they ALWAYS say, "my time was XX and I placed XX and I was XX in my age group." It's all about minutes and seconds. Ultras are about Hours and minutes. My buddy(age52) was very hurt when he placed very low at the Masters 12k cross-country champ. in San Deigo just recently. I was suprised because the out come was much more important than the event.
Ultra runners and Marathoners are a different breed. Not everyone one looks at running races as first and second place. Many Ultra runners use races as Tempo trainning runs. They just LOVE being out on the trails.
Did an ultra runner comment to you about how EASY running marathons are? Or that Marathon runners don't have any talent? Why do so many average "short" distance runners take it upon themselves bad mouth the sport of trail running? I see it more and more and it's always a generalization. If you run any distance, where you push yourself beyond your limits, your going to hurt the next day.
I'm curious to see if you've had bad experiences with ultra runners.
Very weak reply 10:18 AM. I presented a lot of fact based points - of which you've chosen to dodge. Does that not say it all? I expect the Ultra community to come on this blog and tell me how arrogant, dumb, clueless, [fill in the blank] I am.
What you won't do is speak to the facts and many points of observation I raised. Jurek winning both the WS100 & Badwater separated by 13 or 14 days clearly warrants and merits taking a close look at these very hyped events and in my opinon destroys the integrity of both events including the competitive field of runners - all of it in One Fell Swoop?...all of course until a fellow from Brazil decided to show up and show the whole community how truly "average" the caliber of runners at Badwater has been, including Jurek. C'mon - almost 2 hours is a QUANTUM LEAP and illustrates what was thought to be great - really wasn't - the pool was just exceptionally shallow - I've known this for years simply by watching these guys and checking their performances against WAVA tables and knowing what's out there.
Do you really just think it's Badwater that has clearly not attracted strong running talent? It's all of the events.
C'mon, we're all learned on Noakes, Daniels, everybody - explain Jurek winning WS100 & B135 separated by 2 weeks - this destroyed both in terms of competitive integrity at any meaningful level - Valmir proved it by destroying any notion Jurek performed exceptional at Badwater.
Put a little money in these events and you'll get a whole lot of runners like Valmir - they're out there - just not showing up for a belt buckle.
Many Ultrarunners want it both ways. 1) They want to say these are incredible nearly impossible courses, so grueling and fatiguing, blah blah blah - yet here we have a guy that needs no rest or recovery after winning WS100, no prep, nothing, just show up at Badwater and win? LOL. Hilarious and says a lot - that Valmir proved.
I sat around Michigan Bluff with an ice chest at last years WS and watched the back front of the pack come through. I know for a fact there were a few sub-2:30 marathoners that were beaten and no where near the front, as they walked out the aid station, up the road and pass the crowd. And it wasn't even a hot day.
Ultras, particularly mountain 100's, are tough to race. In the early days of Western States, First Interstate Bank, a sponsor at the time, brought in a few sub- 2:20 marathoners but to no avail.
Just for the record, Jureks best marathon time is around 2:36-38.
March 24, 2008 10:27 AM -
Thanks for commenting. I have not had a bad experience with Ultrarunners and everyone who's read this blog knows my hero is Ted Corbitt. This is a blog and I prefer to publish content that you might not get anywhere else. It's about "infotainment", "stirring it up", etc.
Think about it. Maybe not all but most of my points are fact based. I've placed a lens on Badwater & WS100 - a lens in which I choose to view it. There are those that want my focus on elevation charts, terrain, etc. I say "No". Let's look at the field of runners - I've flipped the whole paradigm in a way they (Devoted Ultra Runners) don't want to be examined).
It's clear to me Jurek winning both is bad for both events in a myriad of ways and what it speaks to. Where else would you see that statement published? Is it not worthy of even exploring if that's a valid statement?
Ultra runners don't want to "go there" as it says something contrary to the hype, the rigors, the demands, the needed regime, the field of runners, etc.
As people Ultra runners are probably some of the sweetest, kindest people you'd ever want to know. Ted Corbitt was one of the most gentle men on earth - most ultra runners are like this - very kind and sweet people, men and women. However that's separate and away from my fact based questioning of ultra running & Jurek.
You are a sad little man!
JR
Sophistry. Pure sophistry.
My only question is What do you have against older people? Perhaps you yourself will get there some day. Would you prefer guys old enough to be your dad to be sitting on the couch or out running 100 miles? I prefer the latter.
Hey, expressing a point of view is cool. Sure we don't all have to agree, but Lance is entitled to his perspective.
I would agree that when 1 runner is able to win significant events back-to-back you do have to ask how that is so. In 2005 I ran the MMT100 and a previously unknown CT based runner turned up creamed the field and took the course record by a sizable chuck of time, much to the surprise of the organizers and pre-race favorites. The following year the record holder got dumped by a Korean runner who traveled to the US just for the race. He too chopped a sizable margin off the record. Competition only improves when it is tested. Many European ultra runners think the US circuit is too cosseted with frequent aid stations and 'easy' course markings. It is an opinion, but the biggest danger to any sport if it wants to be regarded as competitive, is complacency. Ultra running does appear to be changing as it attracts the attention of commercial sponsorship. But all they seem to be doing at the moment is support a small group of ‘elite’ athletes who tour the big races. I wonder sometimes how these athletes acquire their status. Is it through performance or is it more a case of who you know? The sponsors just want their brand to be seen, it is questionable whether they really have any interest in developing the sport from a truly competitive standpoint.
Personally I don't care; my intention is to carry on running in the woods because it's a nicer place to be than dodging traffic.
Lancelot, you keep talking about " presenting a lot of facts" the fact is Scott has raced against Valmir several times and has beat him more than once. They have both won Spartathlon in 23 hours and change. The fact is, if you did a little reserch you would know this, the conditions at Badwater last year were perfect for fast times. The temperature at Stovepipe Wells when the leaders went through was 104f, overcast, with a huge tail wind for the first 40 miles. After Valmir finished he said he regreted that his good friend Scott had pulled out because he felt they would have had a great head to head battle. You have commented on running a sub 3 hour marathon, ultra's and child birth three things you clearly know nothing about and will never do. You should really stick to writing about middle of the pack marathoning where you have considerable expertise.
Sir Lance, once again you have no clue what you are talking about. Having never ran one step more then a marathon...how could you possibly write with such conviction and fake knowledge of the ultra world? If you think running a marathon (which for you is only a few hours) is harder then running 100 miles...you are greatly mistaken. Yes, the pace is slower...but the pain, the TIME, the complications...don't even come close to comparison to a marathon (which is a tune up in our world). Maybe if you ran 100 miles (where by the way you would be right in your comfort zone as far as age) you would understand just a bit better.
Now...what you should have said..if you were knowledgeable..is that for most of the field in these races, running 100 miles is more of a "hike" then a run as i do agree that the majority of the field in these races are not great runners...instead they have great minds to endure long "hikes". BUT..the top tier..the Jurek's..the Goggins...the elite...they are remarkable and what they do makes a mockery out of a simple marathoner.
It's obvious you have never run an ultra marathon of signigicant distance (i.e. 50mile, 100mile +), as I can assure you, they take an enormous toll on the body. It is an endeavour unlike any other. I can also assure you that there are many strong marathon runners in the (sub 2:30) that do very well in ultras, but also some that bomb. Everyone has their particular areas of strength. You make a point that ultras are run easier... Go tell that to the ones that Matt Carpenter, Uli Steidl or countless other runners like myself that ultras are run "easy paced". They would find your comments laughable. My suggestion would be to run an ultra "all out" and then make an opinion. Having run a 2:30 marathon I can assure you my toughest races are ultras. Pick your poison (long and dull) or (short and sharp). Either way, they hurt.
O yeah, and knocking David Horton type quests is just wrong. 50+ miles a day for 60+ days straight. You have no clue how hard that is.
DK amazing! you are clueless. Maybe you should have strolled down the block to Queens (Sri Chinmoy Self-Transcendence 3,100 mile race) and watched Aspirhanol Alto of Finland run nearly 70 miles a day around a square block for 40+days after already winning a 6 day event in the same year. Makes DK's 50-50-50 seem like a training run.
I've read this blog entry a few times and I'm really struggling with what the entire point of the post was meant to highlight.
Was it that the accomplishments of some of the more notable runners be less popularized because of the field's competitiveness? Was it that ultrarunning isn't really a sport because it's not an "olympic standard"? Was it that you doubt the difficulty of completing ultras due to the seemingly quick recovery time? I'm still sort of lost as to what general conclusion I'm supposed to be obtaining after reading this.
I will say this though - you're clearly oblivious as to the world of ultrarunning. The simplest "fact" I can bring up is that you don't even touch upon the shorter races like 50Ks where the top part of the field runs the marathon split faster than your PR ... and then keeps going. However, just like marathon runners, you have back of the packers that are out there for goals other than setting PRs so I don't understand your field competitiveness argument. I finished in the top 10% of the NYC Half Marathon ... with a broken bone in my foot. At ultras, I don't finish in the top 50% against some people old enough to be my grandparents. Everyone has their "optimal" distance and that distance is different for everyone. You can't tell me that the 35K people who run NYC are all "competitive" and the same goes for ultras.
Since you're a NYRR, I invite you to run the Knickerbocker 60K in Central Park (November) and I'll see you there later this year. You won't even have to deal with elevation changes, altitude, roots, dark or mud so you can ease yourself into the ultra scene and see exactly what it's all about.
Now, all we need is a sprinter to tell everyone how sprinters are the only "real" runners around since most marathoners can't run sub 11 second 100s.
Good luck with your running endeavors!
Mr. Lance, you call Ted Corbitt your hero, i wonder why. obviously if he was alive he would have given you the right answer. in my opinion comparing marathons with 100's is like comparing the 400 meters with a marathon. it does not equate my friend. i think for you to really be able to comment on this subject you would have to TRY (just TRY) to complete a 100.
Please, please, PLEASE... enter a mountain 100 and get back to us. Heck, enter a trail 50K and get back to us.
Corbitt would have disowned everything you've just said. Guaranteed. You're pretty much wrong on every point you've tried to make about ultra running. I'd DEARLY love to see you at the top of Devil's Thumb some June and ask you, point for point, about some of the things you've said here.
A well-executed marathon is a thing of beauty and an astonishing physical feat. The best marathoners are marvelous athletes. Most of them would make excellent ultra marathoners. Most of them would be more humble about it.
You sound like the sprinters in high school who thought all the distance runners were doing was "jogging." Anyone can jog, right? I marvel at how bold people can be with their ignorance.
Lance, you certainly like to stir things up. I notice you've done a few NYRR races. Time are okay, definately not middle of the pack - at least these days.
It does seem though that you are slowing down a bit.
Have you ever met your idol, Ted Corbitt? Having known him, I don't think you are living up to your idol's image. He was very soft spoken, never a bad word for others. I believe that that is what made him great. It's a hard way to be, especially when you are passionate about something. But, he set a great example in that area.
Hope to see you at a race in CP. I suspect a face to face conversation would be very enjoyable.
nlc
ARE YOU RETARDED? OR STUPID? BOTH?
if you post about running ultras, don't forget the Ultra Trail race around Mont Blanc, and the 60 years old superman italian winner Marco Olmo
Is ultrarunning culture so "fragile" that collectively you can't take a lone voice questioning aspects of it? Characterizing & name calling me is fine - but evasive of the facts I brought forth & explored.
These replies I see?...confirm a fierce defensiveness - without speaking to facts.
Example:
1) The Scott Jurek's Ice Bath. He uses manmade materials (cooler) and the thermodynamic technology/design of a cooler to create a refrigerated cooling chamber. This is a direct to the letter violation of the rules of Badwater. You ultrarunner don't speak to this fact I presented in this blog - what do you do? name call, tell me I'm dumb, etc.
It's as if you all have a tacit agreement to never ever ever, no matter how plain the facts are, never suggest Scott Jurek violates the law to the letter & in spirit!
That you cannot speak to, explore, comment on. Why is that? Is Jurek a sacred cow or something with Ultra culture?
This is just one example nonesensical some of the ultra culture. Just look at the comments and what you don't say - A complete and total refusal to consider Jurek's Ice Bath trick and the letter of the law @ Badwater.
2) No one touches on why ultrarunning is denied, repeatedly by the IOC
It's clear I've touched a nerve with the ultra community -from the outside, I wonder why your community in your publications have not questioned & explored what it means for Jurek to win the biggest races separated by 13 or 14 days.
In the marathoning world for example, it was major news when Gete Wami tried to defy the contemporary custom that Elite athletes run just a couple of marathons per year and take at least five months off between marathons, Wami will ran NYC after winning the Berlin Maraton just 34 days earlier - all in pursuit, presumably, of a $500,000 bonus for winning the World Marathon Majors series.
In all sorts of quarters in running / marathoning this was debated - the ability to do it (recovery - damage from Berlin, etc.) Now it did not work out for her - but all sorts of aspects of it were fair ground open to debate.
However in Ultrarunning there is a "media black out" in print to explore this, etc.
I am just contrasting a similar scenario - and illustrating how the ultra community is kind of....well nonsensical - it's nonsensical that this feat (winning WS100 & Badwater) has not been probed & explored in print.
Has it been probed and explored how the women ran faster (as agroup) then the men did for example? In any of your publications? Or is this too another "taboo" subject to discuss?
In the spirit of not evading the "facts" you bring forth, I'll offer one rebuttal: "few ultrarunners ... train more than 40 - 60 miles a week in fact". I'm sure that Tony Krupicka or any number of other ultra elites who are certainly not "guys old enough" to be anyone's father would beg to differ: http://www.antonkrupicka.blogspot.com/
Yes, for a fact, everything is relative! That's true for marathon running, ultra running and more generally about life.
So, with such a premise, everyone can say whatever they want...
Scott is part of my heroes and he is an elite runner for me. For others, I'm an elite, yet so slower than Scott and the like. So you have the international elite, the national one, the regional, the local ones. And so? Time flies, and performances are here to be improved. Tougher on marathon, a mature sport, easier in ultra, although many other parameters (terrain, weather, support) come into account to make comparisons and records really meaningful.
Last, w.r.t. Scott versus Valmir at BW: ultra is a lot about goal setting. What Scott did (7 straight wins at WS followed by a win at BW) was his own goal. Not Valmir's. And it's not a world record. That's his personal feat. And, Lance, good luck to make this one yours! Good news though, you can make your own feat in many other ways. Other more positive ones than bashing others...
Jean.
Farther Faster
Research the 2007 Hardrock 100 and read about how Scott beat Karl Metlzer AND broke meltzers record on one of the countries toughest Ultra courses... proof enough.
You should do some more research before you start spouting off on subjects you clearly know nothing about.
If Corbitt REALLY is your hero... you might do yourself and his spirit some good by displaying a little more respect for the sport he encompassed. No?
As a back of the pack marathoner and ultramarathoner, I don't feel qualified to make any comments about what the elite in either sport are doing. However, I do have an opinion about your other two points:
1) My interpretation of the spirit of the law prohibiting cooling devices at badwater is that you can't use mechanical cooling devices WHILE MAKING FORWARD PROGRESS, otherwise anyone who even gets too close to their crews car air conditioner while refilling bottles, etc would be breaking this rule. Also, how could bags of ice possibly be breaking it?
2) I don't feel that acceptance or denial by the IOC has anything to do with the level of competition or the size of the field in a sport. Like most things in life, it seems to be based more on politics and $$$, both of which are lacking in ultras. Great counter-examples: curling, snowboard cross, beach volleyball, etc etc
1) ice baths are legal at Badwater. The same year that Scott broke the Badwater course record, another runner ran with an ice vest. The next year, the rules were amended to dis-allow cooling vests. However, ice baths continued to be legal. The difference? Using an ice vest constantly lowers the blood temperature while the runner is moving. Using an ice vest is temporary and the runner must stop.
2) The Olympics are all about $$$. Ultras are not. Simple.
Hey Lance,
I blog too and lots of people told me that I'd get a lot more "hits" and comments if I "stirred up the pot" by being controversial. But, as has already been pointed out, if Ted Corbitt is your hero maybe you should try emulating him instead of emulating the marketing gurus of blogdom.
Ted never wrote stuff like this. Scott, like Ted, is well-known as a guy who always speaks well of others. You yourself wrote: "As people Ultra runners are probably some of the sweetest, kindest people you'd ever want to know. Ted Corbitt was one of the most gentle men on earth - most ultra runners are like this - very kind and sweet people, men and women".
If we had lots of prize money in the sport we'd probably see drug-enhanced competition leading to some faster times but we'd lose the Corbitt-Jurek ethos that even you admire.
We don't want the ultramarathon world to be like the marathon world- which can come across too often as a bunch of self-serving jerks who care about nothing other than shaving two more seconds off their average pace so they can move up from the top 8% to the top 7% of the field.
Stick with marathons if that's the ethos you prefer; we ultra-marathoners just read rants like this and think, "phew, I sure am glad I'm not one of those angry uptight marathoners".
I've done marathons and ultras of all lengths. Which is tougher? Hard to say. Try a 100M and let us know what you think.
Thank you for the provocative and insightful commentary. I believe that as the number of participants increase, you'll continue to see an increase in the std. deviation of the distribution of race times.
Of course, the sheer number of additional runners will lead to an increased number of superior performances, i.e. fewer outliers, such as Mr. Jurek.
We'll know the sport is truly main-stream when Hardrock has Team-in-Training participants and Sheryl Crow playing at the finish line, in front of the Nike/Budweiser banners.
Just to point out another mistake you made, there is an ultramarathon distance in the olympics. 50k. But your premise was wrong even without the event.
For more than 3/4 of the modern olympics, there was no womens marathon. That doesn't diminish the event, just the Olympics.
Dude, I like you. You stepped out on a limb.
I'm not sure that you are 100% on point, and your writing certainly would have been more credible had you run a 100-miler first, ...then wrote; but, I applaud you for sharing your opinion.
I am a budding ultrarunner. Well, as much as someone can be "budding" at age 37; but I began back of the pack and am slowly working my way to the middle of the pack now two years into the sport.
I ran an ultra after my first marathon where I was last place in my division - so a lot of your comments are "me".
You are right that there are a lot of "me" out there. Slower folks that are drawn to sport by the combination of nature, comraderie and competition --- but for many, in that exact order. Not all - but many...
My goals are to continue to improve. My goals are to have an experience. My goals are to share that experience with other like-minded individuals.
I train with some people that remind me of how I perceive you and your competitive drive. I admire it, and in many ways can be jealous of genetics and/or your hard-fought battle to become stronger, but for all those gifts you have, you really blow it when you slam another group in which you truly have no experience.
Even if you were 100% correct in your ramblings, your approach is derogatory and in some circumstances, just plain wrong.
That's a shame because although you are off on some things, you're right about some others.
Lastly, in my opinion, the marathon is not all that different. The marathon is just bigger, so yea - there are more elites, but also, more sloths.
I'm running my first 100-miler in September and I am ecstatic. Truly excited enough that I think about it every single day at least once.
Conversely, I am running the ING Marathon, and aside from getting to cruise through my city on foot and with huge fanfare, I could really care less...
Don't ask me why - because you and I will just not agree on what makes for a great running experience.
But, I did like your post and found it very thought-provoking.
--
Christian
http://run50miles.org
I really enjoy your blog, although I only became aware of it in the last few months. I was discussing it with a running friend of mine, and we both said we like that you express a "point of view" (euphemism for "attitude").
To the point: I enjoy running marathons and ultra-marathons. While I found little that was factually incorrect with your characterization of both types of races and the people who run them, I do think your conclusions are a little bit off the mark. A mentor-of-sorts of mine in the business world summed it up best for me with his oft-stated “Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” You are a strong runner, a few minutes faster and a few years younger than I am. Try an ultra, give it 100%, as I am confident you have done in the marathon, and let everyone know what you think.
As for comparing the sub 2:20 marathoners to people like Scott Jurek, it is just as valid to compare the respective "back of the pack" runners as well. As for comparing the women to the men at Badwater, and suggesting that there is something wrong with their times being faster, what are you getting at? Are ultra-marathons less of a sport because women can be better than men? I don't think you want to go there...
Lastly, on an almost personal note, David Horton is a wonderful human being, despite his on-screen persona and his far-right credentials. I am making this statement as someone who is on-board with your chosen presidential candidate, but who wishes Obama weren't so damn conservative.
Lance,
Ted Corbitt was my hero too, as well as my friend. That had nothing to do with race, and lots to do with the fact that he was a great runner. An Olympic marathoner 3 years before I was born, yeah one of the great ones. I note you did not attack ultras until after Ted died. He might have given that little smile of his as he figured his pace for 100 miles, just count the13:33 he ran after age 50, old enough to be Jurek's father indeed. Ted always gave me good advice, told me to go after his 100 mile time after I turned 50. I'll work on it, but I know how tough 8:08 per mile is for 100 miles, having run 8:22s for the same distance.
Ted was a pretty fast marathoner though. I tried to emulate that. My PR is only 2:37:20, of course that was enroute to a 100 kilometer I ran in a little over 7 hours, or a slightly faster pace for 62 miles than you have done for a marathon. I have a bunch of marathons, like 50 or so in the 2:40-2:50 range, many enroute to 50and 100 mile efforts. As a matter of fact I once ran 50 miles at 6:33 per mile, about a 2:52 marathon pace, for almost 2 marathons.
I once ran a 2:57 marathon, after driving all night from a 50 miler I had run in 6:15, which I had also driven all night to get to.
I am hardly elite,but have regularly trained over 100 miles a week, and a few 200 mile weeks (a trick I learned from Ted).
Your error is that you are as the blind man who examined the elephant by grabbing its trunk. You look at Badwater (a contrived event) WS a trail ultra, then other trail ultras.
Nah, look at road ultras. You know, like our shared hero Ted used to run. Look at the 4:51 WR for 50 miles (I'll let you do the pace math) or perhaps earlier this month the 50K out on long island (I'll do the math) that was won at a 5:36 per mile pace. He went through the marathon in just under 2:25, a pace that would have won over half the marathons run in the USA last year.
No, you have to dig deeper. You owe that much to Ted Corbitt, if no one else.
Not that I need to comment here because I don't know what I'm talking about but, what the hell, it looks like fun.
I'm guessing the anti-cooling rule only applies when the runners are actually in motion.
Also, a big WTF for your statement "When Scott Jurek won The Western States 100, and then 2 weeks later won the Badwater 135...This is ridiculous and a poor statement for...the quality of the running talent." Did Jesse Owens' performance in '36 give a similar "black eye" to track and field? Was the talent he faced in those events similarly diluted? Or Emil Zátopek's performance in '52? Does the fact that someone who had never competed in the marathon was not only able to win the event at the Olympics but set an Olympic record take anything away from the event itself or does it not speak to the remarkable nature of the athlete in question?
And dissing the sport because of Pam Reed's looks: "does not look healthy...can pass for 10-15 years older...does not reflect well on the talent of women." You can't judge a book by its...what? It's not whether she conforms to your image of an athlete or model of health--it's how many bodies she leaves in her wake that defines her as a world-class athlete. Not to mention her 110-mile weeks.
As for probing why women may be faster than men: "Researchers have cited several possible explanations for why some women fare better than men in long-distance events. Women have more fat to burn, allowing them to conserve carbohydrates. They may also process heat more effectively. Also, studies have shown that women may cope with pain better than men do.
"I think I can do these events well--and be far more distinguished." Hah! Get off the couch already! You can think about it all you want and be distinguished only in your dreams!
"However these events hold no appeal for me." Oh well, looks like the world of ultra running will have to struggle on without you.
"I'm still interested in competing against other runners at standards...I can win the Masters class if I wanted to--but that would mean nothing to me." I'm not even sure what the first sentence means or why it doesn't contradict the second. And exactly what marathon could be won with a time of 3:05 in the Masters class?
And you absolutely rip ultra marathoning as a sport including it's premier runners and all of its participants, label them "fragile" and "non-sensical" and you wonder why they're all so defensive? You kick over an anthill and then bob and weave between inuendo and the facts in your retreat yet still act surprised that you're being pursued?
Does Oprah have to complete an ultra before you will take it seriously?
Okay, I'm done having fun now.
Sir Lance....you are once again a Fool. First you attack Mr. Goggins (a true hero..who runs for a great cause)..now you go after Jurek? C'mon bro...wake up and smell the street urine. You don't know what the hell you are talking about and you are nothing but a marathon runner with zero expertise in ultras. Forget what community we are from...we are all runners. And anyone with any intelligence can see...you don't have a clue. I mean going after Goggins...that is plains silly. That is like a junior high hooper (you)..trying to claim he is better then Mike Jordan (he).
Hi Lance,
I don't run marathons (have just run halves) and do a lot of hard hiking. But I know a fair amount of marathon runners and ultra runners, many of whom are elite or just under. IMHO, the pavement vs trail run is an apples to oranges situation. Pavement running is brutal on the body, as everyone knows and the training to succeed for more that bragging rights is rigorous and requires dedication. By looking at your pix and stats, you're obviously no couch potato. Huge props to your dedication and your unique perspective on embracing your sport in the city.
However, for a serious trail runner, in a relatively newer sport with little recognition, there exists and equal-yet-different set of challenges and the associated strain on the body. The events are farther apart, but it is often a combination of treacherous terrain, hard climbing and descending and running. I know ultras that train for 100+ a week.
It's unfortunate that there are some attention seekers out there that make the ultra sport seem laughable; those that clock a whopping 10 miles a week and preach to the world of their accomplishments. They like the attention, but don't like to do the heavy lifting. Most of us can achieve what the "fluff" mongers boast of in grocery store aisles with a sack of Cheetohs.
I hope you do take a closer look at the ultra running community and much of the crossover it has into the marathon running community. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised that there are many serious athletes in this sport committed to making it viable and legitimate. They're not all beer swilling hobbiests.
I suspect you'll ultimately be invited to run some of the ultras to offer you additional perspective.
Thanks for the interesting and controversial read.
I think if you took the time to train for AND actually run a 100 Mile race, you might appreciate it more and it just might provide you with the humbling you NEED.
As a 26 year old ultra-runner.. I can say to you that i train just as if not harder than most marathoners. I just ran 111 miles in the last 10 days in preparation for a 150 Mile Race... I've been training non-stop to the best of my abilities (and beyond) since 2004.. and yet you say that we ultra-runners do not train as hard and are not as tough as marathoners?
You are indeed mistaken Lance.. I enjoy stirring the pot as much as anyone else.. but I am also able to admit it when I am wrong.. and you sir... Are wrong.
BY the way... In your previous post on Goggins... just because you have a blog that a lot of people visit doesn't mean shit.. in the end.. you sir are no better than anyone else. David Goggins is an American Hero.. how dare you come down on him. Learn to choose your battles a little better.
Curious to know... How do you rebuild a wife?
Hello Lance,
A few people have already commented on it and I agree; comparing any road course marathon to a trail ultra is not an accurate comparison of the rigors of the endeavor.
I truly do not think Scott Jurek is over-rated, he has accomplished some amazing things in his running pursuits thus far, 7 straight wins at WS100 is no small feat, but if you are looking for the "Superstars" of the ultramarathon sport then you will need to leave North America.
Check out the IAU's (International Association of Ultrarunners) Website: http://www.iau.org.tw/
If you look at the 2007 100Km World Rankings (http://www.iau.org.tw/statistics_detail.php?Id=49) you'll see that there are very few North Americans on the list, only three to be exact. And if you take a close look at #1 Watanabe Shin-Ichi's time of 6:23:21 over 100km that would equate into a marathon time of 2:41 and change, only he ran that twice plus some!
Now having said that, I think that if Mr. Shin-Ichi decided to run the WS100 I doubt he would do so well - mountain running and road running are two different monsters...
You seem to desire commentary on the facts presented. I'll comment on the first four sentences that present some sort of "fact" based opinion. I don't have the patients to go further.
I've never ran an Ultra however everyone who has tells me they're easier than racing marathons.
In the previous sentence you admit to having never spoken to two of the most competitive ultra runners. So how can you state here that you've spoken to "everyone who has"? Is it possible that you can't construct a sentence? Is it possible that your sample size is not representative of the whole group?
I know few ultrarunners that train more than 40 - 60 miles a week in fact. (countered to marathoners that as a matter of practice clock 120 - 140 miles / week).
Perhaps you should have stopped after the first four words? Most marathoner's do not clock 120 - 140 miles / week (really, this is a fact, verify it by asking people in the next marathon you run). You didn't train 120 - 140 miles per week for your first marathon. You are mixing sample groups and comparing average ultramarathon runners to elite marathon runners. Are you aware you're doing this?
It strikes with me that ultra events comprise distortion & outright nonsense - and is this probably the reason the IOC (International Olympic Committee) refuses to consider ultrarunning as a credible sport worthy of inclusion in the Olympics (Yiannis Kouros & others have tried to get it ultrarunning in the olympics for years to no avail).
Seriously, this grammar is grade school. The statement that ultra events comprise "distortion and outright nonsense" is odd since it's completely unsupported by anything you've said to this point. How do we judge the validity of a statement you've pulled from your ass without even supporting observations?
Running easy for 50 miles or 100 miles is clearly a lot easier on the body than actually racing for 26.2 with total effort as many run 5 or 6 of their events per year (at a competitive level).
You write critically about how amateur ultra runners are and ironically you are a very bad amateur writer. Here you are publishing your thoughts and words and yet you can't construct coherent thoughts and compose competent grammar. In blogging there really are people who can and are doing it at a level much higher than this. So are you like the Scott Jurek of blogging (Scott Jurek the marathon runner, not the ultra runner). Oh wait, your not even that good.
Beyond the previous point, doctors know a bit about what puts a strain on the body. Can you quote one that will support this statement? Is there a scientific study that supports this statement? Why do you comparing running easy and racing? The point of racing is to beat the competition. If there is little competition then the race is easier and the competitors will likely run easier. Is your point that ultrarunning is easy or that there isn't much competition? Just because there is less competition doesn't make the event easier (in contrast to another event) for those that choose to compete.
Your points are so poorly made that I have trouble deciphering what I'm refuting other than the vague opinion that ultramarathoning is somehow not credible in your opinion. First off, slow down and get the English straight. Second, put together coherent conclusions and then support them with facts, not pitifully trivial anecdotal observations. That is, do these things if you really want people to respond with something more intelligent than "your and idiot (duh)".
You mention the ultra runners you've spoken with have all moved on to ultra distances after they got tired of marathoning?
...I learn they lost interest and appeal in the Marathon. I always want to ask them, "Have you ever ran one (marathon) well"? I find ultrarunners commonly got into the sport by saying they lost interest in the marathon - without disclosing if they ever ran marathons well. It strikes with me that they've chosen to give up on realizing marathon goals...
It looks as though you are making a bedrock assumption based on circular reasoning: that a marathon goal is the only one worth having and not having one necessarily means whatever other goals they may have are... invalid. A person can be satisfied with having met their marathon goals and simply move on to another challenge. The marathon is no more THE gold standard than is the 10,000 meters. It's one standard among many. I think the world of the marathon distance. I just got tired of training my tail off to shave 30-60 seconds off my PR. Been there, done that (20+ times). What else is on the menu?
If you spent any time in the ultra community, you'd find it is full of discussion and self-criticism. It is not so fragile as you suggest. I just don't think anyone's going to respect a weak argument built backwards from a conclusion itself founded on such obvious personal insecurities.
And as someone else has pointed out, there have been plenty of Olympians who've medaled in some combination of events (5K, 10K, marathon) in the same week. Does that mean their competition was as weak as you claim Jurek's has been? (And can you name any of the other current elites? There are quite a few, you know.) Really, a little personal experience with the distance would change a few of your attitudes, I'm sure.
I found your post to be quite odd. Do you question the ultra community because Jurek wasn't drug-tested after his two close wins with a huge media circus? Is that what you're getting at?
Hello Lance,
A great discussion you are having here. Certainly there is validity to the fact that elite marathoners seem to make elite ultra runners. Look at Uli Steidl (2:14 marathoner, I think) and the 50 mile and 50K records he has crushed in the last couple years, or Michael Wardian, who won JFK this year after running the Olympic Marathon Trials a couple weeks earlier. Great to see their performances.
I think, and in my case, people run ultras and marathons for very different reasons. You cite Western States. This was a horse ride to begin with. Gordy Ainssleigh decided to run it one year to see if it was possible to do. Not to see how fast, but "if."
I train for marathons to better my time and see how fast I can run 26.2 miles (not very). Running the JFK 50 this last year was to see if I could finish 50 miles. Much different motivation.
If I ever decide to try to run 100 miles, finishing that race would go down as a life achievement for me, whereas finishing a marathon, or even running a fast one, wouldn't be.
Ray Said, "Your error is that you are as the blind man who examined the elephant by grabbing its trunk. You look at Badwater (a contrived event) WS a trail ultra, then other trail ultras".
I disagree Ray and you misunderstood the point of the blog. It was intentionally framed on the previous blog entry, the article about the WS100, that singular event and no other.
The other event that got pulled into it was Badwater. The central theme of the blog entry was an exploration on how fatiguing is the WS100 really - when a guy can win it & just 13 days later start and win Badwater - and I used Jurek to examine this topic.
That's the point of the blog entry and nothing else. PS - I've done more for Ted Corbitt within the NYRR to have him recognize before he died than anyone - and Mary Wittenberg, the President of the NYRR will tell you that - and I am working with a writer who is writing a book on Ted - I know several of his Olympic teammates that are still alive - and his personl friends from the Pioneer club that are still alive and living in Harlem - and his general friends - all alive here in Harlem.
Lance,
As a marathoner as well as an ultra runner, I think you do raise an interesting point about winning Badwater and WS100 back-to-back with two weeks between them. However, I think you miss some key points about the selection processes for those races as well as other statistics you use to make your case.
For Western States, the only elite men guarateed entry into the field are the top 10 from the previous year. While there is a lottery for the other spots and some spots are given by special consideration (for whatever reason) or performance in 3 shorter, smaller races, it's not as if they took a list of the top 100 100-mile times from the year before and said that was the field.
For Badwater, the criteria for selection is less exact. While some are selected for pure talent, others are selected based on a number of factors in their backstory. While this can create a great race near the front, the event also takes on different meaning because of how the organizers choose to admit those running. As a biostatistician, your statistics of women vs. men need to first be weighed against the initial selection process which already skews your selected stats towards the women (with a much smaller sample size).
Many of the ultrarunners who prefer Western States will probably not run Badwater for the fact that one is a road race and the other a trail race. This is not to . Valmir, for example, once held the world record in the 100k, but has been been beaten head-to-head by Jurek on at least two separate races (2006, 2007 Spartathlon). The fact is, I love running Badwater and Western States as much as I love Boston, but I know convincing a runner to tackle all the variables at Badwater is a much harder proposition than any marathon. I have to peak at 100+ miles/week to run a great 100 mile race, but only 70 to run a great marathon. As hard as I'm training to run a sub-3 at Boston this year, I think its foolish to assume a base of 40 miles a week will properly prepare anyone for a 100 miler. Dean, Scott, and many other top 50/100 milers have miles/week loads that do not conform to those in your informal survey.
I think if you really want to look at the performance of top ultrarunners in an easier sample size/"standard" course, I think the 100k world championships is probably a better place to go and look at statistics.
As more money comes into ultramarathon events, I'm sure it will increase the competition and push times down. But the nature of increased competition will probably also push down the times of established veterans as well, including Scott Jurek. It's also not like there are "rabbits" out front for the first 50 of a 100 mile race to help the top guys set the pace. Pacers in 100 mile races tend to run the last 1/2 of the race behind the runners in case they fall/hurt themselves out there in the wilderness.
This is not to say that there isn't undiscovered/unapplied talent out there that couldn't do it at the highest levels. But, when top competitors of any running distance face off head to head, the competition itself will always drive better times. This doesn't happen as often in ultrarunning as it would if greater money were to be had at certain marquee events (like marathoning), but it may over time. The fact is, how much harder is it for a top athlete to push themselves with 10 others on their heels vs. 100? Of course, where are you going to find those 100 when with all the marathoners in the United States, less than 3,000 finished at least 1-100 miler last year.
There will also be a refinement of how to meet the nutritional needs of ultramarathoners (particularly at the 50/100 mile levels where you can not live off simple sugars alone) that will push times down. There is a lot that is unknown about the body's ability to regenerate/persist when outstripping the glycogen stores. I think these studies may illuminate the fact. I've spoken with Dean on a few occasions (considering he lives in SF like myself), and he was mentioning that in his work with Chris Carmichael (famed heart-rate trainer of Mr. Armstrong), it was mentioned that a body fat % of 6-7%would be more ideal for longer ultramarathon races like Badwater(due to the fat-burning necessary when outstripping the body's glycogen stores). I don't think it degrades the achievements of those who, at this moment, are pioneers of a sport still growing. Nor does it lessen the achievements of the ultrarunners of the past, from the greeks to the natives to the japanese monks (you may want to read about them) to those escaping slavery and so forth who often ran for more than just a record, a time or a medal. I hardly think any of them needed a medal or a spot in the olympics to legitimize what they were doing (why did the olympics drop baseball??).
Your argument about Valmir vs. Scott's time at Badwater is a bit weak, especially considering that much of what pushes times down there is the heat/weather. Statistics have always born out that ideal running temps are between 50-58, with increases in temp supressing performance. I believe this is true if you compare the 104 F at Stovepipe Wells last year(but with increased humidity) to the high 120s which are commonly seen at this point in the race.
I hope you do a bit more homework when making certain comparisons. There is a vast difference in the courses, many of which are run in the vast, unpredicable wilderness of our park systems. While I believe some of your points are interesting to ponder in a sport without a true overarching body, I believe you mix it with remarks and conclusions that go far beyond out of the bounds of your "evidence". Hopefully, we'll see you out there toeing the line for an ultramarathon yourself someday. I raise a glass and toast the accomplishments of Ted Corbitt, Scott Jurek and everyone in-between.
Respectfully,
Jonathan
www.seegundyrun.com
Sounds like a certain fantasy trail runner is hanging around your blog with the comment about grammar.
"I don't have the patients to go further."
Don't have the patients? Is she a doctor too?
Lance,
I started as a sprinter too, back a long time ago, but my little brother was faster, so I bumped up to distance. Fact is Sprinters are born, distance runners are made. I started running distance in 1967,(you were not born yet) did my first marathon, actually an ultra-30 miles, in '71 (nope, still not born) First 100 in 1979 (finally a cute little tyke running around).
Now, you may have thought you were talking only about WS and Badwater, that certainly is where the bulk of your rant was fueled (causing me to quite accurately state you were describing the elephant by grabbing the trunk.
However, and I will not throw a bunch of your words back at you, but I must include:
Lance said: "Most informed people know competitive marathoners can only run 2 or at the very most 3 marathons a year for reasons directly related to the rigors of the endeavor. It's a function of physiology - the human body & time. It takes several months to prepare to race a marathon, 2 or 3 weeks to taper, 5 - 7 days to nutritionally prepare.....all to have a peak performance on race day. That challenge necessitates a regime and time that does not exist in ultramarathoning. Competitive ultramathoners run these events as the come, with no particular regime prerequisite, even the best of the sport."
Sorry, but that sounds like a pretty general statement about ultrarunning, and ultrarunners. Looh up Bernd Heinrich Ph.D some day, and his records, set as he focused on a race or two a year. Read his book.
Speaking of books, did you ever read Ted's book, or talk to him about physiology? I've done both. I won't say he coached me, but he certainly talked about things in such a way that one could apply them to their training programs. He also ran a few races in close time proximity, pretty good performances as a matter of fact. He was the first one who told me to leave the heat alone, way back in 1981, and use ice, A great recovery "drug". He also told me about the benefits of massage, and physical therapy, which is of tremendous value when running multiple events.
As for Ted's friends. He had many. We do not all know each other. They do not all live in Harlem. Richie Innamarato was with him in Houston, Did you make it there? Other friends from all over the NY NJ area who had run ultras with him went to the funeral. Did you make the funeral? I noticed your mention of him on your blog was pretty scant when he passed.
I am glad you are working to preserve his memory. I do the same thing. As I told him once I always begin Black History Month a day early, on Ted's birthday, with a lesson about Ted. He got a chuckle out of that, said something once about not being historical. In my column I wrote for Running Journal I made the statement that if Ted Corbitt never ran a step he was still worth a day of study.
Yeah he is richly deserving of being remembered. Keep up the efforts, even as others are looking to host a 24 hour run named after him. Come run. Find out as did Amby Burfoot in 1981, that ultras are a bit tougher than they appear. If you choose not to run, come watch. I suspect there will be some great athletes with fireworks blasting at a race held in Ted's memory.
I could go on, but there is no need, I suspect we are not as far apart as it would appear. So in the fashion of Ted I'll give some advice, read, study, learn all you can. Then, if you still want to share, your words will be much more valuable.
Lance,
Long time no read.
And long time *to* read! You gotta tighten this stuff up for us ADD types.
Otherwise, nice work. Glad to see you're still stirring things up. Funny how tough it is for most to get past kneejerk defensiveness and laugh, whether it's with or at you.
See you at a race some time. If it's this year you'll probably have the advantage.
yr BK pal,
pendy
Blah. Not worth the time to read this blog. Go run!
The thing that bothers me about ultrarunning is the "ultra" moniker. It implies that ultramarathons are somehow greater than marathons, when they are actually just different.
There is a general consensus in the recreational running community, that greater distances=greater accomplishments. I think that Lance is trying to compare RACING a marathon to RUNNING an ultra, in which case, I have to agree with his relative assessment. In fact, I think you can pretty much substitute any distance in, and the truth is the same: racing is about approaching your limits, so it is, by definition, the most difficult thing you can do. "Running" is anything less than racing, so it is clearly less difficult.
Lance, if you think that marathon racers don't get enough credit, consider my problem: I'm a miler, though I run 90-100 mpw during base training. When people ask me about my running, they assume that I'm a marathoner. I usually just say that I run track races. It's a nightmare to try to explain to someone that I have run marathons (usually finishing in the top %1), yet I don't consider myself a marathoner.
Not getting enough hits on your blog from your marathon community? Why don't you run an ultra or two, maybe a 100 miler, and see if you attitude changes?
I'm running a 100 here in two weeks. It's full, but I'm also running the Mohican Trail 100 in Ohio. Why don't you join us there and see if you can 'race' that?
Cheers!
Some guys will do anything to get traffic to their blog and try to improve their site ranking. Stirring things up and getting lots of traffic helps.
I wonder if Lance is just trying to get noticed??
It must be fun for Lance to write and comment on something he has never done before. I doubt he ever will.
Actions speak louder than words--toe the line Lance at any 100-miler.
Come out in the woods where the big boys play. Oh that's right, your a city boy. Stick to running on the asphalt, in your mind that's where real runners run.
Actions speak louder than words... and words speak louder if they're broken up into paragraphs.
Yes, Scott Jurek won Badwater just two weeks after his WS100 win a couple of years ago, and his Badwater record time was surpassed the next year. Just think what he could have done if he had saved himself for just Badwater.
By the way, Jurek HAS competed against the world's best in an international (paved) event...the Spartathalon 246 Km race, and has won it both of the times he toed the line...yes, even against Valmir Nunes.
Happy trails,
Ben
This may be the most infuriating thing I've ever read by a runner! There are many levels of running. Some are great 800m runners. Others excel at 5-10K. Others are drawn to the marathon. And a few compete/complete ultras. When was the last time you ran a road marathon? Didn't you see "old, unathletic people" plodding along trying to get in under the cutoff? Marathons lately have exploded, but the majority of the newbies are people who have no aspirations to break 4:00. That's fine.
You criticize Jurek (he's not the only elite, by the way) for racing too often, but could it just be you're wrong- that the fact he can race at a high level 2 weeks in a row is a testament to his greatness? Scott Jurek may not be able to win the Chicago Marathon this year. I don't remember seeing Bill Rogers, Frank Shorter, Alberto Salazar, etc. racing 800s either. Imagine that sight!
Who cares that ultrarunning doesn't have the $ to attract people out or the purse?? I care very little what the elites are doing. Running & especially ultra running is a personal/community thing. I'd rather keep it small.
Just because you don't have any desire to go out for a 6 hour rocky, mountainous training run with multiple stream crossings doesn't mean it's not fulfilling for me. I love it! Much more than your boring urban 5-20 mile training run. To each his/her own.
As you are entitled to your opinion, so am I. And my opinion is that you are an ass.
Wow. You sound very angry, but why? Why should comparing the credibility of the athletes(elite or back of the pack) in 2 different sports(marathon, and ultra) even be an argument at all, when in fact they are 2 different sports?
I wonder if there is an angry little time trials cyclist out there on his blog ripping on the dudes that ride their bikes across the country. Maybe calling them "slow, old, and plodding along." Maybe, but who the f**k cares? If you had the "time" which you speak of ultra runners having, what would you choose to do with it? Would it suddenly make you able to run an ultra and compete with Scott Jurek and show us Ultrarunners how "nonsensical we all are and put to rest this argument? And if you had read Dean Karnazes book, maybe you would have noticed him working a regular full time job, having a wife and kids, and only sleeping 4 hours per day, to make "time" to train.
It sounds like you are just trying to justify all of your hard work at training for marathons, by slamming people who have been successful and had a sh*tload of fun doing things a different way.
It appears you're mad that some people have trained less than a "typical marathoner" and have been successful at ultra distances. Yea, I think that's called talent, and nothing you say will take away any ultra runner's personal achievements, whether it be Jurek or anyone who has wasted their time reading and commenting on this blog.
Thank You! Thank You! Thank You! I agree with everything that you say. I have been saying the same thing for years. Awesome post!!!
Kelly S. Nichols
A long post, but I'd agree, especially with ultra-running being "Entirely feat achievement by people with time."
Thank you for "braving" the Ultra crowd and making this post.
I usually read your blog for NYC racing action. I picked up running just for fun 4 years ago, and one aspect that I love about it is that there is a community of opinions. I personally believe that running shouldn't be constrained by distances like the 5K, 10K, or marathon. I wanted to experience firsthand what an ultra was like, and it's fun in a sadistic sense. It's different but I really like how people are nice, friendly, and genuine...hard to find in road races. It is highly competitive...come back to NorCal to realize that.
I have the goals of doing a 2:45 marathon in the future and doing Western States 100 in sub 24 hours. Call me a dreamer, but I run so that I can better myself and make those dreams more and more realistic with each passing day. That is to say, they are not impossible.
If you don't believe me, try the North Face Bear Mountain NY 50K or 50M later this year or the Knickerboker 60K hosted by NYRR. Unless you've done one, you can't really denounce the accomplishments of others. It really is difficult endurance wise of course. But to be mentally top shape running rugged trails in the dark with undulating terrain is another thing. You start getting fucked up in the head.
Also, doing two ultras on consecutive weekends and winning them ala Scott Jurek is amazing. Until Kenyans/Ethiopians start winning races like Jurek, I will be impressed. But when that happens, ultras will be more of a spectacle than a wonderful activity for common people like ourselves. People like Jurek are not immune to recovery periods like marathoners; they just have to make their bodies ready for the next round of beatings. But I do have to admit, the pounding of any road race is obviously worse than any trail/track ultra.
The Badwater race and ultras alike are getting expensive, but I think they are more justified than the NYC Marathon! I'm not sure about the price breakdown of where the money goes. But stocking aid stations in the middle of nowhere, logistics, etc. add up. I would rather pay $295 for Western States 100 than pay $165 for the NYC Marathon for the treatment I get and the rare chance to run a great event.
For some esteemed races, you must prove you can complete these races that's why entry requirements are so rigorous and demanding. In Badwater, you can die! Imagine running/walking 135 miles in dead of heat summer with the last 30 or so miles uphill. It's not for the faint of heart.
I think we start to get old when we believe that what we've done in the past and present is contrary to what we've always believed made sense. Running in itself doesn't make sense; ask any non-runner. The people who ran the early Boston Marathons thought that the human body wasn't made or capable of completing the distance. Now the argument of ultras is in the foray. Are we repeating history again?
Try an ultra just for the experience and be open minded about the concept.
I still like your blog, nonetheless.
I think it would be a good idea if you mind your own business ang shut your mouth, and do something more productive then talking poorly about topics and people you know nothing about. If you love running so much just do that, you will find that makes you alot happier then trash talking.
Lance, you ignorant slut!
You can't compare a 26.2 mile marathon to a 100 miler. Besides the physicality differential, the psychological differences are vast. I know plenty of marathon runners that have not been able to pass 50 miles (walking or running) never mind 100!
I suspect that your true test of manhood, since you have been on the attack of our community, is to run a 100 miler and return to this blog and post the lessons which you have learned. Only with this knowledge will your blog be respected. Until then, it is trash.
Everything you said could be true, but so what?
The context of your argument is very narrow and doesn't take into account the human condition regarding athletics. You blindly accept the norm that athletes have value/status & that better athletes have greater status. That maybe be true, in the minds of people, but in fact athletes have no tangible value, or "real" value. All you do is go in a circle. You don't put out fires, prevent crime, end tyranny, or prevent disease. All those activities produce "real" results for mankind. Athletes by definition are self-indulgent.
Then why do athletes exists? Why did the Greeks expend resources to celebrate sports? It's a celebration/funeral to the human condition. Once you expand your context, you wouldn't be so critical. Critical of yourself above all others. You may find yourself enjoying athletics in a deeper manner, as a simple enjoyment. Without the shame of failure.
Do one ultramarathon and then you can comment on it. Honestly, there is a huge difference between running on rugged trails with 10,000 feet of elevation and running for 3 or 4 hours on the streets of Boston. Try sitting on the couch for 24 hours and I bet you can't do that. Now, cover 100 miles. There are so many false statements in your article, I don't even know how to comment on them.
Please, in the future, comment on things you actually know about and stop blasting a guy who is a legend in the sport.
As a 31 year old female ultrarunner who has completed many 100's and Badwater, I can attest that many of your premises are completely incorrect. Marathon running and ultramarathon running are two different sports. To call ultrarunners "weekend warriors" is insulting and arrogant. There are hours upon hours of running, cross training, running through the night, etc. that go into ultras. Perhaps the fields would be more diverse or attract "better/more competitive" runners if more people actually had the guts, dedication, and mental fortitude to participate. Most younger people don't have the life experience, vision, or patience to concentrate and focus for that long. Ultrarunners do get defensive when their races are placed under a microscope. This is because usually those putting them under the microscope are misinformed/have never run an ultra. Anyone who has experienced the finish line of an ultra would never make the ridiculous comments you do. In addition, ultrarunners are able to go out and continuously run ultras every few weeks becasue that's what we DO...endure. Its what we're trained for. The body hurts, is still recovering....but we go out anyway. That is one of the reasons why ultrarunning is so different from marathoning. The mental game is almost more important than the physical. Run an ultra.
Dear Lance,
After stumbling onto your article about the ultra scene and Scott Jurek I found your observations to be quite hilarious. It reminded me of someone soaking in a bathtub while describing the experience of swimming the English Channel.
The sport of ultrarunning was originally launched for people who wanted to move on from marathons and pavement. It's just different and there is no need to even compare the two disciplines.
If you wish to be a critic of ultras, please take the time to get to know the sport and the people you wish to write about first. Scott Jurek is a true champion athlete who trains hard, lives well and is very thoughtful and caring person. Anyone who thinks otherwise - simply does not know him.
Hey, good photo of George Frazier at the Dipsea Race.
Come and get your shoes dirty at the WS100 sometime and see for yourself how you would handle the day. I will guarantee a fun filled day that you will not soon forget.
So I'm a few months late to commenton this, but better late than never. Aside from the 100 other issues the people above me have raised, I have another:
You say " Why is it a lot of ultrarunners don't even look athletic? have you seen them? Just go over to Youtube and search "Ultra Race" or the like and take a look yourself. It's not just the men - I've met and spoken with one of the women's Superstars, Pam Reed - the lady does not even look healthy in person - does she? Can easily pass for 10 - 15 years older than she is"
How can you - as a human being, not even just a runner - dare to classify what a runner looks like. For someone who praised Girls on The Run, noting it's mission to help girls become more confident not only in sports, but life in general, you're sure being hypocritical. By saying someone doesn't "look like an ultrarunner" calls into question all the stereotypes and generalities that people have to fight against every day when they go out for a run.
In summary: you fell so low as to resort to a demeaning and offensive argument about how one who runs should look.
My opinion: run an ultra. try to win an ultra. then maybe the rest of us will listen to your opinions.
It seems to me that Sir Lancelot thinks he has it all figured when it comes to Ultras. Numbnuts should try to blog on things he might have a clue on. What a Pendejo!
I am amazed at your comments about ultrarunners, and even women. You have such a narrow outlook on the sport of ultras. As a woman living in Colorado, I have participated in the ultra scene for a few years now. Not everyone is allowed in to many of these 100 mile races. You actually have to have a race resume, and you are admitted by lottery, so NO, not everyone gets in. Second, these races are at altitude. Have you ever run a race at 10,000-13,000 feet in altitude? Probably not, but I cant see you making it very far. The terrain in these races is extremely difficult, technical climbing and descending. Maybe a little bit harder than running the streets in Harlem. All you talk about is Scott Jurek, if you did some research, you might find that there are plenty of other talented ultrarunners. For example, Anton Krupicka, who happens to run sub 3 hour marathons at high altitude, and runs 16 hour 100 milers. I would like to see you do the same. As far as the women outrunning men, if you did some research on that as well, you would find that physiologically women have an advantage when running ultras. My last point, I do not know the ultrarunners you hang out with, but all the ones I know put in long run weeks. I only do 50 milers, but I run 80-90 miles a week.
You strike me as an ignorant person, with some jealousy issues.
Just to add to what I wrote above: I also think it is really sad that you are so judgmental about other runners. One reason that I got out of road running was the hyper competitiveness of it. I run for the love of running. I dont think that it matters the distance or the speed that you run, as long as you enjoy what you do. For you to look down on others for pushing their limits just shows what a little man you are.
First off, I think for you to be dissing Scott Jurek - or any other ultra runner for that matter is down right mean spirited. Running is a sport about individual achievement and personal victory. The fact an ultra runner, like Michael Wardian - the 2007 and 2008 100K National Champion - can run 100K "easy" at a 6:42 pace compared to your MARATHON PR pace of 7:03 is a personal victory for them.
Secondly, if it is so easy to run 100 miles, or 135 miles through Death Valley, why don't you take on the challenge? It seems to me like it is just as easy for me to laugh at weight lifting as being an "easy" sport as it is for you put down ultra running. Put your money where your mouth is.
Thirdly, yes, Scott Jurek did use an ice chest at Badwater (as did other runners) However, the picture you posted is not of Scott Jurek. In the photo you posted, the runner is wearing Mizuno shoes. Scott is a Brooks runner, and therefore wears brooks shoes. A 30 second search of google images will give a picture of Scott in an ice chest at Badwater. If you are going to criticize someone for their race strategy, it would be only fair to your readers for you to post pictures of the right person.
Fourthly, Michael Wardian, the 2007 50 mile and 100k national champion, the guy who ran "easy" over 100k in a 6:42 pace, he placed in the top 20 at the marathon Olympic trials. You must have seem him when you watched the race actually - he lead the field through the first 9 miles. I think he might be offended if someone, such as your self, attempted to call him a un-talented runner who chose ultra running because he could not make it in the marathon.
Just some thoughts, I would love to hear your response.
Another comment on the fine reasearch that went into this little rant of yours. Scott Jurek has raced internationally, he has twice won the Spartathlon in Greence. Oh, and the guy who just "showed up" and broke his Badwater record - Valmir - he beat him at the Spartathlon.
Also, the 2006 100K world champion, Lizy Hawker, was 14th at the London Marathon in 2004. Would you say she is a sucessfull marathoner?
Just thought you might want to get your facts straight next time.
Table tennis is in the Olympics...kickboxing is not. The Olympics can piss off.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the vitriol thrown your way due to this post. While I might disagree with the way you presented some of your argument, I largely agree with your conclusions.
Perhaps an apt comparison with another sport would be comparing the achievement of a Tiger Woods in 72 holes of championship golf played over 4 days versus someone who has the record for the lowest score for 14 days of near continuous, round the clock, golf playing (surely some oddball has attempted this).
I would respect the effort and the "marathon" golfer. And, no doubt she/she has skill. But, there is something so much more challenging in the perfection of Tiger's achievements. And, this perfection comes under great, great scrutiny and with the very best golfers in the world gunning for him. This is sort of the situation a top Kenyan distance runner will face. And, most of the competition will come from his countrymen (or Ethiopians). They are putting food on the table by trying to run amazingly fast over short distances. Stunning stuff.
Bottom line: I am, and will be, way way more impressed by Sammy Wanjiru running 26 sub 4:50 Miles in the heat of Beijing to win against the best runner's on the planet with the whole world watching!
Ultra running just isn't as competitive a sport as marathon (or other shorter distances) racing. No doubt, it requires a great deal of toughness, but we are built to take it. That's sort of the point of the book, Born To Run [I recommend reading it]. Humans are designed to "trot" long distances.
I, like you, prefer marathon racing because it's sort of the perfect balance between speed and endurance. Trying to run your very fastest marathon puts you on a razor's edge, so to speak, where you risk injury or sickness in your quest to go relatively long and quite fast.
I never want to run a marathon just to "grunt" through it or "tough" it out (as I did in one Boston Marathon when I got dehydrated). I want to run fast against large groups of really competitive people. In fact, my great disappoint as a sub 2:50 marathoner is that marathon running today is much, much less deep than it was in the late 70s/early 80s when you had way more people, in marathons both large and small, running sub 2:45.
Your logic is so off-base this seems to be more like an SNL or Steven Colbert "news" piece than fact.
Blatant fallacies outright lies include but are by no means limited to the following:
* Ultrarunners typically train 40-60 miles a week.
* "That challenge necessitates a regime and time that does not exist in ultramarathoning." hardy har har. NO challenge in preparing for an ultra!
* If you trot 100 miles one weekend, all you need is a couple of weeks downtime and you can trot another 100 miles - at a competitive level.
* "Per the reports "Had Konya not pulled over at 1 a.m. (a 135 mile race) Tuesday and napped for 30 minutes in a sleeping bag, he might have won. " Yes, and if the Orlando Magic had made more shots they might have won. Hardy har har har. You must be a Colbert show writer.
* "Why is it a lot of ultrarunners don't even look athletic? have you seen them? Just go over to Youtube and search "Ultra Race" or the like and take a look yourself."
* In that case, models would be world champion athletes, and John Kruk and Randy Johnson and Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Larry Bird and numerous other athletes who don't look athletic can't be. Ha!
*" It's not just the men - I've met and spoken with one of the women's Superstars, Pam Reed - the lady does not even look healthy in person - does she? Can easily pass for 10 - 15 years older than she is." This is a woman who has battled eating disorders her entire life, so this is just an ignorant statement.
I find it incredibly ironic that a black man would judge others by how they look. Isn't that what minorities have fought against, and continue to fight? Looks are only skin deep, but ugly and ignorance are to the bone.
* "As they do - you're seeing Scott Jurek's records fall - as again - people coming from his background enter these events - and they are not only breaking Jurek's records - they are shattering them and in the process illustrating Jurek was mediorce talent" Yes, and Hank Aaron was of mediocre talent because his home run record fell, and Muhammad Ali was of mediocre talent because, heck, he never even held records!
Intelligence is a wonderful place to start when judging others. This entire post is not meant to inform, or enlighten or educate, but instead demean the accomplishments of others. My marathon PR is 3:28, my half marathon 1:31 - close to your PR's I might add - and I wonder where your arrogance comes from. I know I have no reason to denigrate others who have nothing to do or so about me or others?
amazing, it has been almost 2 years to the day since you wrote this posting. Look how popular ultras have become in the last 2 years. Your post probably actually increased the popularity of the sport. Kudos to you!
man I could've run an ultra in the time i wasted reading all this!
Ok I've run marathons and I've run ultras and here's why people stop running marathons and stay with ultras.
1. yes many ultra runners get sick of running for the sake of time goals.
2. Runners want to love running again
3. Sick of the circus and clown suits.
4. Fall in love with trail running
5.It's a different challenge and it's mostly about finishing.
With that in mind I know some pretty fast marathoners who tried there hand at ultras and never wanted to do it again. It seems not everyone want their butts kick on the course the way it happens during an ultra.
Yes I know people who do multiple ultras I also know people who do multiple marathons.
I've met Scott Jurek and you can see he runs trails and ultras because he loves it, he ran Badwater because everyone said he couldn't do it and he should stick to the trails yet he won it without training in the heat. You did make some great points but these are hard races to run and sometimes it's not even how fast it's mental toughness. Do you think many people can run a 9 minute mile for 100 miles? You have to give credit where credit is do.
Tomarrow run 5 hours non stop (i do that on a daily basis) but i still never ran an ultra yet, but see how your mind and legs feel after that. Or run a mountain from one summit to the next.
Hello,
Interesting article, quite well documented...
BUT, it clearly demonstrates that you know nothing about ultra running experience lol! You seem to be the king of guy who claims that what other people do is easier than what you do yourself...
Just try it (a 100K will be enough) and post again about it, I'm curious!
JP (novice and happy ultra runner)
I am glad you seem to have quit blogging. You are a stupid dumbass idiot and we are all worse off for having spent time reading your diarreah.
You commenting at all about ultras when you've never run one (road or trail) is about as valuable and relevant as a high school dropout lecturing someone on advanced physics.
As Ray said, do the math on a 4h51m 50 mile race. Do the math on a 12h 100 mile race.
Retard.
He will present his plans to the Italian senate ahead of a confidence vote in the upper house.
Mr Monti, who has unveiled a cabinet of technocrats, has revealed little about his plans, but they are expected to follow demands made by the EU.
vegas strippersfree porn
Post a Comment