Ultra Discussion Thread

davedanon

Enduro wrote: »

why race 100 meters when you could instead race up and down a 100 meter field with a ball earning a fortune and the adulation of half the world!

Usain doesn't seem to mind.

Chivito550

Enduro wrote: »

I was replying to Chivitos post where he was saying that the best 24 hour runners couldn't be actually running in 24 hour races, as they would instead be attracted to the marathon etc because they are olympic events. He's too myopic to see that the same logic can be applied to any athletics event... why race 100 meters when you could instead race up and down a 100 meter field with a ball earning a fortune and the adulation of half the world!

As I said, I'm in complete agreement with your point. Athletics is a minority sport. The best that can be said about any champion in any athletics event is that they are the best of all the people who they competed against. Whether that's 100 meters, marathon, 24 hours or anything is irrelevant. It's the same.

I don't disagree with that logic though when it comes to Irish sport (I never said I did). When it comes to international sport that logic is less accurate as many nations value athletics more than we do as a nation, and some nations it is their number one (or close to number one) sport, like Jamaica, Kenya, Ethiopia. They are not minority sports in certain places. While I think there could have been other Irish sub 45 second runners if they trained specifically for it and dedicated their life to it, and weren’t lost to other sports, I doubt very much there are dozens of NFL players out there who could better Michael Johnson’s 43.18. Your logic is very accurate on an Irish level, but less so at global level.

Ultra running on the other hand is niche everywhere.

ultrapercy

Chivito550 wrote: »

I picked the 2013 World Championship 50k simply because it is the one Rob Heffernan won:

Winning time: 3:37:56
10th Place: 3:45:18 (3.4% slower)
25th Place: 3:54:24 (7.6% slower)

That pretty much mirrors the results from the 2012 Olympic Marathon but with a slight drop off for the 25th placer. Certainly far more depth than in the 100km, but you’d expect this given the race walk is an Olympic event.

I struggle to see the ,otivation behind your whole theory. We all know that ultra events have lower participation numbers and do not have the appeal of an Olympic event. The ultra world championships do attract the best ultra runners in the world. The 100m world record may be different if all the best us sprinters did not peruse the millions available in NFL Who knows ? What do you think should be done? Abandon ultra events ? Force good marathon runners to step up ? What is the best outcome for you personally? Don't say you don't care because your active participation on this and many simular threads strongly suggests otherwise.

Enduro

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Interestingly, the IAAF scoring tables do include an ultra distance event - the 100km. Is 100km an ultra distance that is frequently run/raced?

Just on that point... I would guess 100km would possibly be the most frequently raced of the ultra distances.

There are official IAU world championships in a few distances : 50km, 100km, 24 hours, and ultra trail (moving target, that one). The 50km smells to me like a marketing exercise, and is effectively being funded by Qatar at the moment.

More interesting is to look at the distances for which official records are kept (see here). But again, DUV is really the go-to place to see what matters, and this page shows their "standard" distances.

So it is very much a major classic distance in the ultra world. One of the blue ribband distances. As a result there are a lot of 100km races, relatively speaking.

Enduro

davedanon wrote: »

Usain doesn't seem to mind.

Indeed he doesn't. But he's not Pele.

average_runner

davedanon wrote: »

Usain doesn't seem to mind.

Actually he does, he already said he rather be a soccer player but not good enough at it. So Athletics was his booty call!!

davedanon

Enduro wrote: »

Indeed he doesn't. But he's not Pele.

No, he's not. But what is the difference between them, in terms of 'star status', recognisability, talent, fame, adulation, if you strip out the extra money available to soccer stars?

Is Usain a global icon, feted wherever he goes, adored by millions, and extremely rich? Of course he is. Just not quite as rich as Lionel maybe. And I'd argue that he's a bigger star.

average_runner

davedanon wrote: »

No, he's not. But what is the difference between them, in terms of 'star status', recognisability, talent, fame, adulation, if you strip out the extra money available to soccer stars?

Is Usain a global icon, feted wherever he goes, adored by millions, and extremely rich? Of course he is. Just not quite as rich as Lionel maybe. And I'd argue that he's a bigger star.

Messi would be a bigger star, Bolt is only a runner that pops up at major events, kinda like the Rock in wwe. Messi entertains all year

Chivito550

Enduro wrote: »

Just on that point... I would guess 100km would possibly be the most frequently raced of the ultra distances.

There are official IAU world championships in a few distances : 50km, 100km, 24 hours, and ultra trail (moving target, that one). The 50km smells to me like a marketing exercise, and is effectively being funded by Qatar at the moment.

More interesting is to look at the distances for which official records are kept (see here). But again, DUV is really the go-to place to see what matters, and this page shows their "standard" distances.

So it is very much a major classic distance in the ultra world. One of the blue ribband distances. As a result there are a lot of 100km races, relatively speaking.

If one ultra event was given Olympic status would you think 100km would be the best way to go? Has there been a push to achieve this? Genuinely interested.

Enduro

Chivito550 wrote: »

If one ultra event was given Olympic status would you think 100km would be the best way to go? Has there been a push to achieve this? Genuinely interested.

Personally I'd prefer 24 hours. Either event would have to happen outside the stadium so the logistics for either would be similar I'd guess. Probably 100km would be the most likely I'd guess though. Of course under the current rules another event would have to be pushed out. Personally I'd see the walks as the most vulnerable for that.

As I said earlier though, the IAU are not exactly the most brilliant governing body in existance. I'm sure they've been doing everything in their power to push for it. It's probably treated with the same level of respect and seriosness as the FAI's attempt to overturn the "Thiery Henry" result and get into the world cup. To say the least, there's no chance of any ultra event making it into the Olympics with the current politics in place.

davedanon

to be honest, I'd rather see an ultra event in the Olympics than f*ckin golf!

Enduro

Chivito550 wrote: »

I don't disagree with that logic though when it comes to Irish sport (I never said I did). When it comes to international sport that logic is less accurate as many nations value athletics more than we do as a nation, and some nations it is their number one (or close to number one) sport, like Jamaica, Kenya, Ethiopia. They are not minority sports in certain places. While I think there could have been other Irish sub 45 second runners if they trained specifically for it and dedicated their life to it, and weren’t lost to other sports, I doubt very much there are dozens of NFL players out there who could better Michael Johnson’s 43.18. Your logic is very accurate on an Irish level, but less so at global level.

Ultra running on the other hand is niche everywhere.

Jamaica, Kenya and Ethopia are a tiny tiny proportion of the world's population, or even their continents' populations. Jaysus, even cricket has a better chance of finding the best of the best if you're going to assess the merits of a sport based on the numbers of people who are likely to participate in any given specific sport, or gain rewards for doing so.

Is there anywhere that Race Walking isn't a niche sport. Do you think that race walking is devalued as there is no country in which it is a primary sport?

Chivito550

Enduro wrote: »

Jamaica, Kenya and Ethopia are a tiny tiny proportion of the world's population, or even their continents' populations. Jaysus, even cricket has a better chance of finding the best of the best if you're going to assess the merits of a sport based on the numbers of people who are likely to participate in any given specific sport, or gain rewards for doing so.

Is there anywhere that Race Walking isn't a niche sport. Do you think that race walking is devalued as there is no country in which it is a primary sport?

Well personally I would rather a bronze in the 800m or 400m Hurdles (small possibilities though unlikely) than a gold in the race walk or women’s boxing. I don’t think it is devalued, and I have presented some figures that shows the depth relative to the winner is pretty reasonable (Of course, this is only relative to the winner, and we can’t assume all winners are equal across the board). But the reality is that Olympic medals are not equal across the board, and I think most people know this.

If the 100km was admitted into the Olympics, the standard would soar from where it is now. I’m not trying to discredit the actually activity of ultra running (I have respect for the ability to push one’s body to their max, regardless of the event). I just believe that the standard in these events are soft, and that achievements in them get a bit over hyped on these type of forums, and the term “world class” gets bandied about quite easily.

I worked out the percentage difference of my 400m PB to Wayde Van Niekerk’s winning time at the World Championships last year, and applying this percentage differential to the winner of the 2014 World 100k, would have an equivalent performance in around 73rd place out of about 140 competitors (assuming that the winner of this event is of the same standard as the fastest non-American 400m runner in history, which is certainly not a valid assumption). As somebody who regularly gets smashed in the heats of nationals, I find this absolutely absurd.

Djoucer

World class ultra runners are those that are the best in the world. It's not a debate or a belief. It's a fact.

Comparing times with other sports is pointless. It's the same argument with triathlon which usually starts with "but what if..."

We have no idea if the Africans would hammer existing ultra runners or if NFL wide receivers would best current crop of sprinters.

Comes back to the old truth, you can only beat those who toe the line. And if that means besting all those in your sport, well that's World class.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

Messi would be a bigger star, Bolt is only a runner that pops up at major events, kinda like the Rock in wwe. Messi entertains all year

No way. Bolt is a one of a kind icon. Messi is just another great soccer player. Bolt is a star. The term star should only be reserved for icons. Bolt is the Muhammad Ali of track and field. He completely transcends the sport. Messi does not. There is no comparison.

Chivito550

Djoucer wrote: »

World class ultra runners are those that are the best in the world. It's not a debate or a belief. It's a fact.

Comparing times with other sports is pointless. It's the same argument with triathlon which usually starts with "but what if..."

We have no idea if the Africans would hammer existing ultra runners or if NFL wide receivers would best current crop of sprinters.

Comes back to the old truth, you can only beat those who toe the line. And if that means besting all those in your sport, well that's World class.

Ok, so gaelic football players are world class at gaelic football then?

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

No way. Bolt is a one of a kind icon. Messi is just another great soccer player. Bolt is a star. The term star should only be reserved for icons. Bolt is the Muhammad Ali of track and field. He completely transcends the sport. Messi does not. There is no comparison.

Bizarrely I agree with walshb here. Non athletics people talk about Bolt far more than I've heard non football people talk about Messi. Maybe that's because there are less "non football people" though.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Bizarrely I agree with walshb here. Non athletics people talk about Bolt far more than I've heard non football people talk about Messi. Maybe that's because there are less "non football people" though.

It's a no brainer, mate. The man is the dictionary definition of a star. A true global icon in the sporting world, and with bags of charisma. Messi is about as interesting as a smelly welly!

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

It's a no brainer, mate. The man is the dictionary definition of a star. A true global icon in the sporting world, and with bags of charisma. Messi is about as interesting as a smelly welly!

Bolt is the only marketing tool that Athletics have gotten right in a long time. He is put as hero, the man that saved athletics, while the fact remains he is a sprinter pass his best running a 100m race where there is no class unless they are cheats.

Djoucer

Chivito550 wrote: »

Ok, so gaelic football players are world class at gaelic football then?

Touché. I was mainly referring to a sport where athletes from around the world compete.

For the purpose of this debate, I had athletes in mind.

Of course, you could argue that some GAA players could've been top class athletes in another sport. It's been argued many times that the reason for Ireland's poor representation in other sports is the all encompassing GAA.

But that's way off topic so probably best if we stick to runners given the forum.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

Bolt is the only marketing tool that Athletics have gotten right in a long time. He is put as hero, the man that saved athletics, while the fact remains he is a sprinter pass his best running a 100m race where there is no class unless they are cheats.

All that does not take away from the fact that he is a global star. A phenomenon who took the sporting world by storm in 2008, and held that level of stardom. Like I said, there is no comparison. I will say that I would pay to watch Messi, but I'd pay a lot more to be up close to Bolt.

Enduro

Chivito550 wrote: »

Well personally I would rather a bronze in the 800m or 400m Hurdles (small possibilities though unlikely) than a gold in the race walk or women’s boxing. I don’t think it is devalued, and I have presented some figures that shows the depth relative to the winner is pretty reasonable (Of course, this is only relative to the winner, and we can’t assume all winners are equal across the board). But the reality is that Olympic medals are not equal across the board, and I think most people know this

Well then are we in agreement? Standards differ accross different sport and events. You can only judge against those that compete. Those that don't compete don't actually tell you that much. Different events are different.

Chivito550 wrote: »

If the 100km was admitted into the Olympics, the standard would soar from where it is now.

Now to where we disagree. Having an event in the olympics doesn't automatically mean that standards go up in and of itself. How much has the standard of Tennis increased because it became an olympic sport?

Now having an increased level of coverage will more than likely increase participation levels, and as a result raise standards. Plenty of examples of that, such as the effect of Colour Television on snooker! But these effects tend to rise and fall along with the coverage. Everyone will be a swimming expert for the first week of the olympics, but that'll change as soon as T&F starts and the emphasis of the reporting changes.

So yeah, absolutely ultrarunning would gain from being an olympic sport. However it is not a given that the top end standard will be raised. You're making the same mistake that you always do, which is that the best ultrarunners are not already ultrarunning, and that somehow having it as an olympic sport will automatically change this. This is no more likely than almost any other sport. The vast majority of people only seriously try a very limited number of sports.

Some sports have a higher bar for participation which naturally limits their participation. Ultra running is very much in that category. Triathlon would be similar in that way (and I don't think that Triathlon becoming an olympic sport made a significant difference to the growth and depth of the sport... it's still very much a minority sport which large proportions of the world don't participate in, despite olympic medals being available).

This is the advantage that sprinting has... anyone can try sprinting. You could discover your aptitude for it and then start training to get better. With ultra running it takes a big effort just to get to the point of being able to participate meaningfully. Personally I don't think that either a good or bad thing. It's just plain reality, and there is no point in battling that.

Chivito550 wrote: »

I’m not trying to discredit the actually activity of ultra running (I have respect for the ability to push one’s body to their max, regardless of the event). I just believe that the standard in these events are soft, and that achievements in them get a bit over hyped on these type of forums, and the term “world class” gets bandied about quite easily.

If you go back a few pages in this thread you'll find me arguing the point that standards are important. That anyone can run long distances... that's no achievement. The achievement with ultra running is no different to with any other distance. It is running the given distance in a good time (Where "good" could be a personal target, a race position, a national standard... whatever).

To be world class that should mean that you have the ability to compete against the best in the world. Now I don't know where you want to set the bar there. We send athletes to the olympics with absolutely no chance of medalling, but does that mean that they are not world class? (Genuinely trying to guage where you are setting the bar here). Is the whole "qualifying for Rio" thread a massive over-hype, since the marathon standard of qualification is so (relatively) low, and nobody we send is likely to get near contending for a medal (or even approach our own national record)? Again, geniune question to guage where you are setting the bar here.

I absolutely accept that the lack of relative depth means its easier to approach the top. All things being equal it's far easier to be in the top 100 of 1,000 people than to be in the top 100 of 1,000,000 people. That's basic bell-curve stats. But that does not automatically mean that the top 1 is of a lower standard. What I absolutely don't accept is that the records at the top level are soft.

Steve Way should server as an illustration as to why your assumptions about the level of ultra standards aren't as low as you assume they are.

davedanon

Enduro wrote: »

How much has the standard of Tennis increased because it became an olympic sport?

Tennis is a professional sport awash with prizemoney and with a huge audience. no comparison with ultra-running.

Enduro

davedanon wrote: »

Tennis is a professional sport awash with prizemoney and with a huge audience. no comparison with ultra-running.

And what effect do you think this has on the standard of Tennis in Ireland (or the fact that Tennis is an Olympic Sport), or the levels of participation worldwide for that matter?

davedanon

What we are talking about is a niche sport being incentivised by a carrot such as Olympics status, not an already developed, fully-professional sport like tennis. Irish tennis is mediocre because it is not mass-participation, the facilities are poor, investment non-existent and it has niche status for social reasons (ie it's perceived as a middle-class sport)

Strawman argument.

Chivito550

Enduro wrote: »

And what effect do you think this has on the standard of Tennis in Ireland (or the fact that Tennis is an Olympic Sport), or the levels of participation worldwide for that matter?

I don't have time to reply to the rest of your post at the moment, but tennis is a poor example to use. The Olympics are not the pinnacle of that sport. It has 4 major tournaments which rank ahead of it, along with numerous other high profile events with large prize money. Tennis does not need the Olympics, so no, becoming an Olympic sport will not improve the quality and depth. Young tennis players don't dream of winning Olympic gold, they dream of winning Wimbledon, or Roland Garros for example.

Sports where the Olympics are the pinnacle (which would be the case for the 100km if it were admitted) benefit from a higher profile which will raise participation levels over time. If the 100km was part of the Olympic athletics programme, then I guarantee you, you'd see a lot more athletes attempting this distance in 10 years time.

davedanon

Chivito550 wrote: »

If the 100km was part of the Olympic athletics programme, then I guarantee you, you'd see a lot more athletes attempting this distance in 10 years time.

I think that's the whole argument in a nutshell.

Enduro

davedanon wrote: »

I think that's the whole argument in a nutshell.

Just like triathlon then? (As in, I don't think, but I'm wide open to correction, that triathlon becoming an olympic sport had a huge effect on the growth of triathlon).

I actually do think it would increase participation levels by virtue of the increased publicity more than anything else. And from basic statistics this would raise the gneral standards. It would become harder to be 100th best of 10,000 than to be 100th best of 1,000. I just don't agree that it would necessarily increase the standards at the very top. It probably would unearth some new top level ultra runners, but that is not a given at all.

Another sport I paricipate in as Adventure Racing (Real adventure racing, not the silly little multisports events that gets the label in Ireland).There have been big changes over the years in the coverage that the sport gets. The levels of participation in the big races tended to go up and down with the media coverage. The people at the top was relatively stable though. The numbers participating didn't affect the standard at the very top much at all.

Enduro

davedanon wrote: »

Irish tennis is mediocre because it is not mass-participation, the facilities are poor, investment non-existent and it has niche status for social reasons (ie it's perceived as a middle-class sport)

Does this apply to race walking?
Does this apply to field athletics?

walshb

Tennis is an "expensive" sport. Walking is free.