Ultra Discussion Thread

davedanon

Triathlon is a very expensive sport. Definite barrier to mass participation there. It's also time-hungry. you're training for three different sports. Only for the relatively affluent.

davedanon

Enduro wrote: »

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

Not the most glamorous of disciplines, are they? There is precisely one young walker (no seniors) in our club, and we have hundreds of junior members. There is no tradition of field athletics here. Not since the days of Bob Tisdall anyway.

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

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

Tennis is not expensive, a good racket for 100. Replace strings once a month, cost 20 Euro, mainly in the summer, once every 3 months of lucky in winter. membership varies, but you get a good club for 200. Tennis balls last longer on the astro.

Coaching can be expensive but not needed, used to coached adults when I was in college, 150 for an hour with 4 adults.


There is way better tennis facilities than running facilities.

Djoucer

Anyone recommend a 50 mile ultra in May?

Preferably Ireland/UK or cheap options in Europe.

RacoonQueen

Djoucer wrote: »

Anyone recommend a 50 mile ultra in May?

Preferably Ireland/UK or cheap options in Europe.

Donadea on June 4th?
http://sportszone.ie/page.php?event_name=CLONTARF+HALF+MARATHON&event_id=336&club_id=87

UM1

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Donadea on June 4th?
http://sportszone.ie/page.php?event_name=CLONTARF+HALF+MARATHON&event_id=336&club_id=87

Will prob revert back to 100k and 50k

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

Tennis is not expensive, a good racket for 100. Replace strings once a month, cost 20 Euro, mainly in the summer, once every 3 months of lucky in winter. membership varies, but you get a good club for 200. Tennis balls last longer on the astro.

Coaching can be expensive but not needed, used to coached adults when I was in college, 150 for an hour with 4 adults.


There is way better tennis facilities than running facilities.

To actually make a go of it and be a talent and a real competitor the sport is somewhat expensive. Just pi$$ing about on a court with mates is not as expensive. My point was more in comparison to walking-race walking.

Enduro

davedanon wrote: »

Triathlon is a very expensive sport. Definite barrier to mass participation there. It's also time-hungry. you're training for three different sports. Only for the relatively affluent.

You're defnitely understanding one of my underlying points. There is more to making a sport popular/raising standards than just putting it in the olympics. Some events have inherent barriers. Money is an obvious one. Some have social perception issues. Some have sheer volume of time requirements to even start the sport. 24 hour running is in that last category. Kids can't just give it a go at school sports. Most adults consider the marathon to be a major undertaking requiring a huge amount of time and effort to even complete. 24 hours is an order of magnitude beyond that.

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

To actually make a go of it and be a talent and a real competitor the sport is somewhat expensive. Just pi$$ing about on a court with mates is not as expensive. My point was more in comparison to walking-race walking.

I didn't just pissed around on a court with friends, i competed in top tournaments in Ireland. And trust me my parents weren't loaded.

A friend of mine was a race walker, medal at the nationals, he spend alot more than I did on tennis.

But if you make it in onto a atp tour in tennis, even the lowest rank one, you could come out with over 100,000 a year once your smart about your money.

average_runner

Enduro wrote: »

You're defnitely understanding one of my underlying points. There is more to making a sport popular/raising standards than just putting it in the olympics. Some events have inherent barriers. Money is an obvious one. Some have social perception issues. Some have sheer volume of time requirements to even start the sport. 24 hour running is in that last category. Kids can't just give it a go at school sports. Most adults consider the marathon to be a major undertaking requiring a huge amount of time and effort to even complete. 24 hours is an order of magnitude beyond that.

The "time" to train for these events is a massive barrier for alot. With 2 small kids and with work, its hard to get out 5 times a week to train for normal races. Add core etc into that and time is eaten up.

Ron Gomall

Question on Ultra races: if you have an illness that necessitates taking a banned substance ie Morphine for pain and you are running an Ultra afterwards, where/how do you file a TUE ? I was looking up the rules and it appears that if you run and file in arrears without approval to run that you take your chances on getting banned in future events.

Anyone here have to file a TUE before, does it go to WADA or Athletics Ireland ?

Serious question on protection of reputation for genuine medical issues

Enduro

Ron Gomall wrote: »

Question on Ultra races: if you have an illness that necessitates taking a banned substance ie Morphine for pain and you are running an Ultra afterwards, where/how do you file a TUE ? I was looking up the rules and it appears that if you run and file in arrears without approval to run that you take your chances on getting banned in future events.

Anyone here have to file a TUE before, does it go to WADA or Athletics Ireland ?

Serious question on protection of reputation for genuine medical issues

Ultrarunning is governed by AAI in Ireland just like every other athletic distance(s), so I would presume the process is identical to whatever the norm is. Unfortunately I haven't a clue what that is, but would suggest phoning/emailing AAI to find out.

Krusty_Clown

Ron Gomall wrote: »

Question on Ultra races: if you have an illness that necessitates taking a banned substance ie Morphine for pain and you are running an Ultra afterwards, where/how do you file a TUE ? I was looking up the rules and it appears that if you run and file in arrears without approval to run that you take your chances on getting banned in future events.

Anyone here have to file a TUE before, does it go to WADA or Athletics Ireland ?

Serious question on protection of reputation for genuine medical issues

Irish Sports Council, no?

Enduro

Came accross this interesting research today. I'd be wondering about confounding factors, but it is still an interesting observation at the very least.

Enduro

Chivito550 wrote: »

I don't have time to reply to the rest of your post at the moment

Would still be interested to hear your response if you get the time...

Djoucer

Enduro wrote: »

Came accross this interesting research today. I'd be wondering about confounding factors, but it is still an interesting observation at the very least.

Interesting all right.

Rob Krar's key workout ahead of a big race is uphill sprints.

run uphill for three minutes at a hard effort, followed by 90 seconds of walking or easy jogging for recovery. Now repeat this sequence seven more times for a total of 8 climbs at a hard effort.

Read more at http://running.competitor.com/2014/12/training/workout-week-rob-krars-manmaker_120584#3YeHKCFFjCWKoPgd.99

He says he reserves it for the the 8-10 week training block before a big but only does it every 3 weeks or so. I thought he would need to do it more to have an affect?

Interesting interview with him below. Says his longest training run ahead of Western states was just 30 miles, (did race 50 miles though) and biggest week was only 100 miles.

http://running.competitor.com/2014/08/training/rob-krars-ultimate-advice-for-ultrarunners_111406

Chivito550

Enduro wrote: »

Would still be interested to hear your response if you get the time...

I don’t necessarily believe all ultra world records are soft. While I am of the belief that with participation from Kenyan and Ethiopian runners that these records would be broken (certainly as far as 100km anyway), I can acknowledge that the best of all time in some of these distances are of a high standard. Where the issue is with ultra disciplines is the drastic drop off from here. I illustrated this by showing how my 400m PB as a percentage of the current best in the world is equivalent to me coming 73rd out of 140ish runners in the 2014 World 100km. I am never remotely close to getting out of my heat at Irish Nationals. If this doesn’t show lack of depth in these World Championships then I don’t know what does.

So I’m not so much saying that the world records are terrible or anything, and even the medalists might be of a good standard, but when a 13% differential has you 25th in the world then it is as clear as day that the depth of competition is very poor. It’s very hard to call performances like this world class.

I’d find it hard to believe your assumption that the best ultramarathon runners out there are already doing ultramarathons. You then go onto say that there are factors which limit participation in ultra running. This to me is a contradiction to this assumption. If there are so many barriers to entry, then it stands to reason that there is talent which is going elsewhere. The prospect of government funding to compete in the Olympic Games might help break down barriers.

And I agree regarding the marathon thread. Complete hype for guys who will come nowhere (though Pollock has promise). I’ve mentioned this on the thread awhile back, how the likes of Sergiu and Clohissey get more hype on this form than Thomas Barr, who is one of the very few (maybe 3 in total) world class athletes in this country IMO.

Myles Splitz

Djoucer wrote: »

Interesting all right.

Rob Krar's key workout ahead of a big race is uphill sprints.



He says he reserves it for the the 8-10 week training block before a big but only does it every 3 weeks or so. I thought he would need to do it more to have an affect?

Interesting interview with him below. Says his longest training run ahead of Western states was just 30 miles, (did race 50 miles though) and biggest week was only 100 miles.

http://running.competitor.com/2014/08/training/rob-krars-ultimate-advice-for-ultrarunners_111406

I know more traditional road runners have moved past Lydiard style singular periodization which would see alot more of this style work to add it even to base phase but use it sparingly to not compromise aerobic development.

The mentality has become speed needs to be all year kept in touch with all year round so I can see the logic of adding these sparsely to an ultra runners program

Enduro wrote: »

Tim Noakes uses the term a lot for his HFLC dietry guidlines. And being Tim Noakes it is very much performance related. Add performance to the google search terms!

Saw this pop up this morning

http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/tim-noakes-on-trial

Enduro

Chivito550 wrote: »

I don’t necessarily believe all ultra world records are soft. While I am of the belief that with participation from Kenyan and Ethiopian runners that these records would be broken (certainly as far as 100km anyway), I can acknowledge that the best of all time in some of these distances are of a high standard. Where the issue is with ultra disciplines is the drastic drop off from here. I illustrated this by showing how my 400m PB as a percentage of the current best in the world is equivalent to me coming 73rd out of 140ish runners in the 2014 World 100km. I am never remotely close to getting out of my heat at Irish Nationals. If this doesn’t show lack of depth in these World Championships then I don’t know what does.

So I’m not so much saying that the world records are terrible or anything, and even the medalists might be of a good standard, but when a 13% differential has you 25th in the world then it is as clear as day that the depth of competition is very poor. It’s very hard to call performances like this world class.

I’d find it hard to believe your assumption that the best ultramarathon runners out there are already doing ultramarathons. You then go onto say that there are factors which limit participation in ultra running. This to me is a contradiction to this assumption. If there are so many barriers to entry, then it stands to reason that there is talent which is going elsewhere. The prospect of government funding to compete in the Olympic Games might help break down barriers.

And I agree regarding the marathon thread. Complete hype for guys who will come nowhere (though Pollock has promise). I’ve mentioned this on the thread awhile back, how the likes of Sergiu and Clohissey get more hype on this form than Thomas Barr, who is one of the very few (maybe 3 in total) world class athletes in this country IMO.

Good reply thanks... will respond later.

Djoucer

Chivito550 wrote: »

I illustrated this by showing how my 400m PB as a percentage of the current best in the world is equivalent to me coming 73rd out of 140ish runners in the 2014 World 100km.

You might as well put down your highest snooker break for all the relevance it has to a 100km finish.

Chivito550

Djoucer wrote: »

You might as well put down your highest snooker break for all the relevance it has to a 100km finish.

You just don’t get it do you? I’m not saying a 400m time is an indicator of 100km ability. What I am saying is that my 400m PB is a certain percentage differential (around 26%) compared to the time that won the World Championship in Beijing last year. With that time I can run, I am simply a club level runner who usually places in the bottom 2-3 of all entries at Nationals (actually I was last the time I ran that PB at Nationals). Granted there are plenty slower who don’t enter Nationals but that’s beside the point.

Now if you were to compete in the World 100km Championships in 2014 and ran 26% slower than the winner of that men’s race, you would place 73rd of 140ish runners. This shows quite clearly that the depth in this World Championship event is terrible.

Another example. 25th in the 2014 World 100k was 13% slower than the winner. If you were 13% slower than the winner of last year’s World 400m you’d be running 49.0, which is 3.6 seconds slower than the standard needed to qualify for the World Championships, and is around the level the women’s title is won in.

So, bringing in stupid comments about snooker breaks is a feeble attempt to discredit simple maths. I’m sorry if you don’t like these simple maths, and if it shows up your discipline for lacking in depth.

Djoucer

I completely get it.

Just completely disagree with your 400 metres comparison and the conclusions you draw from the results. Nothing do with trying to discredit your maths.

There are all sorts of variables to consider rather than the simple conclusion of running 26% slower would get you 73rd position.

I'm suggesting the figure of 26% and extrapolating to another discipline is meaningless. It's a nice stat but doesn't mean anything.

Chivito550

Djoucer wrote: »

I completely get it.

Just completely disagree with your 400 metres comparison and the conclusions you draw from the results. Nothing do with trying to discredit your maths.

There are all sorts of variables to consider rather than the simple conclusion of running 26% slower would get you 73rd position.

I'm suggesting the figure of 26% and extrapolating to another discipline is meaningless. It's a nice stat but doesn't mean anything.

It gives a reasonable idea as to the level of depth in both events.

What sort of variables? These variables would affect everyone. In the end of the day it is a race over a specified distance. The 30th place runner is miles behind the winner compared to how far 30th place is behind the winner in events from 100m to marathon. There's just no getting away from that.

Djoucer

Would higher DNFs, bigger chance of blowing up, poor race tactics etc not lead to a bigger drop off in times compared to 400 metres? Genuine question.

For example, in the 2014 race that you mention, there was 57 DNFs with just 143 finishers. More than 25% of the field didn't finish the race.

That's a factor and does question the depth argument.

I've followed a few ultra races where the depth of the field was considered to be "the deepest ever." The race goes off and of the top 10 men, a few of those will blow up spectacularly and DNF. You'll then have a few outsiders benefit and run into the top 10 etc but way off the pace.

The finish stats will show some people ran fairly average times but finished up reasonably high up the field.

But the stats will ignore the talented runners who dropped out, as is the case in most races. I don’t think you see quite the same attrition rates in say 400 metres?

ThisRegard

Chivito550 wrote: »

I’m sorry if you don’t like these simple maths, and if it shows up your discipline for lacking in depth.

The problem here is that you're simplifying maths too much. You simple cannot use your formula and apply it to every event.

Enduro

Djoucer wrote: »

Would higher DNFs, bigger chance of blowing up, poor race tactics etc not lead to a bigger drop off in times compared to 400 metres? Genuine question.

For example, in the 2014 race that you mention, there was 57 DNFs with just 143 finishers. More than 25% of the field didn't finish the race.

That's a factor and does question the depth argument.

I've followed a few ultra races where the depth of the field was considered to be "the deepest ever." The race goes off and of the top 10 men, a few of those will blow up spectacularly and DNF. You'll then have a few outsiders benefit and run into the top 10 etc but way off the pace.

The finish stats will show some people ran fairly average times but finished up reasonably high up the field.

But the stats will ignore the talented runners who dropped out, as is the case in most races. I don’t think you see quite the same attrition rates in say 400 metres?

You're both correct IMHO.

There is definitely less depth in longer ultras. The longer you go the less depth you get. One factor in this is that the barrier to entry to even compete in the events (even if it is just a mental barrier that people can't envision that they have the ability to run substancially longer than the marathon) is so high. So numbers of participants reduce as events get longer. There are practical reasons as well of course. Training time, Time off required to even participate in the races (you can't just turn up for a summer evening 100km ). Numbers fall off a cliff when you go beyond 24 hours, so of course the comparitive depth isn't there. For 6 day racing I'd say the effective depth of truely competitive runners worldwide is miniscule (and that's my best distance at the moment). The few people at the top are still pushing out excellent performances though.

But I absolutely agree with djoucer's point. The race you descibed sounds like the UTMB to me. Every year you see some of the best ultra trail runners in the world DNF that one. As I said in another post, in my own case I have more bad than good 24 hour performances, but because you can't DNF a 24 hour they just show up as a poor distances (But to me they are effectively DNFs). The longer the distance the more extreme the effect of performance degradation on a bad day(s) will be, in my experience.

walshb

Just because more people participate in a discipline does not mean the depth pool is better or more competitive. It's a silly way to look at it, and an inaccurate comparison tool. There are many many many people across the globe participating in ultra racing. That is all that matters!

Chivito550

Djoucer wrote: »

Would higher DNFs, bigger chance of blowing up, poor race tactics etc not lead to a bigger drop off in times compared to 400 metres? Genuine question.

For example, in the 2014 race that you mention, there was 57 DNFs with just 143 finishers. More than 25% of the field didn't finish the race.

That's a factor and does question the depth argument.

I've followed a few ultra races where the depth of the field was considered to be "the deepest ever." The race goes off and of the top 10 men, a few of those will blow up spectacularly and DNF. You'll then have a few outsiders benefit and run into the top 10 etc but way off the pace.

The finish stats will show some people ran fairly average times but finished up reasonably high up the field.

But the stats will ignore the talented runners who dropped out, as is the case in most races. I don’t think you see quite the same attrition rates in say 400 metres?

Firstly, let me make a correction. I had included men and women in that 73rd out of 140 stat above. Of the men in the 2014 World 100km Championship, a 26% differential to the winner would place 57th out of 91. Just wanted to clear up that error I made. The overall point still stands though.

I can't see any DNF's listed in the results I am looking at here on http://www.iau-ultramarathon.org/ but I will take your word for it.

I agree there will be far more DNFs than in a 400m. But I'd also guess that the strongest runners are less likely to DNF than the weakest. In any case, if we assume the DNFs are reasonably spread out throughout the field (equal chance that a strong athlete will DNF as a weak one will) then being 26% off the winning time will still have you comfortably mid pack, if there were no DNFs at all.

I do accept your point though, but believe it would only very slightly explain the huge drop off in standard as you drop down the field, relative to events from 100m to the marathon.

In those 2014 World 100km Championships, the 80th place male (of 91), completed the distance in 9:08:18 which is a massive 41% slower than the winning time. So somebody who was deemed good enough to compete in a World Championships, and also good enough to easily avoid finishing last, was 41% down on the winner. If the Olympic marathon was won in 2:08 (for arguments sake), this would equate to a 3:00 marathon. Nobody running 3:00 would ever be deemed worthy of a national vest.

The lack of depth is clear for all to see.

Enduro

I think we agree about a lot more than we disagree about...

Chivito550 wrote: »

I don’t necessarily believe all ultra world records are soft. While I am of the belief that with participation from Kenyan and Ethiopian runners that these records would be broken (certainly as far as 100km anyway), I can acknowledge that the best of all time in some of these distances are of a high standard.

Whilst I agree that the probabilies are good that Kenyan's and Ethiopian runners could do well, I don't think you can assume anything without evidence. Not one of them has looked at the difficulty of becoming competitive in marathon and decided that a potentially easier way to the good life would be to exploit any opportunities available in becoming 100km world champion. In fact the only time I know of where kenyans competed at an ultra event they showed the (obvious to ultrarunners) limitations of the thinking that being good at marathons will mean you'll be good at ultras.

I'll embed it again, in case you missed it (from about 33 minutes on for the trail ultra with the Kenyans).

As it happens personally, I find the level of worship towards the Kenyans on this forum to be totally OTT. I enjoyed seeing them all loose the last olympic marathon as a result, when if you'd read this forum you'd think the only thing at issue is how the Kenyans would share the medals amongst themselves.

Chivito550 wrote: »

Where the issue is with ultra disciplines is the drastic drop off from here. I illustrated this by showing how my 400m PB as a percentage of the current best in the world is equivalent to me coming 73rd out of 140ish runners in the 2014 World 100km. I am never remotely close to getting out of my heat at Irish Nationals. If this doesn’t show lack of depth in these World Championships then I don’t know what does.

So I’m not so much saying that the world records are terrible or anything, and even the medalists might be of a good standard, but when a 13% differential has you 25th in the world then it is as clear as day that the depth of competition is very poor. It’s very hard to call performances like this world class.

As in the reply above, I generally agree that the depth is less in longer events. I think it is likely it will always be so. The higher the entry barrier to an event, the less likely people are to compete. Especially if its an event without any junior participation.

As for the description "world class", and where it should be applied... again it's all about where we set the bar, hence my questions on how you apply it to the marathoners in my previous post. so....

Chivito550 wrote: »

I’d find it hard to believe your assumption that the best ultramarathon runners out there are already doing ultramarathons. You then go onto say that there are factors which limit participation in ultra running. This to me is a contradiction to this assumption. If there are so many barriers to entry, then it stands to reason that there is talent which is going elsewhere. The prospect of government funding to compete in the Olympic Games might help break down barriers.

Yeah, I was kinda contradicting myself alright. What I'm trying to say I suppose is that people will generally gravitate towards what they are good at, particularly if they think they can compete at a high level. Obviously making 100km an olympic event won't change anyone's inate ability to compte at the distance. To raise the standards at the top this would need to snag runners who are "hidden" in other distances who haven't given longer distances a go. I just reckon that a large proportion of people who could be truely competivie and would be willing to go through the high bar of getting the training done to really compete at the top (abondoning their proficiency at shorter distances in the process) is a lot less than your assuming. I think the depth of race walking, and the number of countries which effectively compete in race walking illustrate this well.

Chivito550 wrote: »

And I agree regarding the marathon thread. Complete hype for guys who will come nowhere (though Pollock has promise). I’ve mentioned this on the thread awhile back, how the likes of Sergiu and Clohissey get more hype on this form than Thomas Barr, who is one of the very few (maybe 3 in total) world class athletes in this country IMO.

Given the level you've set the bar at for describing athletes/performances as world class. i.e. that none of the current Irish marathoners are truely world class as described etc, then on that basis I would concur with your opinions on performance of the athletes < 25th in the 100km not being world class.

When you explain out your thinking I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree. Believe me, I get annoyed about the over-use of "world class", "legend" etc as well. I also think the bar should be high.

Chivito550

Enduro wrote: »

I think we agree about a lot more than we disagree about...



Whilst I agree that the probabilies are good that Kenyan's and Ethiopian runners could do well, I don't think you can assume anything without evidence. Not one of them has looked at the difficulty of becoming competitive in marathon and decided that a potentially easier way to the good life would be to exploit any opportunities available in becoming 100km world champion. In fact the only time I know of where kenyans competed at an ultra event they showed the (obvious to ultrarunners) limitations of the thinking that being good at marathons will mean you'll be good at ultras.

I'll embed it again, in case you missed it (from about 33 minutes on for the trail ultra with the Kenyans).

As it happens personally, I find the level of worship towards the Kenyans on this forum to be totally OTT. I enjoyed seeing them all loose the last olympic marathon as a result, when if you'd read this forum you'd think the only thing at issue is how the Kenyans would share the medals amongst themselves.



As in the reply above, I generally agree that the depth is less in longer events. I think it is likely it will always be so. The higher the entry barrier to an event, the less likely people are to compete. Especially if its an event without any junior participation.

As for the description "world class", and where it should be applied... again it's all about where we set the bar, hence my questions on how you apply it to the marathoners in my previous post. so....



Yeah, I was kinda contradicting myself alright. What I'm trying to say I suppose is that people will generally gravitate towards what they are good at, particularly if they think they can compete at a high level. Obviously making 100km an olympic event won't change anyone's inate ability to compte at the distance. To raise the standards at the top this would need to snag runners who are "hidden" in other distances who haven't given longer distances a go. I just reckon that a large proportion of people who could be truely competivie and would be willing to go through the high bar of getting the training done to really compete at the top (abondoning their proficiency at shorter distances in the process) is a lot less than your assuming. I think the depth of race walking, and the number of countries which effectively compete in race walking illustrate this well.



Given the level you've set the bar at for describing athletes/performances as world class. i.e. that none of the current Irish marathoners are truely world class as described etc, then on that basis I would concur with your opinions on performance of the athletes < 25th in the 100km not being world class.

When you explain out your thinking I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree. Believe me, I get annoyed about the over-use of "world class", "legend" etc as well. I also think the bar should be high.

There’s too much money to be won by D list Kenyans winning D list marathons like Dublin (not meant as an insult to the organisation, but it is way down the list of races that top marathon runners would run in), and other marathons in small to medium cities around Europe and the rest of the world. You can run 2:17 and come away with good prize money. It’s hard to imagine any Kenyan who makes a decent living out of marathon running every contemplating running the 100km, so as a result I am guessing that those odd Kenyans who would target it are of an inferior standard. If the 100km was admitted into the Olympics it would provide an extra incentive but the take up might still be low. I think it’s in European nations and other reasonably wealthy nations where you’d see a big increase in depth and standards.

On the world class terminology. In my time of watching athletics from 1994 onwards, we have probably have had no more than a dozen truly world class athletes. Sonia O’Sullivan, Nick Sweeney, Cathernina McKiernan, Susan Smith, Gillian O’Sullivan, Rob Heffernan, Olive Loughnane, Derval O’Rourke, David Gillick, Paul Hession, Mark English, Thomas Barr, maybe Eileen O'Keefe and Deirdre Ryan (though they were really a once-off). That’s the type of bar I would set when it comes to being World Class, somebody who is hitting top 10 in an Olympic discipline. With the race walk I would probably put it at top 6. I wouldn’t even classify Fionnuala Britton as world class.