Now that 26.2 miles is mainstream, more people—including elite road racers—are considering ultra distances and what it takes to finish them.

i didn't read past this subheading. As someone who has volunteered at multiple 100 mile distance races, no, way too many do NOT consider what it takes to finish 100 miles. Dropout rates of 50% or higher are very typical and prove that point.  While I'm talking trails I'm not talking the difficult 100 milers but the easier ones.  People need to cool their shit about 100 milers.

My "distance PR" is 46.8 miles

One day I would like to beat the 50 mile mark in a 12 hour timed race.

100 miles,within the time cutoffs, is simply beyond what most people can do.

Did not read the article, but probably a fair comparison. Marathon participation has of course exploded in the last couple decades, as it has gone from a very niche activity to one that it seems anyone who starts getting into running talks about doing. The old timers will be happy to point how much average finish times have increased over the years, as the fields have been diluted with newer/slower/undertrained runners. But following the same trend for 100's is somewhat disconcerting, as you can do a lot more damage to yourself in an undertrained 100 than an undertrained marathon.

Let me preface: this is not a knock on anyone pace.

 

There is a huge difference between completing a run event and completing (racing) one well.  There are plenty of things I can do. Currently I can not run 100 miles, nor 50 straight. I can run 26.2 but not well (5k shape is not marathon shape).

 

For the article to call the 100 miler the new ''marathon" trivializes the marathon.

 

Of course my 'bucket list' requirements are not the same as others. At this point in my career I have no intention of running/ racing over 26.2 miles.  My only intention is to run/ race up to that distance well.

Of course there is no argument with the first point, but I don't think I understand what you mean by the second statement.

Yes per what HL posted.

The marathon regardless of the increasing number of finishers is not and never will be an easy distance.

To race one well is beyond many of us on this forum. Likely there are only a handful that fall in that category. ( I do not).

Moving the 'goal post' it a longer (much) is in a way implying that the marathon is 'been there done that'.

We are not built to race that distance - that's why we depend on supplements / gels etc.

 

Moving the 'goal post' it a longer (much) is in a way implying that the marathon is 'been there done that'.

We are not built to race that distance - that's why we depend on supplements / gels etc.

Well yes I suppose it does, but as much as it trivializes the 100. And as much as the growth in marathon participation trivialized the shorter distances, among people who are less "serious" runners. The marathon is certainly "been there done that" among people who want to do something that most people aren't doing. Whatever their motivation is - some to see how far they can push themselves, some who just want to be able to say they have done things most people haven't. Because "everyone" is doing marathons now.

"Amongst ultra runners...".  Asking simply is the 100 mile race distance (because it is a race) to the ultra running community, what the marathon is (or was depending on your viewpoint) to the general running community years ago.

This was my point, and as far as I can tell, yes.

 

And I've seen on ultra running forums or in ultra running groups on FB posters saying that if you haven't run a 100 you aren't a real ultra runner and that 50K isn't a real ultra. That parallels comments I've seen on other running forums that if you haven't run a marathon you aren't a real runner.

I've seen/heard less douchiness out of ultra runners than regular runners but I'm met some class A douche ultra runners too.

So what you're really saying, "some people are real assholes."