I read this in another thread. "You can fake a marathon, but you can't fake a '100'". I don't understand this comment or see the point of it. I think you can fail to run to your max in marathon, you can have a bad day but you can't fake it. Running at seven to nine minute ks all day allows a lot more room for "faking" than running a marathon at your best pace. Anyway it's a naff comparsion. I have the utmost respect for ultra runners but covering distance isn't he only indicator of quality or character. For instance: A mum who sets herself the task of completing a marathon and does so deserves the same kind of respect as the ultrarunners who grind out miles and miles. It's all good.

geez, i'd love to fake a marathon....

I think it's called sh#t-stirring!

Ooh. I know! Is that the one where you put on a fake race number and then jump on the course about 100m from the finish? Actually, there was a woman a few years back who "won" the New York Marathon only for it to come out later that she caught the Subway. I think she was faking it.

You just breath hard and fast, get sweaty and ask if was good for the person you're with

(what was the question again?)

I don't know how...I wish I did. I assume that the thinking behind the statement was that anyone can finish a marathon but 100miles is different? I dunno, give me a couple of days and I reckon I could cover 100miles...

pffft. you'd be whipping those guys who like to prattle away about 'running' 100 miles.

Too true - I like to think I am a runner but a lot of the time I am a fast or sometimes slow walker!

Dunno about the comment though, perhaps it meant that a reasonably fit novice could muddle his way through a marathon? Though I reckon a reasonably fit novice could certainly do an ultra too if they walked most of it - which loads do anyway!

Then again there are people who do run the majority

She "finished" New York to qualify for Boston and "won" Boston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_Ruiz

Anyone who can run a 35min 10km (3min30sec/km) would have to be able to run a good 100miles. Surely?

I don't believe that I got sucked in to this.

Matt

I'll have, what she is having.

(Katie demanding the same strenght of Centrum minerals, as Oprah was taking)

As the mother of 7 children about to embark on my 1st marathon after 9 months of training, I've been telling myself that the training = the gestation while the actual marathon (hopefully less than 4 hours) = the labour. I can't even begin to imagine the horror of trying to put a 100-miler into the same analogy! I'd be asking for pain relief.

... so what does a Mum that does ultras deserve? Who cares about who respects the runner? I only ever do these races for myself. I only ever compete against myself, so nobody else really matters. I know that if I really RUN the whole marathon (yeh, ok, not fast), I feel satisfied. I don't need to win. That all said, I know that I would always have wanted to go longer if the 42.2 was the longest I had gone.... but that is just me. I don't think you should take a line out of a race report (when someone has done an ultra) and feel they are attacking anyone doing a marathon.
As you said, IT IS ALL GOOD.
....another thing, how about those women that would love to be Mums but aren't able? They are the ones that need the love, respect and support. ..... now that would be harder than an ultra.

I suppose they meant you can cut more corners in marathon training than in ultra training...and I suppose this is true. The longer the race distance the more consistent and full on the training is. Same goes for half marathon to marathon...Bit of a 'DA' comment really! I respect ANYONE who can get heaps done in their life by sacrificing, especially mothers in general and wives of ultra runners. I read Dean Karnazes and was in awe of his achievements but i had a heap of admiration and respect for his wife.

You're all reading it wrong.
You can fake a marathon - see Rosie Ruiz.
The 100 part isn't ultra, it's 100 metres.
It's very hard to fake that because people can see you the whole way.
simple really.

By faking, I think you mean "Short cutting', and claiming a better time than you are capable of, if so, in the Old Daysit was easy, but only with lots of people around.

It took the Londaon marathon committee at least 2 years to work out that the toilets at the 7 mile mark were in the same building as the 14 mile toilet, and slow runners walked into the 7 mile toilets, through the building and out at the 14mile mark.

At the GCM in 1989, at the southern end of the course(Which was about the 30km mark, I had just passed a training partner who pulled off the road to go to a toilet. He never passed me again, but beat me in by 7 mins, claiming a Sub 2-40 Marathon. A mutual friend asked me weeks later why I didn't invite him to a recent function, and I related the story, and that guy never turned up at any run since that I know of.

At the GCM this year, just after the 3-30 group went passed the finish line heading North, near Ray's resort, LSW saw a runner stop and stretch on the medium strip for about 5 mins, then head back to the finish and claim a medal.

If you look at the GCM results for this year, not only are there DNS and DNF at the end, but several runners have "DQ". Were these the runners who failed to cross the mats in the northern section of the course?

Rosie actually only run 1 mile, and the bar where she started from puts out a sign every year which says; "Rosie Started Here"

Who remembers 'Otto', from the Brisbane Marathon in the mid-1990's who at 71 yo, who not only tried to claim the Marathon win(and the Prize Money), but on National TV announced he had run the last Mile(1.6km) in 3min 30 secs?

If you google 'Rosie Ruis', you will find lots and lots of runners claiming prizes, where the race directors can't confirm that they run the full course.

But who are they cheating?

One guy caught the train at Comrades one year, and was disqualified.

When his boss found out he sacked him!!

Because if a person can't be trusted to be honest with him/herself in a recreation endeavour , how can they be trusted in business!!

We all seem to have a different interpretation of what faking it means. Digger talks about cheating, in my books.
Calling marathons lite ultras is ridiculous. I find running 5000m at my full capacity (the best pace that I can possibly sustain to the finish) a lot harder than doing the same over 30k. Following that logic I would probably find 100 miles easier than the marathon.

Digger - you're talking about cheating - not faking. I started this thread because the thread on reading about Ultra runners' autobiographies was being hijacked towards comparing ultras to shorter events.

When I saw BlueDog's friend's belief that "You can fake a marathon, but you can't fake a '100'", I thought I might see if others wanted to expand on their opinions expressed in that thread.

I think BlueDog's friend (see GH 100 thread) was suggesting that you can get away with finishing a marathon when things go wrong, or the event isn't as arduous as a 100 miler. In a 100 miler when things go wrong you are in for an "interesting " time to quote Bluedog. Interesting, meaning deep shit and a whole lot of pain over an extended time. Given that most 100 milers -because of the type of event it is - seem to place a lot of importance on completing the task, and given that the distance is whole lot further, the chance of things going wrong and things getting "interesting" are many fold. The risk is held mostly in committing to the distance. I respect that.

Most marathoners main achievement is in finishing too. I respect that because a marathon is a very daunting thing to a runner and to finish one is great thing to do -regardless of level. Yes top level marathoners can "fake" a marathon by not running hard and if things go wrong it's usually 10k from the finish, whereas, 100 miles because of the distance is not an event that you can mess with - no matter what your level. However, a lot more marathoners have goals that require a different kind of risk taking. The faster you try to run the more the chance of things going to the dogs. To maintain the intensity is something that requires a lot of honesty and confidence. I also respect this kind of running.

Seris, your post is a great example of irony : I think that a person suggesting that marathoners are "fakers" suggests that that person's intrinsic value is such that he or she needs to use external factors - such as the knowledge that there may be lesser mortals out there supposedly faking it - to elevate that self worth or to explain the failure. This is wrong- more for the person using this flawed coping method than others. Best to take responsibilty for a disappointing outcome.

Seris, if a mum doing a marathon deserves respect, it follows that one doing an ultra also deserves respect. Didn't I say that a mum "deserves the same kind of respect as ultrarunners who grind out miles and miles". When she became one why would she be any different? Your point escapes me.

Also Seris your defensiveness and your idea that it could be believed that others were being attacked suggests that it is a possibilty. You have to really respect yourself before you can respect others who deserve it.

Lactate, I'd have a bit of a think about that. Twenty-hours on your feet is hardcore.

Yeah, maybe you`re right and I underestimate the strengh required for such events, but what makes the comparisons so pointless is the fact that you are not comparing like with like.
When I started running my job was doing 8hrs a day of lifting heavy boxes which made me think I was tough. Well, it made me tough at lifting boxes but did not make running any easier. Likewise, as a fairly fit runner I went for a 50 mile walk with some non runners who made me look like a right whimp.

I think it is important to remember the context of the comment. Assuming it was in an ultra thread, it would have been about finishing a 100miler and I an agree with the statement from an Ultra runners point of view. Most Marathon training schedules have long runs peaking at about 32-35k, But my longest run before my first marathon was 28k and I know plenty of others who ran less than that. I think the point is you CAN cut corners in training for a marathon - provided your goal is to just finish (having time goals is a whole new ball-game). It might be tough, real tough but at worst you'll only be out there 5 or 6hrs. In a 100 miler you can't fake it or cut corners because of the greater demands on the body. First you need to be fit enough, then strong enough to handle it, not to mention the fact that a 100 miler will generally last 20hrs+ so fluid intake and food become much more important than in a marathon.

Speak to Ironman triathletes and they'll likely say that you can 'fake' an olympic distance IF you're just looking to finish but you can't 'fake' an ironman. It's all about perspective and I wouldn't get too upset about the comment.

Thanks for that Nate. I was just about to slash me wrists