The toughest race in Ireland...

...yes I know that it's impossible to compare and a flying 10km might be harder than a 50km jaunt across mountains.

But it doesn't prevent harmless conjecture.

Just finished the Mournes Skyline for the 2nd year, and it's pretty brutal. 35 km and a claimed 3,400m ascent - though think most say it's not that much. The distance and overall ascent would be fine in some contexts, but in the Mournes it's climb and descend again and again over some very unpleasant terrain with grinding uphills and slick descents.

So what would you pick out as your toughest?

tang1

The Clare Burren Half Marathon, I ain't a mountain goat but this was my toughest race I'd say. Also the most scenic race I ever ran.

pconn062

I'm gonna say the National Senior 1500m final.

Depends on your definition of tough though, definitely tough to get in to!

Myles Splitz

pconn062 wrote: »

I'm gonna say the National Senior 1500m final.

Depends on your definition of tough though, definitely tough to get in to!

Was gonna say Interclub XC myself all best athletes across various disciplines how often do you get Olympians not making top 10!

Sacksian

I'll go with men's Senior Interclubs XC for the same reason - the best of the distance track runners (including 1500m runners!) against the best of the marathon and road guys. Even if you're at the back, you're going to be grinding by the end of it.

Sacksian

If it's toughest race I ran in, I'll go with the novice xc course in WIT in 2013.

zulutango

Toughest I've done is probably the Lugnaquilla mountain race.

Chivito550

National 400m hurdles. 100% the toughest race in Ireland to win right now.

denis160

zulutango wrote: »

Toughest I've done is probably the Lugnaquilla mountain race.

Is that the 1 that starts in mecreddin village?

Myles Splitz

Chivito550 wrote: »

National 400m hurdles. 100% the toughest race in Ireland to win right now.

Not if your name is Barr

FWIW I don't disagree with you that it's hardest to win as he is currently our top athlete but I don't think that qualifies it as toughest race. On any given day a clipped hurdle, fall, DNS could dramatically change that coupled with the fact that it only had 10 entrants this year with a winning time that is over 3 seconds below his best.

Slogger Jogger

denis160 wrote: »

Is that the 1 that starts in mecreddin village?

The Lug mountain race starts up the road from Fentons Glen of Imaal.
The Macreddin race is Run the Rock.

Very subjective question on the toughness. It will be a different answer depending on the distance that is your focus.

Myles Splitz

Sacksian wrote: »

If it's toughest race I ran in, I'll go with the novice xc course in WIT in 2013.

Gonna go with the infamous ALSAA All Ireland Championships a few years back myself (was only a whippersnapper so not in the senior race). Remember the mud being so bad and race so congested a guy fell in front of me and despite my best efforts to hurdle him caught his shoulder and went down with about 6 others. Shortly after emerged from the ground

ThisRegard

Not trolling here, but can you really say most road or any track race contends for the toughest race in Ireland(unless they're exceptionally long, or hilly)? The unhealthiest of people can start and finish a 400 metre track race.

The question wasn't what's the toughest to win.

ger664

I wouldn't fancy trying to jump over hurdles at speed.

ThisRegard

Even elite hudlers can finish without hurdling each jump successfully. But a 400 metre race isn't required to have hurdles anyway. Anyway, an unfit person could still manage it without being completely wrecked at the end.

Myles Splitz

ThisRegard wrote: »

Not trolling here, but can you really say most road or any track race contends for the toughest race in Ireland(unless they're exceptionally long, or hilly)? The unhealthiest of people can start and finish a 400 metre track race.

The question wasn't what's the toughest to win.

Personally in 20 years of racing the following races stand out in this order to me:

5) Irish Schools Mountain Running Championship
4) National Leagues - 400m Hurdles
3) Graded 800m
2) National Leagues Steeplechase
1) Inter Clubs Cross Country - 10k cross country

I don't think duration or length is the issue and while most people can finish a 400m very few can actually push themselves to run it at a level it hurts. Similarly I have done marathons as a pacer and have not pushed myself to the level of discomfort (opinion may change this time next week )

ger664

tang1 wrote: »

The Clare Burren Half Marathon, I ain't a mountain goat but this was my toughest race I'd say. Also the most scenic race I ever ran.

100% agree on this. It is harder then the Marathon Course, especially in wet conditions.

Chivito550

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Not if your name is Barr

FWIW I don't disagree with you that it's hardest to win as he is currently our top athlete but I don't think that qualifies it as toughest race. On any given day a clipped hurdle, fall, DNS could dramatically change that coupled with the fact that it only had 10 entrants this year with a winning time that is over 3 seconds below his best.

Low number of entrants because most guys don't have the balls to try that event (myself included) and face almost certain public humiliation at snotting themselves over the 6th or 7th hurdle.

Toughest race = toughest to win. Right now those races toughest to win are men's 400 hurdles, women's 1500 and men's 800. Any other reason for a race being described as "the toughest" is just gimmick really.

Suppose in terms of depth it would be men's 400. With the other 3 events if the standout competitor is injured the difficulty drops significantly while the 400 is stacked. Hardest top 8 in Ireland to make no doubt.

ThisRegard

Nobody even suggested a 'rave', never mind ranking it as tough, nor a race.

Tough to win does not equate to it being a tough race. Fat Mick will never win a 100 metre sprint, nor a 10k. But you can be sure of which he finds tougher.

Chivito550

ThisRegard wrote: »

Not trolling here, but can you really say most road or any track race contends for the toughest race in Ireland(unless they're exceptionally long, or hilly)? The unhealthiest of people can start and finish a 400 metre track race.

The question wasn't what's the toughest to win.

Any race is easy to finish. Any clown can walk a marathon (no different to somebody shuffling through 400 really), do a 24 hour race with multiple sleeps and sambo breaks, or walk around the world (if they have the time, money and no life).

Chivito550

ThisRegard wrote: »

Nobody even suggested a 'rave', never mind ranking it as tough, nor a race.

Tough to win does not equate to it being a tough race. Fat Mick will never win a 100 metre sprint, nor a 10k. But you can be sure of which he finds tougher.

Pure nonsense really. So the toughness of a race is determined by how tough it is to the fat, unhealthy and unfit (aka people who are not athletes).

Chivito550

Worthy mention to the decathlon but not sure it counts as a race.

ThisRegard

No, but you're the one who brought up 'raves', before your edit, which nobody had mentioned. But I can run a 400 metre race tomorrow and wouldn't find it particularly tough.

One things for sure though, we know which athletes won't be winning the athletes with the toughest skin competition.

Myles Splitz

Chivito550 wrote: »

Any race is easy to finish. Any clown can walk a marathon (no different to somebody shuffling through 400 really), do a 24 hour race with multiple sleeps and sambo breaks, or walk around the world (if they have the time, money and no life).

Not gonna get into a pointless argument but we are not just talking about going for an amble.

Giving 100% effort in each event I don't believe that all events are fully equal however they are probably not as far off as people want you to believe when talking about their own event (we all have a bias towards our own events because effort is result of work we put in to get out performance)

The issue is that effort isn't always equal in approach to all events but a sprinter can be just as lazy as a marathon/ultra marathon runner or vice versa in there approach in relation to their peers.

Chivito550

ThisRegard wrote: »

No, but you're the one who brought up 'raves', before your edit, which nobody had mentioned. But I can run a 400 metre race tomorrow and wouldn't find it particularly tough.

One things for sure though, we know which athletes won't be winning the athletes with the toughest skin competition.

If you don't find 400 tough then you haven't actually raced it.

ThisRegard

I said particularly tough.

Chivito550

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Not gonna get into a pointless argument but we are not just talking about going for an amble.

Giving 100% effort in each event I don't believe that all events are fully equal however they are probably not as far off as people want you to believe when talking about their own event (we all have a bias towards our own events because effort is result of work we put in to get out performance)

The issue is that effort isn't always equal in approach to all events but a sprinter can be just as lazy as a marathon/ultra marathon runner or vice versa in there approach in relation to their peers.

Many people seem to be talking about going for an amble if you read their posts.

Chivito550

Regarding the whole notion of toughness, I've lost count of the amount of people who have come down to train with us and they haven't lasted 2 weeks before they have disappeared. Partly injury related, and partly not able to hack the training. Far easier to be in a comfort zone among the masses really than grind out fast 200s.

Myles Splitz

Chivito550 wrote: »

Many people seem to be talking about going for an amble if you read their posts.

Have a look through posts:

2 x Mountain Marathon
Hill Half marathon
National 1500m
Inter Clubs XC

These are the only races mentioned you are using a strawman argument here to rant about an all too familiar topic.

Myles Splitz

Chivito550 wrote: »

Regarding the whole notion of toughness, I've lost count of the amount of people who have come down to train with us and they haven't lasted 2 weeks before they have disappeared. Partly injury related, and partly not able to hack the training. Far easier to be in a comfort zone among the masses really than grind out fast 200s.

And how would that be any different to someone coming down to a distance training group and not being able to hack keeping up with 3 min km reps etc? The difference being is that there is no alternative level in sprints due o the lower numbers of sprinters. In an ideal world there would be a larger base of sprinters but its simply not true.

You can run fast and still be in your comfort zone with regards training.

Chivito550

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Have a look through posts:

2 x Mountain Marathon
Hill Half marathon
National 1500m
Inter Clubs XC

These are the only races mentioned you are using a strawman argument here to rant about an all too familiar topic.

Nope. There's a few posts where people are saying anyone can run a 100, 400 etc, as if that's some kind of barometer of toughness.

Chivito550

Myles Splitz wrote: »

And how would that be any different to someone coming down to a distance training group and not being able to hack keeping up with 3 min km reps etc? The difference being is that there is no alternative level in sprints due o the lower numbers of sprinters. In an ideal world there would be a larger base of sprinters but its simply not true.

You can run fast and still be in your comfort zone with regards training.

Never said it was any different. We are both on the same page as each other with stuff as we understand track. It's the others who have no experience whatsoever with short distances who I'm argueing with. Those who seem to think it's easier because Peggy from accounts who is 3 stone oversight could "finish it". These type of people who are overweight and unfit are not athletes and are not a measure of how tough one athletic event is compared to the other. In that case may aswell say synchronised swimming is tougher than football because any oul lad can kick a ball.

ThisRegard

Chivito550 wrote: »

Nope. There's a few posts where people are saying anyone can run a 100, 400 etc, as if that's some kind of barometer of toughness.

You're reading what you want to. But the truth is, and you need to learn to accept it, is that events you race in aren't amongst the toughest.

You tried to change the goalposts from the outset by saying that toughest means hardest to win.

Chivito550

ThisRegard wrote: »

You're reading what you want to. But the truth is, and you need to learn to accept it, is that events you race in aren't amongst the toughest.

You tried to change the goalposts from the outset by saying that toughest means hardest to win.

I'd completely disagree and it is often said among the track and field community both internationally and locally that the toughest distances are 400 and 800.

ThisRegard

Oh, the international track and field crowd said that? Why didn't you say so from the beginning. Thread closed so.

Chivito550

ThisRegard wrote: »

Oh, the international track and field crowd said that? Why didn't you say so from the beginning. Thread closed so.

Hard to take your dismissive comments seriously when you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

For the record, my opinion is that all events and distances are bloody tough if done right.

ThisRegard

So at this point have you decided to use the I'm no longer taking your posts seriously as you don't know what you're talking about remark. Is it because I'm not agreeing with you and the international track and field crowd? I started doing track and field in the 80s, i even practised my starts on starting blocks.

The question was what's the toughest race, not don't we all have lovely tough races.

Chivito550

ThisRegard wrote: »

So at this point have you decided to us the I'm no longer taking your posts seriously as you don't know what you're talking about remark. Is it because I'm not agreeing with you and the international track and field crowd? I started doing track and field in the 80s, i even practised my starts on starting blocks.

The question was what's the toughest race, not don't we all have lovely tough races.

To be honest you're more likely to find something tougher if not prepared for it. Toughest race I've ever done was Rathfarnham 5k last year. It was misery. But I was not trained for it and paced myself dreadfully. I find 800s tougher than 400s because again I wasn't prepared for them. I'm sure if you got a trained 10k runner to try a 400 race all out effort it would be a miserable experience.

Anyway I'll bow out and stick with 400 hurdles as my pick. There's a reason it's called the Mankiller.

Sacksian

For me, the length of time it takes to recover and the amount of time you spend as close to or over the redline physiologically during the event are going to be considerations in terms of what qualifies as toughest.

There's not a hope in hell that the 800m qualifies under that description. And I say that as someone whose favourite event is the 800m. Compared to 10k xc, it's handy. I've also run a 400 and that was even handier. In terms of intensity, I'd take a marathon over 10k xc too.

El Caballo

Sacksian wrote: »

If it's toughest race I ran in, I'll go with the novice xc course in WIT in 2013.

Haha, I love that course. Not many long distance races where the pace nearly hits sub 4 a few times. The most insane climb and downhill section I've ever seen on any XC course.

ger664 wrote: »

I wouldn't fancy trying to jump over hurdles at speed.

Or even worse, not jumping at speed like the steeplechase. I've never experienced anything like the dread of approaching a barrier in a steeple when the legs have turned to a jittery jello mess where you're not sure if you are running fast enough to clear the barrier nevermind strong enough to land at the otherside without your legs buckling:pac: Most races will be forgiving for slowing down but not the steeplechase, the more you slow, the harder the jumps become.

12k of mudfest XC on a freezing day in November= /thread. That's what Munster senior ended up being last year and was the toughest race I've ever ran. I've a lot of respect for the track distances but most meets would be cancelled if they had to deal with the conditions that XC faces so I couldn't give any track race the nod. Conditions for munster intermediate this year were so bad (in the minuses with gale force winds and hailstones the size of marbles) that the Munster board started the race 10 minutes after the women's race went off and talked about shortening the race to 5k just so they could get in out of it and they weren't even running.

The toughest races imo are XC because of all the conditions that have to be dealt with along with the competition. XC is the tough athletes domain imo.

yaboya1

Chivito550 wrote: »

If you don't find 400 tough then you haven't actually raced it.

You could say the same for any race of any distance.

Sacksian

El Caballo wrote: »

Haha, I love that course. Not many long distance races where the pace nearly hits sub 4 a few times. The most insane climb and downhill section I've ever seen on any XC course.

My memory (which I'm sure is faulty) of that course is that it involved climbing for more or less 1200m, followed by a breakneck 400m! Masters XC is there next year, for anyone who wants to relive it.

Avondale is easier and a bit more fun - flat 350, down 600, flat 50, up 600. Mudwise, Dungarvan novice xc last year was pretty bad, but otherwise would have been a very handy course.

Chivito550

yaboya1 wrote: »

You could say the same for any race of any distance.

Yeh of course. Did I say this wasn't the case?

yaboya1

No, you just made the comment that I quoted.

Chivito550

Sacksian wrote: »

For me, the length of time it takes to recover and the amount of time you spend as close to or over the redline physiologically during the event are going to be considerations in terms of what qualifies as toughest.

There's not a hope in hell that the 800m qualifies under that description. And I say that as someone whose favourite event is the 800m. Compared to 10k xc, it's handy. I've also run a 400 and that was even handier. In terms of intensity, I'd take a marathon over 10k xc too.

You'll obviously find an event which you are trained for (800m) easier than something you are not as specifically fit for. Look at Mark English when he did that road mile. Out the back. Look at Bolt when he runs 400m. Grimacing all over the place. No showboating. If you are an 800m runner, properly training for 800m then it goes without saying that the longer distances are going to hurt you more. I wonder would Paul Pollock feel the same however, or Michelle Finn (remember her 400m in that famous Phil Healy race).

Regarding your 400m comment, you more than likely didn't run the race well at all if you think that. So many distance runners are incapable of pushing themselves properly in a 400 and do not properly commit and have way too much gas in the tank in the last 100.

This is what happens when the best in the world pushes himself to the limit:

http://www.eurosport.co.uk/athletics/world-championships/2015/wayde-van-niekerk-collapses-after-winning-gold-taken-to-hospital_sto4879319/story.shtml

Djoucer

Mournes is definitely one of the toughest courses. Not sure anything comes close. Over 3000 metres of climb.

Wicklow Glacial lakes is a tough race over hard terrain.

Powerscourt Uphill only is a class race.

World of difference between tough race v tough course.

I think cross country runners should be banned from describing slight inclines as hills

Sacksian

Chivito550 wrote: »

If you are an 800m runner, properly training for 800m then it goes without saying that the longer distances are going to hurt you more.

As I said above, I found half-marathon and marathon both less physiologically stressful than 10k xc, so the distance doesn't always matter as much as the intensity but when you have a high level of intensity for an extended duration that's what makes something like 10k xc (especially because of the changes in pace, etc) so taxing compared to an 800m race. For the first 200-300m of an 800m, it's very pleasant. And for the first 200m-300m of a xc race, it's pleasant too. You've just got longer left!

Chivito550 wrote: »

Regarding your 400m comment, you more than likely didn't run the race well at all if you think that. So many distance runners are incapable of pushing themselves properly in a 400 and do not properly commit and have way too much gas in the tank in the last 100.

The IAAF Scoring Tables rate my 400m time as superior to both my half marathon and marathon pbs (both of which I trained much more for), while the McMillan calculator (and a few others) considers it equivalent to my 800m pb, and superior to all my other pbs. So, I must have raced it quite well!

Chivito550 wrote: »

This is what happens when the best in the world pushes himself to the limit:

To be fair, there are many, many more examples of world-class athletes receiving medical attention after distance races, so I'm not sure if this line of argument is in your favour.

Djoucer wrote: »

I think cross country runners should be banned from describing slight inclines as hills

Ha! But the difference is the speed at which xc inclines are run. In fairness, the best mountain runners in Ireland are some of the best xc runners too (they just tend to lose time when they try to go up the hills with their hands on their knees!).

davedanon

Chivito550 wrote: »

Hard to take your dismissive comments seriously when you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

For the record, my opinion is that all events and distances are bloody tough if done right.

This made me guffaw. how you have the gall to call someone else's comments 'dismissive' is beyond belief. I know you're a young guy who still thinks he knows everything, but your one-eyed, obstinate refusal to see anyone else's point of view, or allow that they might just have a point, is infuriating, quite frankly. Time after time you dismiss others' opinions with a single word. "Nope". "Wrong". "Rubbish". All your nominations for 'toughest race' are track races. Quelle surprise. Runners run from 100metres to 100 miles and beyond. To be honest, as a journalist it really does behove you not to cherish and elevate your chosen sphere of effort above all others, as it compromises you professionally in my opinion. Your game is not the only game in town. Grow the F up.

Murph_D

[Edit: never mind]

Chivito550

Sacksian wrote: »

As I said above, I found half-marathon and marathon both less physiologically stressful than 10k xc, so the distance doesn't always matter as much as the intensity but when you have a high level of intensity for an extended duration that's what makes something like 10k xc (especially because of the changes in pace, etc) so taxing compared to an 800m race. For the first 200-300m of an 800m, it's very pleasant. And for the first 200m-300m of a xc race, it's pleasant too. You've just got longer left!



The IAAF Scoring Tables rate my 400m time as superior to both my half marathon and marathon pbs (both of which I trained much more for), while the McMillan calculator (and a few others) considers it equivalent to my 800m pb, and superior to all my other pbs. So, I must have raced it quite well!



To be fair, there are many, many more examples of world-class athletes receiving medical attention after distance races, so I'm not sure if this line of argument is in your favour.



Ha! But the difference is the speed at which xc inclines are run. In fairness, the best mountain runners in Ireland are some of the best xc runners too (they just tend to lose time when they try to go up the hills with their hands on their knees!).

Sorry, wasn't saying your time wasn't good. Just saying you may not have ran it properly. A 400m shouldn't feel handy.

Wouldn't look at McMillan for 400m. It's pointless. Regarding IAAF, of course your 400 is going to be better than your half marathon if you are an 800m runner.

yaboya1

Chivito550 wrote: »

Wouldn't look at McMillan for 400m. It's pointless.

Well, obviously!
It must be pointless if it doesn't concur with your opinion right?