Random 31:23 10k guy beats Krar, Wardian, etc to win JFK 50 in near course record time

And Max King was a 13:56 guy so it doesn't prove anything we didn't know.

Actually looking it up, Michael Wardian ran 30:23 in a 10k, and Matt Flaherty has run 30:59.

So Zach was not the "fast track guy" of the field, he was the SLOWEST of the contenders over 10,000 meters. Props to him.

Krar beat Wardian by 4 hours at UROC. He dropped at JFK 50 so there is really no point in mentioning him. You're obviously grasping at straws or intimately involved with Zach Miller.

A look at the JFK 50 results and other than Wardian there is no one of note. Wardian is hardly a competitive ultra runner in 2013. He has been out of the game for several years.

Why are you so excited about Miller? It's strange. This happens frequently. A road guy decides to do ultras because they are not competitive (think Sage Canaday). They have some good races against some so-so competition. After a few good races they run out of steam or face Europeans. The end.

I think the interesting thing about Miller is that he has never run a 50 miler and ran the 3rd fastest time in the story of the race with very limited experience. That is impressive. Props to him.

Collin, don't act like Pikes Peek isn't downhill... we all know it's our PR course. -GRC

Only in ultra running can you have no or limited training and not only win but run in the top echelon of course records ever for the sport. This isn't some unique theme, it's been happening the last few years. You just need a little speed and natural talent for the longer distances, and then bam you are right up there in historical terms.

Raptured wrote:

[quote]Prove it wrote:

[quote]wikilicious wrote:

LOL @ calling Pikes Peek ridiculously downhill.

Please consult the elevation plot.

And look at the results from last year if you have any doubts.

Yeah I'm trying to figure out why you need any "speed" to run a fast 50. Totally different event. Are the marathon records going to fall when more fast milers move up?

I agree that the records will probably fall as ultrarunning grows, but the reason for this is that it is not yet a popular sport (so it is very lonely up front).

xenonscreams wrote:

\I agree that the records will probably fall as ultrarunning grows, but the reason for this is that it is not yet a popular sport (so it is very lonely up front).

I disagree. For the very little amount of money in ultrarunning, it's very popular. Things are going to continue to grow and progress, but there's not going to be an explosion of grand old course records falling. That time came and passed years ago. The only thing that would change it drastically is an influx of money to attract a talent pool larger than guys who just really enjoy running on trails for hours.

xenonscreams wrote:

Yeah I'm trying to figure out why you need any "speed" to run a fast 50. Totally different event. Are the marathon records going to fall when more fast milers move up?

I agree that the records will probably fall as ultrarunning grows, but the reason for this is that it is not yet a popular sport (so it is very lonely up front).

Speed doesn't guarantee anything, but its a requirement if you are to run as fast as the JFK 50 miler course record has gotten. The part of growth that is responsible for the course records is the higher amount of fast people able to make a living at it now. Maybe there's a boom in ultra running the same way that the city marathons became but if that was the case you would not have long held course records go down, you would simply have more 5 hour marathoners so to speak.

Although I certainly respect the distance of ultras, it's not a secret that any runner who can run 2:25 - 2:35 for the marathon can experience higher places in ultras. I agree that if the frequency of younger, faster guys continues to grow (along with upping the prize money), ultra records will continue to fall because the bar was set pretty low in comparison to top marathon performances.

Key word is "sport." To most ultra runners running is a recreational activity. As already stated, prize money is minimal and running longer than a marathon doesn't appeal to most. Zach Miller's performance was great and don't want to take anything away from him, but just not a lot of fast guys running ultras. All you have to do is look at ultra "National Championship" races. Typically only 2 or 3 guys entered have a legitimate shot of winning. Women frequently place in the top 5 - 10 in ultra races. What other running event can you say that??

2:25 will win a lot of marathons

Yes... 2:25 will win many marathons, but a 2:25 marathoner would not be considered a top marathon runner considering many run 2:15 or under. However, you put that 2:25 marathoner in an ultra, and very few will compete with that because of the limited prize money and low interest.

xenonscreams wrote:

Yeah I'm trying to figure out why you need any "speed" to run a fast 50. Totally different event. Are the marathon records going to fall when more fast milers move up? .

The answer to your question is yes. Not necessarily strict milers, but yeah, the world record in the marathon dropping has a lot to do with fast track guys moving up. You can't run 4:40 pace for 26.2 if you don't have "speed."

I'm even more impressed that Zach won this race doing a good chunk of his training on the cruise ship that he works on.

Exactly, nerp and this Zach Miller is pretty much an unknown and not the Zach Miller who has several ultra runs already under his belt. The conditions on Saturday were not great as the temperatures dropped significantly and the wind picked up over the course of the 6+ hrs it took the leaders (and everyone else to finish). I paced the 16th place woman from 27 to 38 in shorts and the temp dropped 5-6 degrees. I paced another friend in the dark for the last 4.2 miles and it was in the 20s and windy! Zach ran the 3rd fastest time ever over the course in not spectacular conditions. Conditions that forces Krar and others to DNF.

Exactly, nerp and this Zach Miller is pretty much an unknown and not the Zach Miller who has several ultra runs already under his belt. The conditions on Saturday were not great as the temperatures dropped significantly and the wind picked up over the course of the 6+ hrs it took the leaders (and everyone else to finish). I paced the 16th place woman from 27 to 38 in shorts and the temp dropped 5-6 degrees. I paced another friend in the dark for the last 4.2 miles and it was in the 20s and windy! Zach ran the 3rd fastest time ever over the course in not spectacular conditions. Conditions that forces Krar and others to DNF.

Isn't a cooler temp better for racing in? I don't think Krar would DNF because of the conditions (look at UROC 100km where he plowed through snow and temps in the 20s for 9hrs). Still, I'm sure the wind slowed things down for Zach. All the runners get so spread out in these ultras...