Mother vs. son in 100 mile race, who wins

The Geb vs Scott Jurek or Anton Krupicka threads weren't fun enough so we had to do this?

I would bet on mom, because she is proven over the marathon distance, because she is older (like most ultra runners), and because she is a woman and a mother (mental toughness).

There's no shortage of fast runners who flame out over the marathon distance, and 100 miles must be something else altogether - mentally beyond the capacity of most teenagers.

It might depend on the incentive, though. A mom fighting for her cubs may be unstoppable. A mom running in a silly male-organized race may be less motivated.

Mother wins unless the kid has any sense of patience, which I assume he does not. Maybe he could draft off the mom for 99 miles and kick.

I say the son DNFs before the wife.

There are four possible answers to your trick question:

1. The mother wins because she is driving a car

or

2. They both lose because 100 miles is a stupidly long distance!

or

3. You win because you don't run a 100 mile race and do something more valuable with your time.

or

4. You all ultimately lose because your family argues over 100 mile distances. Nobody wins 100 mile races and really if someone does, why don't they stop arguing and toe the f-ing line.

Given neither has come anywhere near the goal and neither is in shape for it, its really kinda silly to even guess. Might as well ask who wins a 500 mile race. A better question would be the marathon given your wife's experience at that distance and your son's better fitness. Theyd probably both be right about 4 hours.

nj possible wrote:

Given neither has come anywhere near the goal and neither is in shape for it, its really kinda silly to even guess. Might as well ask who wins a 500 mile race. A better question would be the marathon given your wife's experience at that distance and your son's better fitness. Theyd probably both be right about 4 hours.

I agree it is kind of a silly discussion since they will not actually do it, but we wanted it to be a distance that would create a debate. Anything up to a marathon my son would win easily since he is the better runner. I ran a marathon in 2:53 off of similar training to what my son is doing now and with a slower 5k time, so my guess is he could run sub 3 hours, which I have seen decent high school runners do. Although my wife's p.r. is 3:12, she ran 3:52 last year and was doing some longer runs and a little more mileage than she is currently doing, so she would definitely not be under 4 hours. So you would have over an hour difference in the marathon. Perhaps 50 miles would have been a better distance to discuss. They both could do it in less than a day given the proper motivation.

Given that there's NO TIME FRAME, meaning that they could take several days to do this if they wanted to, I say the son wins easily.

IF though both were in a REAL trail race like Western States that had a cut-off time or even a flat course that had a sooner cut-off time, I'd say both would DNF.

I ran two ultras in my 20s, and I was a better runner than btoh of them easily, and even with a ton of training, a 50-miler was tough (though I did try to run it FAST, not just trying to finish).

Sparticus wrote:

4. You all ultimately lose because your family argues over 100 mile distances. Nobody wins 100 mile races and really if someone does, why don't they stop arguing and toe the f-ing line.

We are not arguing over this; it just became a fun family discussion, which admittedly my family might be a bit different since this is what our dinner conversations can be like. Several years ago when my son was about 9 or 10, we had the discussion of who could win a 5k race between the two of them. That was an easier conclusion to come to since they could actually do it. My son ended up beating her by about a minute. This one won't ever have an answer since even if they both really did want to do it, I don't think my son's high school coaches would be too excited about the idea of him running 100 miles. I would also prefer that my wife stay alive, and at her current fitness level, she may not be after attempting this.

Caught in the middle wrote:

Anything up to a marathon my son would win easily since he is the better runner. I ran a marathon in 2:53 off of similar training to what my son is doing now and with a slower 5k time, so my guess is he could run sub 3 hours, which I have seen decent high school runners do. Although my wife's p.r. is 3:12, she ran 3:52 last year and was doing some longer runs and a little more mileage than she is currently doing, so she would definitely not be under 4 hours. So you would have over an hour difference in the marathon. Perhaps 50 miles would have been a better distance to discuss. They both could do it in less than a day given the proper motivation.

I'm sure your son will one day run a sub 3-hour marathon, but he has zero chance of coming anywhere near that right now given his longest run is 10 miles. It doesn't matter if his 5k is in the 15s, he'll blow up after 20 miles if he has no experience anywhere near that distance. I probably still take him over your wife at 26.2, but not by much given he'll be walking at some point.

NJ Possible wrote:

I'm sure your son will one day run a sub 3-hour marathon, but he has zero chance of coming anywhere near that right now given his longest run is 10 miles. It doesn't matter if his 5k is in the 15s, he'll blow up after 20 miles if he has no experience anywhere near that distance. I probably still take him over your wife at 26.2, but not by much given he'll be walking at some point.

You may be right on that. I ran a 2:53 off of similar training to what he is doing and a long run of 10 miles as well and a recent 5k best of 17:38. The difference is that I had run previous marathons and he never has. I don't think he will be doing a marathon any time soon however.

Son wins. But I think the true questions here are: Is your wife hot? Pics?

random a hole wrote:

Son wins. But I think the true questions here are: Is your wife hot? Pics?

I personally think she is hot, but I don't think I will be posting any pictures.

nj possible wrote:

Given neither has come anywhere near the goal and neither is in shape for it, its really kinda silly to even guess. Might as well ask who wins a 500 mile race. A better question would be the marathon given your wife's experience at that distance and your son's better fitness. Theyd probably both be right about 4 hours.

Why would it take a 16-17 min 5ker 4 hours to run a marathon?

Doesn't make any sense.

Surprise! wrote:

Why would it take a 16-17 min 5ker 4 hours to run a marathon?

Doesn't make any sense.

Because he's never run a step longer than 10 miles. Do you really think a 15 year old who's never run for more than 75 minutes can run for 3 hours?

But he could run for 4 hours?

nj possible wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

Why would it take a 16-17 min 5ker 4 hours to run a marathon?

Doesn't make any sense.

Because he's never run a step longer than 10 miles. Do you really think a 15 year old who's never run for more than 75 minutes can run for 3 hours?

nj possible wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

Why would it take a 16-17 min 5ker 4 hours to run a marathon?

Doesn't make any sense.

Because he's never run a step longer than 10 miles. Do you really think a 15 year old who's never run for more than 75 minutes can run for 3 hours?

Absolutely. Not doing a long run doesn't mean that one can't finish a marathon in a half-way decent time for one's fitness level, it just means their fitness level won't be optimal.

Anybody that thinks that a 15-year-old, 16-minute-XC-5k-running boy wouldn't beat his 48 year old mother who does no training and ran 3:12 when George H.W. Bush was president just likes ripping on teenagers. Either that or you read "Born to Run" one too many times. Give me a break!

nj possible wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

Why would it take a 16-17 min 5ker 4 hours to run a marathon?

Doesn't make any sense.

Because he's never run a step longer than 10 miles. Do you really think a 15 year old who's never run for more than 75 minutes can run for 3 hours?

I really have seen quite a few people that have surprised me in their marathon times based on the training(or lack thereof) they were doing. Having some talent can definitely offset incorrect training. A 16:30 5k is comparable to a 2:40 marathon. Based on running a 17 minute 5k on a hilly, muddy cross country course, a 16:30 is probably about right for a road 5k for my son. Now due to the lack of long runs, he is not going to go out and run a 2:40 marathon. He may not even break 3 hours, depending on the weather and how smartly he paces himself. But surely he would be able to run well under 4 hours.

With all of that said, we are talking about a 100 mile race, not a marathon. They both could finish, given enough time, but who would win. I am still saying my son.

The mom wins, no question about. 5k times mean mothing when discussing 100 miles. Marathon times don't mean much either. Patience, experience and intelligence make the difference. Mature women have more of all three of those qualities than teenage boys.