Zach Bitter runs new American 100 mile & World 12 hour record

Erick Wainana (Olympic Silver and Bronze, Tokyo Winner, 2:08) is an amateur? He's attempted 100k several times now and has only managed 6:38. (a little under 6:30 pace for 100km).

Remember when 2:13 guy Josh Cox ran Comrades? He only managed about 7:30/mile pace for the 54 mile course, finishing an hour and a half back of the lead, despite having already gotten pretty heavily into ultramarathons and focusing very heavily on this race.

As I said, I think Tsegaye Kebede could run about 11 flat for 100 miles, but nobody in the world is touching anything south of 6:30 pace.

Yes, and the WR-potential in the mile of Bolt is obvious. Some of you guys just do not understand that it is not just a little bit more of the same thing. In fact, if such was the case we would see some really fast 50km marks, but you know what, adding 5km on is not a trivial thing to do.

For exhibit A look at the latest London Marathon. Look how many fabulous marathon runners imploded in the last 5km, and this was at the standard distance, not trying to extend a mere 5km. Now you are telling me that those runners that really had trouble just competing the marathon are going to start busting good pace for another -- almost 60km. Look at the last 2km splits that they had for that London Marathon.

Here is a nicely explained reason as to why you can't just say , "if elite marathon runners move up they would dominate."

I had a discussion with Ian Sharman earlier this year about what kind of runners it will take to run a fast 100 or 24 hour. He's one of the most astute thinkers I've found when it comes to this, including his own potential. It's easy (but misguided) to take a fast marathoner and say they would be great if they stepped up to 100 miles or 24 hours. The argument goes that since they have so much leg speed, they could hold a "casual" pace for much longer. Ian's observation that struck me was that leg speed may be an indicator they will do POORLY at a fast, long ultra.

If you look at Ian, he's got a marathon PR of 2:32, but his half marathon PR is only 1:15. He gets worse (relatively) as the distance gets shorter, and better as it gets longer. That indicates his "peak" distance may be somewhere around 100 miles or 24 hours. Now, take a fast marathoner in the 2:15-2:20 range, that also excels at 5ks, 10ks, half marathons, etc. This runner may be peaking at the marathon and can hold on for a fast 50 mile, but is struggling to do so and is getting relatively worse as the distance progresses. That's why Jon Olsen can only run a 2:27 marathon. If he ran a 2:15 marathon, it would likely indicate his peak is at a shorter distance than 100 miles.

Not to say there aren't exceptions to this, but looking at how a runner scales to each distance is a better sign than their PR at their optimal distance. Just like a world class 800 meter runner can't run at that level for a 10k, a world class marathoner is unlikely to excel at 100 miles and beyond.

Also, people don't understand that fueling for 100 miles isn't a walk in the park. You can't just go out there and eat a few times and expect to finish strong. The gut is just as important as the legs when you get to 100 miles.

Also, durability is huge. Zach, is obviously not big, but he is not as tiny as these elite marathon guys. I think that probably contributes to the ability to hold up for 100+

Like with anything, if you inject a ton of money of course you will get better over time. It's just a natural consequence of an increased talent pool.

I'm just glad Jon Olsen doesn't have it anymore.

No way Bitter runs 2:20. On a good day, fast course 2:24 - 2:25.

Keeping it real... wrote:

How much money did Bitter win for his efforts? When ultras start offering decent prize purses for these events the bar will rise.

Yeah, all those chumps that raced Boston before it started offering prize money in 1986 didn't know what they were doing either. Rodgers' 2:09. Salazar's 2:08.

Where's Speedgoat Karl to give us his take on this "fast marathon does/doesn't equal fast 100 time" discussion, as he has done in the past??

IIRC, he gave a pretty thoughtful response to the debate and brought up a few things others have mentioned here, aka experience, fueling, pacing and terrain.

Elkhorn wrote:

What I meant is most elites obviously consider running as a sport, and don't train or complete simply for recreation and/or a warm fuzzy feeling inside. How do you explain running 100 miles on track for little or no prize money and no competition? In my humble opinion, that is more of a recreational activity than a sport.

What you described is more of a mental illness than a sport. Good grief.

Ultras are still in their infancy. Once the real money moves in the scene will see huuuuge changes.

Elkhorn wrote:

What I meant is most elites obviously consider running as a sport, and don't train or complete simply for recreation and/or a warm fuzzy feeling inside. How do you explain running 100 miles on track for little or no prize money and no competition? In my humble opinion, that is more of a recreational activity than a sport.

As another poster pointed out, that means guys like Roger Bannister and Emil Zatopek weren't really athletes, they were just hobby joggers, since they didn't compete for money.

Nobody disagrees that if there were huge piles of money at stake, the level of competition in ultras would rise. The same was true of events like the mile and the marathon, which have gotten faster with more money at stake. But to argue that the mile and the marathon were "more of a recreational activity than a sport" before the professionalization of running seems ridiculous to me (and probably to you too).

My point is that this ultra record has meaning even if it doesn't represent the ultimate potential of the human race. It's faster than anyone has completed this particular challenge before. It's not nearly as impressive as a record in a more hotly contested event, but that's okay. I mean, there's a pretty obvious reason that not many people compete in 100 mile races: they're really hard.

(At least, I assume they are. I'm one of the many people who had quite a bit of talent at distance running, competed internationally, but never bothered running anything farther than a marathon. If anything, my personal disinclination to suffer so much for so little return gives me more respect for the people who do compete at those distances. I don't respect them more than Geb or Bekele, but I respect them!)

If I run a marathon on the track while wearing pink polka dotted running shoes, while I continually singing Beatles songs can I get myself established a WR holder?

UnWelcomed wrote:

Elkhorn wrote:

What I meant is most elites obviously consider running as a sport, and don't train or complete simply for recreation and/or a warm fuzzy feeling inside. How do you explain running 100 miles on track for little or no prize money and no competition? In my humble opinion, that is more of a recreational activity than a sport.

What you described is more of a mental illness than a sport. Good grief.

Ultras are still in their infancy. Once the real money moves in the scene will see huuuuge changes.

Real money like track or road 5ks? Give me a break. You have half a dozen Americans who do well enough to buy a house and a new car. Everyone else has roomates and could qualify for foodstamps.

There is no money in running without a shoe contract and even then unless you are a rupp/goucher/hall/Meb type it doesn't afford a basic middle class lifestyle.

The only money is in the marathon majors which to be honest Americans have no chance to win and just a small chance of breaking top 3.

MadeUpRecds wrote:

If I run a marathon on the track while wearing pink polka dotted running shoes, while I continually singing Beatles songs can I get myself established a WR holder?

FKT

If you don't know what that is, look it up.

Raptured wrote:

.. so I'd guess with a season of specific training, he'd be ~2:20 at this point....

Oh please Collin, he has as much a chance of going 2:20 as you do of running 2:40 on a non-downhill course.

He lost to Matt Flaherty at US 50 mile road champs by 4 minutes less than 2 months ago. Flaherty has more of a background in the shorter distances and has significantly more marathon-specific training and has only run 1:08:17 / 2:22:53. I would say Bitter would be lucky to go under 2:25 if he dedicates a year or so to marathon training.

All congrats to Zach. Awesome run.

1. I agree Bitter may be able to run 2:25 on a fast course, but any faster would be a stretch. Implying he could run sub 2:20 is a joke.

2. Races offering prize money, even small amounts, greatly contribute to the legitimacy of running as a sport. A few years back, ultras didn't offer anything. Although most ultra money is offered in trail races, faster road and track races may begin to follow suit and times will continue to drop. I believe many true elites (sub 2:15) marathoners would be capable of fast 50 and 100 mile times. However, why would they bust their butts for little or no prize money. Desert Solstice doesn't even waive entrants' fees. However, in their defense, they only allow 30 entrants.

Elkhorn wrote:

What I meant is most elites obviously consider running as a sport, and don't train or complete simply for recreation and/or a warm fuzzy feeling inside. How do you explain running 100 miles on track for little or no prize money and no competition? In my humble opinion, that is more of a recreational activity than a sport.

"A runner must run with dreams in his heart, not money in his pocket." -Zatopek, warm & fuzzy recreational runner

It is a bit funny that much of this thread is devoted to what he would run in the marathon. I think it is pretty clear he has chosen to race at the longer distances. We should really discuss what he might run in his next race, you know, a distance he actually competes at?? Sure the marathon is a great indicator of potential, but as many have pointed out, ultras are a whole different style of racing.

derrick and dylan wrote:

It is a bit funny that much of this thread is devoted to what he would run in the marathon. I think it is pretty clear he has chosen to race at the longer distances. We should really discuss what he might run in his next race, you know, a distance he actually competes at?? Sure the marathon is a great indicator of potential, but as many have pointed out, ultras are a whole different style of racing.

You must have missed the this thread then.