Standard Setter wrote:
There is a reason why Ritchie claims his 6:28:11 as his road personal best. He always stated the track was much much faster.
Interesting you say that as Jim points to his 100k on the track and the greatest 100k every run.
Where did Ritchie say that?
Not a Walmsley fanboy wrote:
No way Jim Walmsley will come close to this record.
I would be surprised if he can run a sub 6:45, which actually is a very very good 100k performance.
As usual, a lot of people have no idea who good some records really are.
Hmmmm?
In his book “The Stubborn Scotsman” he talks about the road vs track vs trail 100km he ran he also talks a lot about how untalented he was yet persevered.
wejo wrote:
Standard Setter wrote:
There is a reason why Ritchie claims his 6:28:11 as his road personal best. He always stated the track was much much faster.
Interesting you say that as Jim points to his 100k on the track and the greatest 100k every run.
Where did Ritchie say that?
It was tough watching the record slip away, i spent the final Km shouting at the tv STOP LOOKING AT YOUR BLOODY WATCH every 10 secs. Over the course of the 100k i wouldn't even hazard a guess how many seconds were lost by that, it's such a momentum stopper.
I just found my 10 page document of Andy Milroy's article "The Greatest 100k" again.
I couple of remarks.
When Don Ritchie was running his world record on track there were no accurately measured 100k races yet.
That came in the mid 80ies spearheaded by Harry Arndt. His 100k race in Hanau Rodenbach was the gold standard for 100k races. A 10k loop accurately measured. At that time most 100k races also the one loop races got remeasured and the courses lengthened to real 100k.
That also included Western States 100, which had his first real 100 miles in 1985 or 86.
Tracks in the 70ies where not the high performance tracks of today.
So it was a hell of an accomplishment in 1978 and that the record stood for 40 years and only got improved minimal shows who good that performance was.
And here you can read it yourself
Are you a joke? He was 11 sec off of the WR. Beat the AR. And a 40 something PR. Go home Nike troll.
sled puller wrote:
Kipchoge fan wrote:
That is unlucky, 11s off :(
There was nothing unlucky about his run .
Unlucky would be poor weather (weather was near ideal)
Unlucky would be someone or something interfering with you (did not happen, he ran into the fence)
Unlucky would be a mistake by race organizers (did not occur)
Unlucky would be an equipment failure (non occurred).
One of the great things about running is the clock does not lie. No luck involved when competing against yourself and/or the clock.
I would say having to stop for 40 seconds in the middle of a World Record attempt might be deemed unlucky.