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

Hurray Zach Miller wrote:

Zach Miller, a 31:23 10k and 15:32 5k guy, won the JFK 50 in 5:38, less than 3 1/2 minutes back from Max King's CR time from last year. Zach has never run a marathon and took 6th in the Bootlegger 50k 2 weeks ago, presumably as a last long training run, but today he beat Michael Wardian, Rob Krar (who dropped just after losing the lead), Matt Flaherty, and everyone else. More impressive than the field he beat is his time, which would've been a course record had he run it in any of the first 49 years of the race. Good for Zach. This is a great demonstration of what fast track guys without marathon/ultra experience can do in ultras.

BUT... did he look relaxed?

years experienc need not apply wrote:

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.

That's exactly what my twin brother says about half marathons now. He was an 8:43 steepler a few years bask (so on LR, that makes him the slowest person around) but he always says half marathons are easy to run 70 minutes because it's just a glorified long run with a little extra effort. And that since the intensity is so low that you can just keep running based on natural talent and a little training.

Ummmmmmmmm nooo wrote:

Zach Miller from Bryn Mawr? He's run under 15:00 in races I've run in. Dunno if it's the same guy but this dude is really nice and humble for sure.

Probably not the same guy. I ran with Zach in college and he would struggle to run anywhere near 4:30 for a mile, even when he was running sub 32 10ks. I have a hard time seeing him holding 4:50s, though I suppose it isn't impossible. He ran a half somewhere in the neighborhood of 1:07 a couple of years ago doing all of his training working on the same cruise ship he trained for JFK on.

Not surprised his abilities translated well to this sort of race. He is very much a strength runner, has a nice compact stride, and is extremely durable, especially running high mileage.

probably not wrote:

Ummmmmmmmm nooo wrote:

Zach Miller from Bryn Mawr? He's run under 15:00 in races I've run in. Dunno if it's the same guy but this dude is really nice and humble for sure.

Probably not the same guy. I ran with Zach in college and he would struggle to run anywhere near 4:30 for a mile, even when he was running sub 32 10ks. I have a hard time seeing him holding 4:50s, though I suppose it isn't impossible. He ran a half somewhere in the neighborhood of 1:07 a couple of years ago doing all of his training working on the same cruise ship he trained for JFK on.

Not surprised his abilities translated well to this sort of race. He is very much a strength runner, has a nice compact stride, and is extremely durable, especially running high mileage.

You really have me confused. You said he's probably not the same guy but then went on to say that it is the same guy? Zach has run 14:5x and maybe 14:4x I'm pretty sure. This is the Bryn Marwr Zach who we are talking about? I thought he's run 14:5x something, maybe I'm wrong.

The Zach Miller who won a Saturday ran for RIT.

Fourth Mile wrote:

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.

Wrong again. Here are the best track times of today's top marathon runners:

1. Wilson Kipsang - 28:27 10,000m

2. Patrick Makau - 7:54 3000m

3. Geoffrey Mutai - 27:27 10,000m

4. Dennis Kimmeto - N/A

5. Emmanuel Mutai - 28:09 10,000m

The picture of the JFK winner doesn't look like Bryn Mawr's Zach Miller, and is about 5 years younger. Note that there is another top ultrarunner named Zach Miller, so this name thing is getting kinda ridiculous. I guess "Zach Miller" is the white man version of "Cheryiout".

The ultra records aren't like punching in a 10K time and finding your equivalent marathon time. I'm sure a handful are tough but I think mostly they are way softer than that and that's why you get this jfk result and it isn't just the men either. Just have to wait for the dust to settle, let the new breed leave their mark then we can know what's actually fast.

Not sure if this guy will make ultra running a priority, but at his age and minimal ultra experience he certainly has a lot of potential. With his speed, I would guess he could go sub 5 hours on a fast road course. However, road courses typically don't offer prize money so tough to establish extra incentive to race and/or a quality field.

It really depends on the course. I think for a race like JFK (granted I've never run it and don't know how windy it was) there would be a strong correlation between road marathon time PR and your JFK50 time. Other courses with a lot of climbing and gnarly trail not so much...But the top end of the field can usually run strong marathons. I'd be interested in the history of the JFK winning times and what those winner's marathon PRs were. Of course in Zach's case he hasn't done a marathon (very impressive!). And we know CR holder Max King is a 2:14 guy....So in a lot of cases with ultras we see 2:2x marathon guys as having really good range (I'm sure Zach could run 2:20s low at least now) whereas 2:14er Max King has shown some weakness over 50 miles in most of his races (I believe JFK might be his only 50mile win?)It's kind of the same when you see sub 29:00 10km guys step up to the marathon and not crack 2:20...some for sure will (maybe by a lot) and some always have a really hard time. I have no doubt that a slew of speedy kenyans and ethiopians could absolutely destroy a lot of these ultra-trail records. I have no doubt that a lot of the guys at the US Olympic trials marathon could do so as well (some would struggle with the hills and distance but some wouldn't).

just general statement wrote:

The ultra records aren't like punching in a 10K time and finding your equivalent marathon time. I'm sure a handful are tough but I think mostly they are way softer than that and that's why you get this jfk result and it isn't just the men either. Just have to wait for the dust to settle, let the new breed leave their mark then we can know what's actually fast.

I think the point some of you are missing is the wide range of ultras. An ultra can be a 50k which virtually any marathoner would have no trouble doing and it can be a 100 miler with crazy elevation.

Krar won the UROC 100k this year and averaged 9:02 per mile. The course is mostly run around 10,000 altitude and has 13,000 ft elevation gain and loss. The FINISHING rate was only 55%.

JFK was won by Miller averaging 6:47 per mile. The course is run at 500 ft elevation and has barely over 1,000 ft elevation gain and loss with most of the course described as flat. The finishing rate was above 75%

While these two races are both ultras, they are as different as a marathon is to the mile. We all know Rupp could be competitive at both a mile and a marathon but there is no way he is going to be great at both at the same time. It's the same way with the different ultra races. Runners are going to gravitate to the types of races they do the best at because you can only do a small amount of races per year.

all kinds of training wrote:

Krar won the UROC 100k this year and averaged 9:02 per mile. The course is mostly run around 10,000 altitude and has 13,000 ft elevation gain and loss. The FINISHING rate was only 55%.

Funny thing is there was roughly half marathon worth of flatter road on that UROC course and Krar used it to drop probably the best current traditional ultra runner(one who doesn't train or care for speed on flat ground). So even on a course like that doesn't have any correlation to track/road times, it does still however make a difference for winning.

What ultrarunner did he drop? If you are talking about Dakota then you need to get your facts straight. He just wrote an article on Irunfar talking about how intervals and speed training are his number one priority. Dakota also dropped Sage Canaday and Max King.

Hey Guys....For the record, Zach Miller is not some "random", "fast track guy".

I've watched Zach run since he was in JHS and he is one of the hardest working long distance runners Lancaster County, PA has ever produced, and this area is known for its runners. He lives 3 - 4 miles from my house and he'd run over to pick up my son Kevin to run a workout, and then run back home when finished. And that was High School.

Someone said he looked "surprised" crossing the finish line. He was probably just thinking "The race is over already?".

If Zach decides to pursue this kind of race, get used to seeing a lot of him!

Great job Zach!

Mike Hull

Lancaster, PA

I think he's talking about Kilian Jornet.

windycity wrote:

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...

Cool temps are helpful up until the point at which your body no longer has to do any work to keep its temperature from rising too much. Below freezing you've gotten well beyond that point. You can start to have a significant differential between the temperature of your surface tissues and the temperature of your core. While you may be comfortable, and just barely sweating a few drops, your surface tissues may be stiff and tight.

To be sure, running in cold conditions won't slow you down nearly as much as running in hot conditions, but it's definitely possible for it to be too cold for ideal times.

some faster miles in there wrote:

all kinds of training wrote:

Krar won the UROC 100k this year and averaged 9:02 per mile. The course is mostly run around 10,000 altitude and has 13,000 ft elevation gain and loss. The FINISHING rate was only 55%.

Funny thing is there was roughly half marathon worth of flatter road on that UROC course and Krar used it to drop probably the best current traditional ultra runner(one who doesn't train or care for speed on flat ground). So even on a course like that doesn't have any correlation to track/road times, it does still however make a difference for winning.

That's the point I am making. Every race is different. Everybody has their strengths and weaknesses. Anybody knows you need "speed" since the winner of the race is the one who runs the fastest time. The course dictates what kind of "speed" you need. Some have more speed running up hills, some have more speed running down hills, and others have more speed running on flat surfaces.

That is what is really interesting about courses that have a good mix. It is hard to predict which runners strengths will win out and even then, it depends on that day for each runner as you can never predict how a 5 to 20 hour race will go.

all kinds of training wrote:

That's the point I am making. Every race is different. Everybody has their strengths and weaknesses. Anybody knows you need "speed" since the winner of the race is the one who runs the fastest time. The course dictates what kind of "speed" you need. Some have more speed running up hills, some have more speed running down hills, and others have more speed running on flat surfaces.

I was agreeing with you just going into more detail. I was just making the point that you really have to deliberately bias toward uphill and downhill speed in terms of the course and take out the ability to stride out. Anything truly 50/50 in terms of the course and flat speed on road will most likely win, even 1/10th of the course having a straight road section did the trick at UROC.

800 dude wrote:... To be sure, running in cold conditions won't slow you down nearly as much as running in hot conditions, but it's definitely possible for it to be too cold for ideal times.