Walsmley vs Krar at Hong Kong's Fast 100 (now changed to a 80k event)

Pepperdime wrote:

What's the draw of this HK race? Never heard of it. Seems like a far travel for a weird distance race? Is it mountainous?

Top runners get a free plane ticket and a bowl of rice and a chance to win a smallisch race which looks "international" to the Americans.

Travel agent wrote:

Pepperdime wrote:

What's the draw of this HK race? Never heard of it. Seems like a far travel for a weird distance race? Is it mountainous?

Top runners get a free plane ticket and a bowl of rice and a chance to win a smallisch race which looks "international" to the Americans.

Sounds fantastic. I would definitely go run if I got that deal.

jkj wrote:

Holy crap. 6:05 on that course is remarkable. He crushed people over the second half of that course.

I was going to say something smartass about this being a hiking contest.

.....Someone beat me to it.

currently driving myself to races.... wrote:

Travel agent wrote:

Top runners get a free plane ticket and a bowl of rice and a chance to win a smallisch race which looks "international" to the Americans.

Sounds fantastic. I would definitely go run if I got that deal.

Only if it is a business class ticket. It's not worth 26 hours of torture in economy.

jlk wrote:

If Walmsley wins, he'll probably be the only human who can drop down to 1:04 HM fitness then ramp back up for a hard 80k.

...he'll probably be the only human who [b/]would bother to drop down to 1:04 HM fitness then ramp back up for a hard 80k.

Fixed that for you.^

1:04:00 HM is worth 2:14 or slower by all tables, and being nice you could give him at best 2:12-2:13 (being generous to Walmsley as he is an ultra-runner).

Literally hundreds and hundreds of humans could beat 1:04. You don't think a single one of those could beat Walmsley over 80k if they bothered to train for the soft-field sideshow that is ultra-running? All those dozens of 2:04-2:06 guys? All those hundreds of 2:07-2:13 guys who have better marathon ability than Walmsley, and you don't think a single one might be as well-suited to an 80k as him? Please.

Mountain running and rail running get respect. "A fast 80k"? Nobody should care. Nobody does, except for the guys who couldn't hack real races and took shelter in this niche (and their fanboys).

The fact that Walmsley has never raced a road marathon, let alone a competitive one, says everything there is to know about his appetite for real competition, which he ducks completely by the nature of his career.

Why do people hate on ultra running so much? Like there's thousands of things to get worked up over in the world, why do you sh1t a brick and claim there's no talent in it? That's pretty objectively not true. Chill out and go get in arguments on facebook comment threads or something.

HobbyBoy wrote:

Why do people hate on ultra running so much? Like there's thousands of things to get worked up over in the world, why do you sh1t a brick and claim there's no talent in it? That's pretty objectively not true. Chill out and go get in arguments on facebook comment threads or something.

They're hateful jealous idiots who can't stand the attention and lifestyle ultrarunners are able to enjoy now.

And US top sprinters are just dudes who couldn’t cut it in football. Yawn.

NOBODY who knows anything honestly believes that ultras are where the true talent is... but who cares? Must suck to be so jealous and pathetic that you spend all your time insulting someone for doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD DO IF OFFERED THE SAME DEAL.

HobbyBoy wrote:

why do you sh1t a brick and claim there's no talent in it? That's pretty objectively not true.

When the "best ultra-runner in the world" can't break 64 for a half marathon, it is objectively TRUE there is no talent in it.

What if you had a special invitational 1800m trail run, with basically only North America and European runners, and the "best" in your special event couldn't break 52 for an open 400 on the track? You would know the best talent weren't actually competing in your little event. Which they aren't in ultras.

HobbyBoy wrote:

Why do people hate on ultra running so much? Like there's thousands of things to get worked up over in the world, why do you sh1t a brick and claim there's no talent in it? That's pretty objectively not true.

It takes talent I'm pretty sure you're just overreacting to people playing down that "talent"..... as I'm about to do. It was grandiose and stupid years ago when all the 2:40 marathoners were winning the ultras and claiming their times and wins were not attainable by those faster, in essence saying shorter distance speed don't matter and their special ultra "talent" runs the fastest ultra times, on par with 2:06 marathoners just in the domain of ultras. They don't go that ridiculous anymore because of people like Krar and Walmsley today and the faster road runner influx few years before these guys. But yet again we're having the same stupid conversation, except the bar gets moved and this time its saying 2:20 guys have the special ultra "talent" and faster guys can't run faster ultras. When are people going to get it in their head the special "talent" of ultras is simply having the endurance gene on top of raw speed gene. All things checked off the guy with higher capacity wins. There's a reason no 4:00 or slower guy has conquered a racing discipline, and its not because the thousands of people who have that speed don't have the "talent" I talk about. Its because generally we don't have 10000 mile races where they can showcase their "talent" and people start going f*ck it this is getting ridiculous I'm not competing in this.

I think your comparison is actually a bit off. Why not just compare the 1/2marathon example directly to the 400m. If we check out the Iaaf tables (new users can't post links) we see that they rate a 1:04 HM as 1031 points. This is the same number of points as a 47.22 400m (a little faster than your 52). I can't say that I'm as impressed with a 1:04 as a 47.22, but the Iaaf rated them the same in 2008.

In agreement with your post, this would correspond to ~137th place on the NCAA 400m performance list from 2018, nowhere close to elite even within the limited scope of NCAA athletics.

However, looking at it from your angle, of someone who is dropping down from a race distance that is ~4 times longer (80km/21km) we could think about a miler dropping down to the 400m.

This leads us to a very important question: how fast do we think Tefera could run 400m?

[/quote]

When the "best ultra-runner in the world" can't break 64 for a half marathon, it is objectively TRUE there is no talent in it.[/quote]

To say there's "no talent" is insane. I will never ever agree with that statement. But to be clear, no one is saying that ultrarunners are the greatest runners in the world. Just acknowledging that, yes, despite your keyboard warrior opinion, it does take a modicum of talent to win UTMB or Western States.

But, I do think that there's a lot of truth in what a lot of people have speculated: Sooner or later the money in ultrarunning will be enough to tempt talent that currently wouldn't ever get close to it. If you're a 2:04 guy and have the chance to get like $50,000 at the Dubai marathon why would you ever do a race where the prize is a belt buckle?

I think a lot of the pushback that's seen by trail runners here on letsrun is also because of statements like this that are needlessly exclusive. For a lot of people, the trail racing and the trail community is just more fun and laid back than the road running scene. And it's why we love it when Jim Walmsley says stuff like "Give me any 2:05 guy right now and I'll destroy his quads in the canyon". It's punching back on a weird defensiveness that some people on here seem to have.

Give a rest.

If it's as easy as you're suggesting I'm amazed one of the raft of entirely pointless 2:12 US dudes would surely have tried stepping up and having a go at some point.

I'm not really sure why there's so much bashing of people winning actual races like Walmsley when so many here are ridiculous fanboys of non-competitive 2:12 Olympic trials runners etc. They're never going to place anywhere the front of a remotely competitive field.

All these 2:07-2:13 guys aren't exactly going to be earning a fortune being cannon fodder for the top dudes so why aren't they stepping up into other distances and trying their hand there. It seems if you're good and win regularly which you suggest they would then they'd be making a comparable living and getting some merch sale commission on top.

There is plenty of prize money at Comrades and other competitive ultras for a 2:12ish marathoner to have incentive to race beyond 42km on the roads. Even USATF 50k trail champs at Fourmidable this weekend in CA had open prize money five deep. 2-time Olympic Marathon Trials Qualifier Tim Tollefson won there. Other competition this weekend stateside had sub 4-min miler Matt Daniels winning the Black Canyon 100km, 3:44 1500m runner Bobby Peavey winning Moab Red Hot 50km (to name a few)

HobbyBoy wrote:

When the "best ultra-runner in the world" can't break 64 for a half marathon, it is objectively TRUE there is no talent in it.[/quote]

To say there's "no talent" is insane. I will never ever agree with that statement. But to be clear, no one is saying that ultrarunners are the greatest runners in the world. Just acknowledging that, yes, despite your keyboard warrior opinion, it does take a modicum of talent to win UTMB or Western States.

But, I do think that there's a lot of truth in what a lot of people have speculated: Sooner or later the money in ultrarunning will be enough to tempt talent that currently wouldn't ever get close to it. If you're a 2:04 guy and have the chance to get like $50,000 at the Dubai marathon why would you ever do a race where the prize is a belt buckle?

I think a lot of the pushback that's seen by trail runners here on letsrun is also because of statements like this that are needlessly exclusive. For a lot of people, the trail racing and the trail community is just more fun and laid back than the road running scene. And it's why we love it when Jim Walmsley says stuff like "Give me any 2:05 guy right now and I'll destroy his quads in the canyon". It's punching back on a weird defensiveness that some people on here seem to have.[/quote]

da bears wrote:

When are people going to get it in their head the special "talent" of ultras is simply having the endurance gene on top of raw speed gene. All things checked off the guy with higher capacity wins. There's a reason no 4:00 or slower guy has conquered a racing discipline, and its not because the thousands of people who have that speed don't have the "talent" I talk about. Its because generally we don't have 10000 mile races where they can showcase their "talent" and people start going f*ck it this is getting ridiculous I'm not competing in this.

THIS.

There are literally hundreds of Kenyans and Ethiopians who could run a marathon faster than Walmsley. Perhaps over a thousand.

To suggest that not a single one of ALL those 2:04 guys, ALL those 2:05 guys, ALL those 2:06 guys and COUNTLESS 2:07-2:13 guys, NOT A SINGLE ONE COULD BEAT WALMSLEY at a 50 miler is simply idiotic.

Of course someone could. DOZENS COULD, if they could be bothered. But guess what? Companies like Drymax Socks, Clif Bar, Nathan and Squirrel Nut Butter (JW's sponsors) want to pay white Americans to shill for their gear, not African runners. (Since their market is the sort of people who spend $30 on a pair of running socks or $300 on a running vest.)

Everyone knows that African runners have to make their money in RESULTS, not sponsorships. So for now there is no good reason a 2:10, 2:08 or 2:06 African to race 50- or 100-milers. The money for them is in real road races, 5k-marathon, where they run times that the inferior runner JW could never dream of.

Buttz wrote:

However, looking at it from your angle, of someone who is dropping down from a race distance that is ~4 times longer (80km/21km) we could think about a miler dropping down to the 400m.

This leads us to a very important question: how fast do we think Tefera could run 400m?

That is a good point about 1:04 being equivalent to a 47.

Nick Willis ran 47.4 without ever focussing on the 400. Kszczot ran 46, 1:43, 3:38. It is safe to say that Tefera could do at least 47.

And Tefera just broke a WR in a regularly contested distance, that every great ever has attempted multiple times. Walmsley broke a "course record" in a distance contested only by the most shallow of elite pools of any running event in existence. (It says something when the few places are over 5% apart from each other.) Not impressive range.

Bro. You are proving that you just don't get it.

The entire reason that our best runners don't resort to ultras, whether 2:06 or 2:12, is the same reason why many of us have more respect for a blue-collar 2:12 runner chasing a 2:11.

They are putting themselves in the mix in a REAL, COMPETITIVE EVENT, not hiding in some obscure division where they get to feel like "winners."

"Walmsley" ran 13:50 and 29:00, but never bothered to get in a competitive road 5k, 10k, half or marathon? Not ONCE until last month? Give me a break. Talk about making a career of DUCKING.

You clearly have no clue about professional running, and making a living doing it if you are an African runner. From 2:12 on down to 2:04, good money can be made (by Kenyan/Ethiopian standards) running B-level road races all over Europe and the US, in cities with things called airports and train stations. They can also race many times a year in those events.

No agent of a 2:07 Kenyan is going to say "gosh, why don't you go camping in the middle of a dessert and race 100 miles, maybe you can get a belt buckle and throw away your whole racing season!"

"Ultra" is a perfectly nice hobby ground for runners who could never, ever hack it with the big boys. And that's fine, just like playing board games with your friends is fine. A nice recreational activity and you can even make up a prize for the day's "winner" if you want.

HobbyBoy wrote:

I do think that there's a lot of truth in what a lot of people have speculated: Sooner or later the money in ultrarunning will be enough to tempt talent that currently wouldn't ever get close to it. If you're a 2:04 guy and have the chance to get like $50,000 at the Dubai marathon why would you ever do a race where the prize is a belt buckle?

Gets it.^

Wertner1 wrote:

Even USATF 50k trail champs at Fourmidable this weekend in CA had open prize money five deep. 2-time Olympic Marathon Trials Qualifier Tim Tollefson won there. Other competition this weekend stateside had sub 4-min miler Matt Daniels winning the Black Canyon 100km, 3:44 1500m runner Bobby Peavey winning Moab Red Hot 50km (to name a few)

Ultra fan trying to prove how "competitive" ultra is by referencing Tim Tollefson and a couple of borderline four-minute milers.^

I am sure these guys are great human beings, but ouch. I can see why Walmsley enjoys ultra so much and never raced on the roads.