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

True Blue Two wrote:

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.

I understand it's a perspective thing and I know what point you're trying to make, but I laughed out loud reading this. When I think of these ultra races, the term speed becomes almost comical to use.

Hardloper wrote:

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

Now we all know those track times are meaningless because those guys don't run track seriously.

It's absolutely true in the traditional sense.

1. Geb - 12:39/26:22/2:03:59

2. Tergat - 12:49/26:27/2:04:55

3. Wanjiru - 13:12/26:41/2:05:10 & Olympic Champ.

Older examples, Rod Dixon, Alberto Salazar.

You're correct, which is the opposite of what Fourth Mile is saying. He said the marathon world record is dropping due to fast track guys moving up. The best marathon runners today are talented marathon runners in their prime and NOT talented track runners who moved up late in their career.

oh please wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

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

Now we all know those track times are meaningless because those guys don't run track seriously.

How is it "true in the traditional sense" that the world record is dropping due to fast track guys moving up? NONE of the guys who have broken Haile's world record were fast track guys who moved up. Along with 80% of the fastest Kenyans, Ethiopians, Japanese... The fastest Americans are all former fast track guys but that's about it.

It's like trying to figure out if seb coe was a 14:06 level runner or kipsang is a 28:27 runner and is truly a minute slower than Mutai over 10K. It's more probable its all wrong as opposed to being all right but its hard to correlate anything with confidence because of usual data point issues. Back to ultras and speed topic...

The ultra situation is different. The guys who are setting the course records mostly have an established pedigree of speed and they are faster. And they have laid down official course records at ultras for us to correlate. In the ultra case you can begin to say the faster "track" guy speed is directly responsible for speedier "marathons". After all what was the course records doing all these years before the influx of speed. Just waiting around not lowering itself?

Of course all those guys could run much faster in a 10,000m track race if they wanted to, but they didn't, which is why they aren't "fast track guys moving up." Mutai could go run a 26:20 tomorrow, even then he wouldn't be a "fast track guy moving up," he would be a fast marathoner moving down.

I don't really follow ultras but is that true? From what I can tell most of the ultra record holders do not have any established pedigree of speed, with Sage Canaday being one of the few exceptions.

Okay, I'll bite.Here's what happened at the UROC 100km (race was 66 miles long and mostly at around 10,000 feet elevation ave.): It snowed the night before and the first mountain pass climb (12,000') had over a foot of snow on trail (it was also like 20 degrees up there).I totally blew up and got my butt kicked by guys with a non-traditional running background (Killian, Dakota, etc) but it wasn't before I saw Krar make this move on the last 4 miles of the slightly downhill Vail bike path...he pulled away from Dakota, me (dying), and Killian. It wasn't the move that won the race though - as that happend in the last 10 miles.. The thing is on the way up the "speedy" pavement section of the course I had the the fastest climb on the road. This killed me and I never cracked 7:00min mile pace. The mechanics are totally different and unlike the marathon where you hit the wall in an ultra you have to learn to "ride the bonk." You mess up and you'll crash and burn epically. The other thing is when you're 30 miles deep into a 100km and have already climbed (read powerhike, NOT run) over a vertical mile in the snow weird things can happen. If it hadn't snowed that would have been a totally different race (not that I would've placed any better as I was shot), but the times would have been a good 30 to 45min faster. Take into account how Wardian did at JFK (even after his double marathon stunt the week before) versus how he did at Speedgoat (28th place) and UROC (23rd) this year...totally different races.Throw in variables like altitude, feet of climbing, type of trail, weather, distance, aid station distances. etc. and there are a ton of things that can go exponentially wrong (or right). So with the more extreme ultras (search "Sky running") your road marathon "speed" doesn't always translate really well. Cardio power and Vo2max and a well trained LT help, but the mechanics are different...your running economy will be different...and you must be really efficient at burning fat as a main fuel source! Even at a "short" ultra race like the Speedgoat 50km where I was forced to powerhike (I hate powerhiking!) for like 2 miles, Krupicka (2:30ish marathoner) was reeling me in. Things change.But then again, I was only 43rd at the 2012 Olympic Trials Marathon...we can only imagine what a few of those sub 2:15 guys could do (well we know what Max King has been doing)...but with more numbers in the sport, more course records will fall...

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.

[quote]S. Canaday wrote:

But then again, I was only 43rd at the 2012 Olympic Trials Marathon...we can only imagine what a few of those sub 2:15 guys could do (well we know what Max King has been doing)...but with more numbers in the sport, more course records will fall...

[quote]

This is why I don't get the bashing of ultrarunners that goes on here. One of the fastest guys to step up to ultra's (and have great success) makes it clear that he knows what other even faster folks could do. Similarly Zach Bitter who just ran 5:12 for 50 miles this fall says the same on his blog (check the mile splits at the bottom-crazy):

http://zachbitterrunning.blogspot.com/2013/11/chicago-lakefront-50-mile.html

The fast guys who are out there doing it are not the ones with the egos; aren't the ones claiming greatness. It seems they just love racing long and invite all comers to join them.

Any distance can be tough if you run it hard enough. Just more variables and things to go wrong the longer it goes.

I'd love to see a big payday (6-figures) on the line to attract the 2:10 mary crowd over 100km or 100 miles. One thing for sure, no one is getting Kouros' 24 hour record anytime soon.

It all depends on the course,generally road ultras suite the fast guys ie Leonid Shvetsov 2hrs09min 42.2km and course record holder for Comrades Marathon 56 mile in 5hr20min29sec at an average pace of 3min34sec per km which almost takes Wardians attempt and that is without a break in between on one of the hardest road ultras around.Problem is the 50km/100miler TRAIL RUNS are a different ball game altogether as S Canady has alluded to and maybe with a payday and a bit of experience the fast road runners/C grade Kenyans will clean up.But don't be fooled 50km/100miler TRAIL RUNS are hard especially if the terrain varies.

SlowDownDude wrote:

Krar beat Wardian by 4 hours at UROC. He dropped at JFK 50 so there is really no point in mentioning him. You're obviously grasping at straws or intimately involved with Zach Miller.

A look at the JFK 50 results and other than Wardian there is no one of note. Wardian is hardly a competitive ultra runner in 2013. He has been out of the game for several years.

Why are you so excited about Miller? It's strange. This happens frequently. A road guy decides to do ultras because they are not competitive (think Sage Canaday). They have some good races against some so-so competition. After a few good races they run out of steam or face Europeans. The end.

you should be mad bro

the end

a truer statement could not be said.and the ultra guys know this better than anyone.... let the records fall.

Dumplings Please wrote:

Let's just say when better running athletes convert over to Ultra's earlier in their lives course times will fall..

ummm no wrote:

SlowDownDude wrote:

After a few good races they run out of steam or face Europeans. The end.

Zach crushed the Courmayeur Champex Chamonix 100k.

So Zach Miller is update, in other words?

Raptured wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

What do you mean? He's not a fast track guy, and he DOES have ultra experience.

Only on letsrun does running a 31:23 10k make you "not a fast track guy".

Lots of US women can run 31:23 in a fast race on the track and they would be at about 4:25-4:30 for 1600m like hundreds of boys in HS each year ... maybe thousands?

Lots of HS boys could run 31:00-31:30 if they had a reason to run a track 10k or road 10k each year. In fact, there could be 10 under 30:00 each year if there was a reason to run one.

In fact I ran 31:XX as a HS senior at Junior Nationals in the 10k. Nobody jumped up and down, even me. 31:23 is not a fast track guy in anyone's world. Maybe a solid performance for a Junior College freshman on his way to a 29:50 once he gets to real College.

There is next to no $$$$ in the ultra distances so it won't attract talented runners. As with most things, follow the money. The ultra is the elephant graveyard for marathon runners. The last stop to nowhere.

Shannon Hays wrote:

There is next to no $$$$ in the ultra distances so it won't attract talented runners. As with most things, follow the money. The ultra is the elephant graveyard for marathon runners. The last stop to nowhere.

This is not true. There are simply NO talented marathoners there at all. Have there ever been a former 2:13 or 2:14 marathoner who can't run at that level but hangs on in Ultras because they could be a big deal there?

No, and there have been several hundred Americans under 2:15 over the last 40 years ... maybe more?

I respect what they do, I am an ultra-endurance cyclist. But to say that this is the last stop for formerly good marathoners is to insult those formerly good marathoners.

Try again... wrote:

[ There are simply NO talented marathoners at all. .

We just had the Olympic trials in the United States and only ONE runner was faster than 5 minute pace. He is a 10k runner.

It looks to me like the marathoners suck as much as the ultra runners and the marathon is the elephant grave yard for real runners that do 5k and 10k.