MAX KING is WINNING Western States 100 Miler

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Collin wrote:

It also wouldn't even surprise me to see Salazar taking a small blood sample here and there to figure out exactly what deficiencies Rupp was building during the race, and then modifying his intake to correct them.

I thought this was already being done by ultra racers.

Rob Krar winning Western States proves that speed is all that matters. He is a former 1:51, 3:44 1500m track athlete. He only needed two attempts to win WS and had the best debut in the history of the sport, while only training for trails within the last few years.

As the ultra-community stated yesterday on iRunfar, "breh, keep the track athletes out of ultra-runnig."

Collin wrote:

Looking at people faster than me, let's think about a couple elites that have excelled in both the regular running world and the ultra world.

1. Sage Canaday jumped into ultras and immediately...destroyed one of the most highly regarded records in trail racing (White River 50). With a lot of ultra experience, Sage is arguably not racing any better in ultras...

2. Matt Carpenter. When he raced Leadville for the first time, he did more typical ultra stuff in his build-up and just exploded in the race. Second time around, he followed his instincts and never went more than 2 hours in training. What was the result? Arguably the single greatest 100 mile trail performance of all time. Really tough guys can perform extraordinarily well without doing Krupicka-esque 10 hour training runs.

Boy, this resonates with me. As always, different things work for different people, but I think a lot of folks do better with keeping some quality in their training. Couple examples:

1. Joe Henderson. Founder of LSD, right? What was his fastest marathon (as near as I know)? HIS FIRST. He had gotten "burned out" on faster track work, so he ran longer and slower for some weeks, then (with the faster work still "in his legs") jumped in his first marathon.

In subsequent marathons, doing everything "right" (according to his LSD principles), Joe never matched that time. I really doubt that that's a coincidence.

2. Me, a much lower-level athlete. When I was racing 50ks, I found that longer training sessions never seemed to help me as much as just going out for about an hour at a stronger pace. Now, I might have had two or three "about an hour"s on a given day; but I was fairly fresh for each, and was usually well recovered the next day. When I did the longer single sessions (say three hours, more or less), it took me a couple of days to recover and never seemed to pay off in races.

I'm not saying every ultra racer benefits by keeping more quality and less quantity in his/her training--we all know people whose races have improved when they went to a much higher training volume and/or long single training runs--but I'd bet a good percentage of athletes would be better off if most of their training resembled what they'd be doing to prepare for races in the 10Mi to marathon range.

A pharmacist from Flagstaff won. Interesting....

LOL this is hilarious. like a bunch of hacks playing summer pickup at the YMCA who get mad when the D1 kids home from school for the summer roll into the gym & start balling on them.

Okcw wrote:

Rob Krar winning Western States proves that speed is all that matters. He is a former 1:51, 3:44 1500m track athlete. He only needed two attempts to win WS and had the best debut in the history of the sport, while only training for trails within the last few years.

As the ultra-community stated yesterday on iRunfar, "breh, keep the track athletes out of ultra-runnig."

makes me hope more guys with legit running cred start doing 50 & 100 miles races...the ultra guys will get their panties in a bunch, and we'll start seeing things like the "western states 250" and "leadville 400" created just so they have a shot at winning something. heck they should just form a partnership with the NASCAR circuit!

I think any claims that "the ultra community says this" or "the ultra community hates that" are a load of B.S. There is no monolithic, united ultra community. You say "the ultra community stated yesterday on iRunfar" as if one poster was speaking as a representative for everyone who ever runs ultras. Yes, it can be a little on the clique-ish side, but mostly in a positive way - a bunch of the same people are at all the big races, so it would be hard not to seem clique-ish.

I have a simple way of looking at it. We're not "track runners" and "ultra runners". We're all just "runners". If a "track runner" comes out and wins Western States, they ARE an ultra runner. What could be more ultra than running the WS100?

Personally, when I was attempting to run ultras competitively, I always wanted to see how the really fast guys would do in ultras. I never had this idea that fast guys just weren't tough enough to handle the distance. If Haile Gebrselassie and Paul Tergat in their prime had decided to show up at Western States, I'd have been as fired up as could be. I wouldn't be saying, "oh, wait till they get to 60 miles or so - Jurek's strength and mental toughness will win the day."

he lost big time! sorry but he wasnt gonna win it. he hit the wall at mile 70

Track athletes performing well in ultras? How is this news? Didn't a washed-up Alberto Salazar win Comrades like 20 years ago after doing a few workouts?

I agree with you generally, however the main thing Carpenter changed the second year was his fueling, i.e. having a drink every 10 minutes.

J.R. wrote:

http://www.skyrunner.com/story/2005lt100.htm

that was a really good read. makes me very happy with the way i've been training for speedgoat.

Gamera wrote:

I never had this idea that fast guys just weren't tough enough to handle the distance. If Haile Gebrselassie and Paul Tergat in their prime had decided to show up at Western States, I'd have been as fired up as could be. I wouldn't be saying, "oh, wait till they get to 60 miles or so - Jurek's strength and mental toughness will win the day."

That is exactly what most ultra runners have said for years. Earlier it was road runners couldn't make it because there's rocks and roots are on trails and it takes years to learn that to be a real ultra runner to just recently when breaking every ultra record left and right don't mean anything because you are not a real ultra runner unless you do well at 100 miles. All of it was rooted in some silly belief that being the best at the marathon etc is the same as being the best at ultras. One day a retired 100 meter sprinter will win an ultra race that will really piss them off.

Okcw wrote:

Rob Krar winning Western States proves that speed is all that matters. He is a former 1:51, 3:44 1500m track athlete. He only needed two attempts to win WS and had the best debut in the history of the sport, while only training for trails within the last few years.

As the ultra-community stated yesterday on iRunfar, "breh, keep the track athletes out of ultra-runnig."

Interesting. Is this true?

Do you mean to say the ultra community doesn't want fast runners because it diminishes their accomplishments? They can't be happy with their 10+ minute pace anymore? They want it to be a nice friendly club without competition? What does that statement mean?

Thank you, Matt Carpenter, for this line -

"In short, just like on the roads and in the mountains, there is a direct correlation in how fast we can go in an Ultra and how fast we are."

Geb would run Leadville perhaps 2hrs faster than Carpenter did... this is what true ultra dudes don't understand: how fast you are dictates how fast you can go in an ultra.

Okcw wrote:

Thank you, Matt Carpenter, for this line -

"In short, just like on the roads and in the mountains, there is a direct correlation in how fast we can go in an Ultra and how fast we are."

Geb would run Leadville perhaps 2hrs faster than Carpenter did... this is what true ultra dudes don't understand: how fast you are dictates how fast you can go in an ultra.

To a certain point. Shirley you can't say the top 100m runner would be fastest at the marathon.

How fast you are at the aerobic events is more like it. I would say the correlation is strongest at 3000m. The top 3000m athlete would be the fastest at the 100mile ultra.

ultra skeptic wrote:

[quote]Okcw wrote:

To a certain point. Shirley you can't say the top 100m runner would be fastest at the marathon.

Dude, I don't know. We all knot Jeremy Wariner could run 1:39 in the 800.

whatever man wrote:

I coach a club with a couple of top ultra guys and some milers and everything in between. If Galen Rupp wanted to give the ol' heave ho his track career and put two years into gearing up for an ultra, he might kill it, but they would be mutually exclusive options. Or put it another way, if you put $500K or $1 million as a bounty

...

Not enough for Rupp (probably), but for others I'm sure the endorsements you get for winning the WS100 are worth at LEAST $500k right now! Ultras are big business. People here just don't realize it. Twitter was blowing up with WS100 yesterday.

lots of endorsements wrote:

Not enough for Rupp (probably), but for others I'm sure the endorsements you get for winning the WS100 are worth at LEAST $500k right now! Ultras are big business. People here just don't realize it. Twitter was blowing up with WS100 yesterday.

not a chance. they might get you hooked up with the right sponsor who could enable you to travel and run, but you're certainly not seeing any hard cash influx or anything. i wish...

Okcw wrote:

Thank you, Matt Carpenter, for this line -

"In short, just like on the roads and in the mountains, there is a direct correlation in how fast we can go in an Ultra and how fast we are."

Of course there is a correlation, but it is not a perfect 1:1 relationship. The longer, the more difficult the course the weaker the correlation.

All the discussion here has been about King's performance yesterday - and he had a great run. But what about the number 2 finisher, Seth Swanson? I had never heard of the guy and he did not seem to be on anyone's radar for a top finish. When I looked him up he has won some ultras in the Rocky Mtns. and Northwest, and as far as I can tell he has a marathon pr in the upper 2:40s. Someone who knows more about him pleas weigh in here. But the point is on paper he should not have been anywhere near Max King at the finish. You will certainly never see something like this happen in a 10K on the track.

Third place finisher Dylan Bowman does not have a track or road background either and I cannot find a road marathon time for him, but he has had quite a bit of success at ultras. The guy with perhaps the strongest track credentials, Aish, did not even make the top 50.

But consider this: In the 2004 Oly marathon there was a lot of discussion about how the heat and hills would open the the field a lot more to some runners without the pure speed that could handle the conditions better. And in fact we saw the wheels come off for both the men's and women's wr holders. If this is true in a marathon, how much more will it apply to 100 miles with 40K of elevation change?

Yes, speed will always be king, but longer distances and difficult courses can moderate that advantage, and this is especially true for downhill running where speed does not convey that much of an edge. Canaday has often talked about downhills being his achilles in ultras. I hope more track and road guys take a crack at ultras. The talent pool is still small and shallow, but the cool thing is that guys/gals without a great track pedigree can still do well.