Which was more impressive Killians Hardrock CR or Emma Coburn's AR

get real wrote:

The thread asks which is more impressive. Emma ran her race faster than Kilian could with a million years of training. With a year of training, I don't think Emma would have much problem beating Kilian at 100 miles. Didn't little Zola Budd just smash thousands of men at Comrades? She's 50 years old for fvcks sake!

You cant compare Hardrock with Comrades. Just shows how little you know, idiot.

You're right. Comrades is harder. It has top caliber athletes.

well.. wrote:

get real wrote:

The thread asks which is more impressive. Emma ran her race faster than Kilian could with a million years of training. With a year of training, I don't think Emma would have much problem beating Kilian at 100 miles. Didn't little Zola Budd just smash thousands of men at Comrades? She's 50 years old for fvcks sake!

You cant compare Hardrock with Comrades. Just shows how little you know, idiot.

Sure you can compare them. Comrades is a real race. Hardrock is akin to pole sitting and marathon dancing. Kilian can't run one mile in less than 5 minutes, his "sport" is closer to sitting on a couch for 20 hours than it is to running a sub four mile.

Hardrock is impressive for staying awake and walking 24 hours straight. Emma is more impressive any way you want to look at it.

Emma is also more impressive looking at her

S. Canaday wrote:

So how about this for a thought provoking discussion though: who's getting paid more..Killian or Coburn? (I don't know) Consider Killian has 375,000+ Facebook fans and Emma has just under 9,000 right now....

Stupid post. Why not bring Dean K. Into the mix too...maybe the penguin while we're at it.

get real wrote:

With a year of training, I don't think Emma would have much problem beating Kilian at 100 miles. Didn't little Zola Budd just smash thousands of men at Comrades? She's 50 years old for fvcks sake!

Budd ran 6:55, an hour and half behind the men's winning time, or about 25% slower than that.

And she's 48 and probably doesn't appreciate being called 50.

A steeplechaser has about as much in common with an ultra-runner as a sprinter does to a marathoner.

facts, facts, facts wrote:

get real wrote:

With a year of training, I don't think Emma would have much problem beating Kilian at 100 miles. Didn't little Zola Budd just smash thousands of men at Comrades? She's 50 years old for fvcks sake!

Budd ran 6:55, an hour and half behind the men's winning time, or about 25% slower than that.

And she's 48 and probably doesn't appreciate being called 50.

A steeplechaser has about as much in common with an ultra-runner as a sprinter does to a marathoner.

So Budd would have finished an hour and a half in front of Kilian. And it's true, a steeplechaser is a skilled athlete, Hardrocker is skilled at going really really slow for a long long time. Like a pole sitter.

Honestly (and take this with a grain of salt because I haven't run either one of these events), being able to run a good Comrades has more in common with running a good steeple and less in common with racing a good Hardrock.

For my speedy track friends:

Again, come to Boulder and try to run up the full length of Mt. Sanitas in 14minutes. Should be a piece of cake like a 14min 5km, right? Well...I'm going to bet that you won't touch Killian's time on that short of a run!

For my ultra friends who dislike the speed of shorter races and track and flat road race talk:

There are a ton of really talented athletes in these shorter events who train very hard with 100+mile weeks and 20 mile long runs under 2 hours (etc.) and I'm sure several could move up in distance and also smash course records in many mountain-ultra-trail events. My course records at White River and Speedgoat are pretty weak.

I'm going to bet that Kilian wouldn't get in the top half of the Fairview HS Invitational.

i'd love to see mo or galen (or ryan hall who i believe is in PC) try to run hard up grandeur peak in SLC while they're in town training. 3200 vert in 2.2 miles. best time is right around 40. i'd be impressed if they could go under 45.

A6 wrote:

facts, facts, facts wrote:

Budd ran 6:55, an hour and half behind the men's winning time, or about 25% slower than that.

And she's 48 and probably doesn't appreciate being called 50.

A steeplechaser has about as much in common with an ultra-runner as a sprinter does to a marathoner.

So Budd would have finished an hour and a half in front of Kilian.

Wow. Faceplant in the water pit with the logic there.

I love when ultra runners spout something like, "Let's see Rupp run some random route up a mountain next time he's in town, he'd never be as fast as ______" (fill in ultra flavor of the day).

Yeah, maybe if some guy like Rupp who has been training to run 6.2 miles around a track for 10 years tried some random arbitrary thing like that he wouldn't set any record first time out. And Rupp will never train to do something like that. Not because it is "so hard". Because there is no reward for it.

That's why some ultra guy gets to win. Because no one who is good enough to get paid for normal running would ever bother with the latest and greatest ultra guy stunt.

What does Kilian do as a day job?

Simpson would have the american record now if still doing steeple. How is this awesome for Coburn? Other 5k specialists would have Coburns record if they wanted to run it but they don't . So we have someone like Emma (and I don't want to disparage her as an athlete) who runs a 4:05 1500 probably who happens to hurdle well but isn't fast enough to win 1500's or 5k races so she excels at steeple. Good for her. Killian is in the same boat. But if you are talking about breaking a 100mile course record versus a woman who wouldn't have the american record if Simpson were still racing it, I am going to say Millions record is better, largely due to reasons mentioned and because he won the race.

ByronP wrote:

Let me clear some things up:

1) Kilian is closer to 5'5-5'6"

2) Only a couple hundred runners have attempted and finished Hardrock (and less than 12 countries represented EVER), where as literally thousands of each country's most talented distance females have attempted the Steeplechase.

A 9:11 WSC has the historical statistical data to back it up that it is more "impressive," also due to the fact that it is an Olympic sport.

Kilian would have difficulty running a mile in under 4:30.

You're right. Rupp would never! First ultra i did i fell into a rock and got 5 stitches. It's a bit risky of an endeavor for a real track/road pro with Olympic aspirations. And there are some pretty random FKTs.....

But still, show some respect for the mountain-ultra-trail events. I've run all these different distances (the mile on the track on up to 65 miles in the mountains and everything in between). Everything freakin hurts. If you push your body to the limit and/or win it doesn't matter. The pain and training and work are all there in both types of running and you train hard to explore the limits of what your body can handle.

If you've even run a marathon on the roads you'd know the pain is a lot different than the pain from the shorter events on the track. I'm not saying the longer events are harder or "more extreme," but the pain and sense of accomplishment from a good race are always constant no matter the distance.

Yes...anyone who runs a world record is a doper!

Fruit L00ps wrote:

Let me get this straight ...

Cross-fit sucks - they are simply wimpy body builders.

Triathletes suck, Webb will dominate in his next race.

Cyclists suck, and if runners were to convert, they would be the best at it.

Sprinters are people who are too lazy to run more than one lap.

Any race over 26.2 miles is automatically a hike and any guy who ran under 5:15 for the mile or broke 20:00 for the infamously short XC course would automatically win, if they decided to run, if they even showed up.

Is there anything else to add?

Except after Hard rock, you have traversed 100 miles, idiot.

Stupid is as stupid does wrote:

well.. wrote:

You cant compare Hardrock with Comrades. Just shows how little you know, idiot.

Sure you can compare them. Comrades is a real race. Hardrock is akin to pole sitting and marathon dancing. Kilian can't run one mile in less than 5 minutes, his "sport" is closer to sitting on a couch for 20 hours than it is to running a sub four mile.

So is everyone in track lucky Wilson Kipsang doesn't do 10ks or are marathoners lucky more 10k guys don't step up? Oh, wait, Farah did and didn't win. So have others. What is the success rate of 10k people setting marathon records? If these 10k guys can't step up and win marathons, what makes you think marathoners could step and set ultra records? And how can you be so damn sure if Killian trained for a 10 k he wouldn't be world class?All I see is you ultra hating guys are jealous you don't have the balls it takes to even think about train ing for an ultra.

German F. wrote:

I love when ultra runners spout something like, "Let's see Rupp run some random route up a mountain next time he's in town, he'd never be as fast as ______" (fill in ultra flavor of the day).

Yeah, maybe if some guy like Rupp who has been training to run 6.2 miles around a track for 10 years tried some random arbitrary thing like that he wouldn't set any record first time out. And Rupp will never train to do something like that. Not because it is "so hard". Because there is no reward for it.

That's why some ultra guy gets to win. Because no one who is good enough to get paid for normal running would ever bother with the latest and greatest ultra guy stunt.