Where were you when Gary Robbins missed the cutoff by 6 seconds?

2/10 - weak.

wer.aiupoasf wrote:

Please. If the course route and checkpoints were so clear, then why do so many people get lost?

I have no problem with this being a near impossible race to finish. We have plenty of races where everyone finishes, regardless of fitness, and they all get medals. I like there being one like this.

you do it too wrote:

Just_here_for_the_day wrote:

2) It was always "suggested" - even required - that Gary would be required to take a specific route. It's in the rules.

3) Laz may or may not be a shithead. I've met him and I think he's a great guy. I hope you have met him and used your own personal experiences with him to make that judgement - not just from a netflix movie or a tweet.

6) There aren't vague, hidden check points. The checkpoints are quite clear. And they aren't hidden if you follow the route.

Take care.

the most offensive part for me is that he starts it by lighting a cigarette and asking that repeat participants bring him a pack of cigarettes.

I like Laz but this part about smoking is 100% true. He is from a different era but using smoking like that is a sign of idiocracy. I hope he quits.

Hey, been in the woods: "No official route," you say? It's called: MAP WITH UNBROKEN LINE DRAWN ON IT. Geez you can't get any clearer than that. Quit sounding like some Russian troll (although that could actually get you a free slot in the Barkley, the race that loves idiots).

You sound like an oversensitive and coddled millennial, amirite? Trigger warning reliant kid, maybe? Help me out here.

joedirt wrote:

Actually, I think your argument does more to reinforce my characterization of ultras than to negate it. I had never heard of Jim Walmsley, and while those are commendable times, they are not all that impressive for the person who is the best in the sport. None of those times would make the NCAA national meet or would even fall within the top 50 US times in the event in a given year. Props to him for finding a way to get sponsorship money after college in a situation where he probably would have gotten none. He is simply in a distance where there is less competition (ie. no Kenyans) so he is able to stand out.

So you're basically saying that the only runners who are athletes and not hobbyists, are those who run on the track and can qualify for nationals. Anything that isn't track isn't a sport. I'm just trying to give you some perspective... let's keep things within your track bubble then. Do you think a 100m sprinter would make a good 10,000m runner? Or vice-versa? Do you think they might be able to run "commendable" times, but not qualify for nationals? Or is the 10,000m runner successful because there is less competition than there is at 100m? Are top 10,000m runners athletes or hobbyists?

10K runners are competing against the world. Ultra runners are competing against OCD white men.

MillennialSpotting wrote:

You sound like an oversensitive and coddled millennial, amirite? Trigger warning reliant kid, maybe? Help me out here.

You couldn't be more wrong.

38, doctor, watched my dad die of lung cancer (although it had metastasised throughout his body) . Literally watched him die, which was one of the worst days of my life. I have run a few ultras, enjoyed them, and most of my running is now done on trails, although I still enjoy road running, mostly 10k's. Ran D1 in college, wasn't that good. Sorry I don't like Laz or want to do his race, not sure why that upsets certain people so much.

He's not making the entrants smoke a cigarette with him, you sally.

you do it too wrote:

I'd also like to know why so many people get lost on the clearly marked course and have a seemingly impossible time finding the books?

A friend of mine blogged his 2015 Barkley attempt. Here is what he wrote about that.

Sometimes the instructions are simple to find the book but sometimes they are not. One recent description was this, “Look up that hill. Steep huh? Go up it a little ways and veer off to the left. There are 2 trees 12 feet apart. The book is in the hollow of one of them.” Imagine finding that book in the middle of the night with fog so thick that your visibility is one foot.

Fair enough, it seemed that you were overly sensitive regarding the smoking but I absolutely get it now. The whole thing is not everyone's cup of tea and certainly not yours and you are not alone; nor are those who like it alone either...no different from many things in life.

you do it too wrote:

MillennialSpotting wrote:

You sound like an oversensitive and coddled millennial, amirite? Trigger warning reliant kid, maybe? Help me out here.

You couldn't be more wrong.

38, doctor, watched my dad die of lung cancer (although it had metastasised throughout his body) . Literally watched him die, which was one of the worst days of my life. I have run a few ultras, enjoyed them, and most of my running is now done on trails, although I still enjoy road running, mostly 10k's. Ran D1 in college, wasn't that good. Sorry I don't like Laz or want to do his race, not sure why that upsets certain people so much.

Damn, that was too easy. Critic

MillennialSpotting wrote:

Fair enough, it seemed that you were overly sensitive regarding the smoking but I absolutely get it now. The whole thing is not everyone's cup of tea and certainly not yours and you are not alone; nor are those who like it alone either...no different from many things in life.

In fairness, I hadn't slept much in the last 48 hours, and I am admittedly overly-sensitive when it comes to smoking. Therefore, my impressions of Laz are most likely unnecessarily harsh. One of the reasons I actually ran my first ultra was the death of my dad (just running a lot of miles during those months), so, seeing a race begin with the lighting of a cigarette, I guess it's hard for me to look past it. I truly believe the two do not belong together. I think of fitness, running etc. as a path apart or away from a lifestyle that involves smoking. Sorry if I was a harsh.

Walmsley did qualify for NCAAs in track. He even made the finals in the steeple. He also was a Footlocker Nationals finalist in high school.

Well Walmsley only has a PR of 13:52 5k, 29:08 10k and he's not pulling down $500k/yr and doesn't have trophy wife so he's clearly not going to amount to much.

zzzz wrote:

Chris60 wrote:

So you're basically saying that the only runners who are athletes and not hobbyists, are those who run on the track and can qualify for nationals. Anything that isn't track isn't a sport. I'm just trying to give you some perspective... let's keep things within your track bubble then. Do you think a 100m sprinter would make a good 10,000m runner? Or vice-versa? Do you think they might be able to run "commendable" times, but not qualify for nationals? Or is the 10,000m runner successful because there is less competition than there is at 100m? Are top 10,000m runners athletes or hobbyists?

Walmsley did qualify for NCAAs in track. He even made the finals in the steeple. He also was a Footlocker Nationals finalist in high school.

Walmsley ran Steeplechase, which is a completely contrive form of running, not pure running, so it's like ultra running which makes sense why he'd be good at it - it's contrived and not "real".

ProllyAHack wrote:

Well Walmsley only has a PR of 13:52 5k, 29:08 10k and he's not pulling down $500k/yr and doesn't have trophy wife so he's clearly not going to amount to much.

zzzz wrote:

Walmsley did qualify for NCAAs in track. He even made the finals in the steeple. He also was a Footlocker Nationals finalist in high school.