AP5000 wrote:
Remind me what Bruce Fordyce did after he broke the 50 mile record? Oh, that's right, he sat down. Didn't have to go another 20k afterwards. I think we are all a bit shocked by how stupid you are.
Dumbest post of the week. Google is your friend.
sdfsfdsfsds wrote:
Rupp has the hardware, Jager competes and wins in DL, often harder to do than the Olympics.
They both have olympic silver medals
joedirt wrote:
Sorry, but Walmsley and Herron do not belong in the same sentence as the likes of Jager, Rupp, Kipchoge, or any other real runners that ultra fanatics are trying to group them with. The competition level is nowhere near the same on the ultra side of the equation. Celebrate his accomplishments however you want, but temper it with the reality that there is about as much competition in the ultra world as there is in underwater basket weaving.
Walmsley and Herron are an embarrassment for the whole ultrarunning community. I wish they would switch to underwater basket weaving.
Mhmm wrote:
Nobody cares about the 50 mile? Sounds more like a personal opinion. I peraonally would hate to live in your world where any world record or fastest time is not impressive. I know many people who would say the same about the 5 km, half marathon, 100 km, and so on. The fact that he was able to run this time and setting a new record that only a few in the world can accomplish is a great achievement.
Not all WR's are impressive. Herron's 50-mile WR is 21minutes slower than the 100K WR pace. Her record is extremely soft.
trane wrote:
By targeting both records, he admittedly gave too much importance to the one almost nobody cares about. Given the temperature at the end, it was probably the right decision to get at least one record (notice though that it is a world best and not a world record) but it would have been interesting to see what he can do for 100km since his 100km PB now remains very modest compared to his aura.
A handful of people on LRC have brought up the weather as an excuse, but honestly wtf. It's Sacramento, one of the most predictable locations weather-wise in North America. The weather on Saturday was exactly in-line with the historical average. Hoka and Walmsley have been preparing for this event for over a year and had free rein to choose any location, time, date, they wanted to maximize their chances of success.
All these jokers talking smack about 50 miles and whether or not anybody cares about at all. Many of you seem to believe that it's about as important as 9km, ie not at all. And you may be exactly right.
Yet, none - that's right, none - of you get on the Board to mock and ridicule those starting or positively contributing to threads about 1600m and/or 3200m. I do - and I should. So should all of you, yet it is just me pointing out that these are not universally recognized standard events. They are not events at all. Not only have runners outside the US never heard of them, they are not events here either. Neither USATF nor T&FN list records for these distances.
50m is much more of a real event. USATF and T&FN“ both will list an official, unofficial, record, 'best', or something, as opposed to squat about 1600m and 3200m. No authority including LRC claims there are even mere 'bests' much less official records for these distances.
Please, if you think irrelevant runners who can't succeed in recognized event with which you have to compete against the world pick nonsensical non-events to bring their own stock up are worthy of ridicule, great. I agree with this. So, get on with it whenever you see a 1600/3200 thread. There are plenty on the Board right now. Several will be starting today.
Only hs runners in the US care about 1600m/3200m. And a lot of hs kids run those events all the time. We don't talk about them much here from what I've seen. They can be good barometers for college recruits as we know a sub 9 in the 3200m is good potential for a future 5km runner. So take those performances for what they are worth. As far as the the 50-mile records and 100km record go is interesting that all these guys like Fordyce (4:50 split en route), Ritchie (4:51), Yamauchi (6:18 for 100km) and Kazami (6:09 WR 100km) all have marathon PBs between 2:17-2:19. Does that mean by the transitive property maybe Walmsley can run maybe a 2:16? We may never know as it sounds like he is considering a DNS at the Trials now.
Let's Be Consistent wrote:
All these jokers talking smack about 50 miles and whether or not anybody cares about at all. Many of you seem to believe that it's about as important as 9km, ie not at all. And you may be exactly right.
Yet, none - that's right, none - of you get on the Board to mock and ridicule those starting or positively contributing to threads about 1600m and/or 3200m. I do - and I should. So should all of you, yet it is just me pointing out that these are not universally recognized standard events. They are not events at all. Not only have runners outside the US never heard of them, they are not events here either. Neither USATF nor T&FN list records for these distances.
50m is much more of a real event. USATF and T&FN“ both will list an official, unofficial, record, 'best', or something, as opposed to squat about 1600m and 3200m. No authority including LRC claims there are even mere 'bests' much less official records for these distances.
Please, if you think irrelevant runners who can't succeed in recognized event with which you have to compete against the world pick nonsensical non-events to bring their own stock up are worthy of ridicule, great. I agree with this. So, get on with it whenever you see a 1600/3200 thread. There are plenty on the Board right now. Several will be starting today.
Let's Be Consistent wrote:
All these jokers talking smack about 50 miles and whether or not anybody cares about at all. Many of you seem to believe that it's about as important as 9km, ie not at all. And you may be exactly right.
Yet, none - that's right, none - of you get on the Board to mock and ridicule those starting or positively contributing to threads about 1600m and/or 3200m. I do - and I should. So should all of you, yet it is just me pointing out that these are not universally recognized standard events. They are not events at all. Not only have runners outside the US never heard of them, they are not events here either. Neither USATF nor T&FN list records for these distances.
50m is much more of a real event. USATF and T&FN“ both will list an official, unofficial, record, 'best', or something, as opposed to squat about 1600m and 3200m. No authority including LRC claims there are even mere 'bests' much less official records for these distances.
Please, if you think irrelevant runners who can't succeed in recognized event with which you have to compete against the world pick nonsensical non-events to bring their own stock up are worthy of ridicule, great. I agree with this. So, get on with it whenever you see a 1600/3200 thread. There are plenty on the Board right now. Several will be starting today.
I hate the 1600/3200 distances, but they can be easily and accurately converted to 1 or 2 miles. How can you appraise Walmsley's WR? Is it better than the 100K WR? Would Kipchoge slow down from 4:38 per mile to 5:48 if the distance is doubled? Until more people start running the distance, his record is mostly a starting point.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Not all WR's are impressive. Herron's 50-mile WR is 21minutes slower than the 100K WR pace. Her record is extremely soft.
It's a 50 mile worlds best not a world record. And yes it's a soft record. But don't tell that Camille she might get upset.
At least Jim Walmsley recognized in his interview that the 50 mile record is a worlds best.
Tomoe's record is controversial. She had a massive coastal tailwind, and the separation was greater than the 30% limit at the time. The Japanese federation put pressure on the IAAF to change the separation to 50% so her performance could be recognized. Ken Young from the ARRS was strongly against increasing separation beyond 30%. The ARRS continues to honor Norimi Sakurai's 7:00:27 as the record.
https://www.arrs.run/WG_Rec_ENG.htm
Camille Herron beat Ann Trason's record in what appears to be rain and a headwind (
https://www.irunfar.com/2015/10/this-week-in-running-october-26-2015.html
). The separation rule was set in case of a tailwind, and yet Camille broke a record facing a headwind. 50 miles is not an IAAF recognized distance, so the appropriate term is an unofficial World Best (only Americans and the IAAF use the word "Record").
Something no one has commented on yet is that realistically it would have been impossible to get both the 50-mile and 100K records in a single run. 100K (62.14 miles) is 25% longer than 50 miles/80K. That is a very large difference to be attempting both records simultaneously. When I first heard about that angle of the race setup, I thought "never gonna happen" unless it's a different guy targeting each.
It would be equivalent to trying to take down the 800m and 1000m records in the same race, for instance. A good example of someone who set both 800m/1000mrecords in separate races when nearly identically fit for each attempt would be Sebastian Coe. In 1981 he set the 1000m WR of 2:12.18 on July 11 just a month after his 1:41.73 800m WR on June 10. In the 1000m record he went through 800m in 1:44.56, then hung on but tied up a bit the last 50m. Almost a 3-second difference in his 800m split between the two races, which is huge at that distance.
Additionally, if you input Fordyce's and Walmsley's 50-mile times into a performance-equivalence calculator, they clock in as very similar to the current 100K record, perhaps better depending on the method. For example, using a calculator employing the Riegel method (uses a smooth mathematical curve so the results aren't statistically influenced by how often or how little an event is run), Fordyce's 1984 record of 4:50:51 comes out equivalent to 6:06:16 for 100K, faster than the current 100K record of 6:09:14. Walmsley's 4:50:08 equates to 6:05:22.
Jack Daniels' VO2max method equates Fordyce's 50-mile to a 6:02:28 100K and Walmsley's 4:50:08 to 6:01:35. Statistical methods that use current WRs as their base (Purdy or Cameron) rate Fordyce's/Walmlsey's records as 2-3 minutes slower than the current 100K record. The hitch being that WR-based methods work well for frequently run distances with a deep and long history, but not so well for distances like ultras which have much less history/depth. Below is a calculator giving results according to a few different methods:
https://tools.runnerspace.com/gprofile.php?do=title&title_id=801&mgroup_id=45577
From watching the race online and listening to interviews afterward, it was clear to everyone after about the halfway mark that temperatures would slow everyone down as the day progressed. Walmsley said he therefore adjusted mid-race to target the 50-mile record, and also for two other reasons. One was that this would be one of his best/only chances to get it, and he'd have other opportunities to attempt the 100K. (50 miles isn't officially run nearly as often as it was back in Fordyce's day.)
He also didn't want to trash himself too much for the Western States 100 in just 8 weeks, where's he's defending. He didn't mention the following, but it's going to be an abbreviated buildup as it is. He'll need at least a week of recovery first (two would be better after a 50-mile race + 20k jog), and at least several days' taper on the back end (a full week much better), so realistically he will have only about six to seven weeks to prepare. Don't envy him that at all.
Everybody suffered from the warm temperatures in this race after halfway. Look at what happened to two-time World 100K champ Yamauchi. He went through 50K in 3:00:34 ahead of WR pace, made it okay to about 48 miles, then cratered and slowed from 6:00 pace down to 6:30+ pace from there to 50 miles, and then 7:00+ pace the last loop of the course (4.7 miles), finishing 10 minutes over the WR 6:19:54. Still a good performance, but chances at a WR kiboshed. It seems to me Walmsley triaged things well — he was sweating like a dog himself the last hour and half of the race.
I'd liken it more to someone going for the 35k and marathon records.
sheeple wrote:
I'd liken it more to someone going for the 35k and marathon records.
42.2k divided by 35k = 20.5% extra distance, so not as much difference between those two as the 25% betwen 800m vs. 1000m, though still pretty large, granted. Energy systems in the 35k to marathon range are more similar when applied to ultras, of course, certainly will give you that.
Main point with any reasonable example is that if you get the record at one distance, you aren't gonna be able to take down the other in the same race unless one of the records is far weaker than the other. The performance calculators show the 50-mile/100K records are pretty close to each other. So you go for the 50-mile like Walmsley did, you're gonna have to jog it in the rest of the way to complete 100K. Or you go for the 100K like Yamauchi did, you'll be far behind the 50-mile record en route.
Great comment. I thought the same thing.
But people think if Jim Walmsley makes some cocky statements it must be possible.
Yamauchi paced himself well. It was obvious that he was out to run a new PR for himself but faded on the last loop because it just got too hot. Also Patrick Reagan paced himself very well for a new PR. Obviously both didn't go for a new world best for 50 miles.
2 records at once not possible wrote:
Something no one has commented on yet is that realistically it would have been impossible to get both the 50-mile and 100K records in a single run. 100K (62.14 miles) is 25% longer than 50 miles/80K. That is a very large difference to be attempting both records simultaneously. When I first heard about that angle of the race setup, I thought "never gonna happen" unless it's a different guy targeting each.
It would be equivalent to trying to take down the 800m and 1000m records in the same race . . .
If we are discussing realistic possibilities, and assuming Walmsley is a 'special' talent as regards ultra distances, his strategy was no worse than Cavin Woodward's 100 mile record run of 1975 where he split 4:58 enroute, held on to run 6:25 for 100 km, then held on further to finish 100 miles in 11:38. The entire recap of the race is well worth reading, but this excerpt is most relevant: "
he covered 80km in under 4:57 and reached 50 miles in 4:58:53 to be the first man to run faster than ten miles [16km] an hour for 50 miles.
Woodward was relieved to have broken the 50 mile record; it meant that the effort had been worthwhile. Something had been achieved even if he did not succeed in breaking the 100 mile world best. He relaxed a little, knowing that he could take two hours longer to complete the second 50 miles than he had the first, and still break the world 100 mile mark. He pushed on for three more miles before he made his first toilet stop. He had been determined that he would not do that until after 50 miles. Tom O’Reilly was second through the 50 mile point with 5:32:49, having overtaken Martin Thompson (5:45:20).
Woodward’s schedule for the next 50 miles was ten mile [16km] splits of 74, 75, 76, 80, and 86 minutes. In the first 6 hours Woodward had run 94.54 km. He took another stop to check on a blister at 59 miles but decided that it would last out to the finish.
By 60 miles Woodward was nine minutes inside his fastest schedule, and pushed on to take the 100 km world best with a time of 6:25:28, taking a massive 34 minutes off the previous best mark which had been set in Germany only the week before. (The RRC had only just decided to start recognizing metric ultra distances, and Woodward was not really aware there was a 100km world best. )
Thirty years later such 100km times are still rare; only one runner has bettered it on the track. Reflecting on his run 20 years later, Woodward felt that he could easily have improved on the 6:25, remembering his various stops, but that might have had long term consequences for his final 100 mile time.).
https://arrs.run/ARRS-root%20dir/AR_Great100Miles.htmIt's kind of fascinating that most runners get valued by their results. Like Cavin Woodward's 6:25 over 100k.
Only Jim Walmsley gets admired for his lofty goals. He ran a 6:55 on Saturday. 50 year old men have done better.
I hope part of his legend includes DUIs, cheating scandals, and being discharged from the air force. Seems his excuse for the cheating scandal was hey, everyone was doing it. Wonder if he thinks everyone dopes.
Thanks SteelTownRunner, very interesting to read the account of Cavin Woodward's 1975 100-mile race. Reminded me that as ultras increase in length, splits can tend to turn positive without as much negative effect compared to marathon and track distances, depending on the runner.
It does seem, though, that when Woodward ran his 4:58:53 for 50 miles en route to break the previous record of 5:01:01 by just over 2 minutes, then slowed substantially to run 6:25:28 for 100K (extremely impressive when you realize he was en route to 100M, though) and break the 100K record by over 34 minutes, it indicates the 100K record at the time was far weaker than the 50M. ("Slowed substantially," meaning a ~62.5-minute split from 40 to 50 miles, but ~71 minutes from 50 to 60, if one works out the math from the figures mentioned in the article.)
That's a very different situation than today when the records are much closer to parity. I.e., in 1975, 5:01 for 50M and high 6:50s for 100K then (a difference of 1h55m to maybe 1h58m) vs. 4:50 and 6:09 today (1h19m difference). My statement earlier in a follow-up comment to clarify was that taking down both records in the same race isn't possible "unless one of the records is far weaker than the other," which in 1975 is just what the situation was.
What's amazing, though, is how well Woodward's 100-mile performance has held up over the years. Makes you wonder what he could have done in modern shoes on modern surfaces. By the way, why does his 11:38:54 not show up on the record lists I'm seeing. Currently I'm seeing a road best of 11:46:37 by Yiannis Kouros and track best of 11:28:03 by Oleg Kharitonov.
Andy M. wrote:
Tomoe's record is controversial. She had a massive coastal tailwind, and the separation was greater than the 30% limit at the time. The Japanese federation put pressure on the IAAF to change the separation to 50% so her performance could be recognized. Ken Young from the ARRS was strongly against increasing separation beyond 30%. The ARRS continues to honor Norimi Sakurai's 7:00:27 as the record.
https://www.arrs.run/WG_Rec_ENG.htmCamille Herron beat Ann Trason's record in what appears to be rain and a headwind (
https://www.irunfar.com/2015/10/this-week-in-running-october-26-2015.html). The separation rule was set in case of a tailwind, and yet Camille broke a record facing a headwind. 50 miles is not an IAAF recognized distance, so the appropriate term is an unofficial World Best (only Americans and the IAAF use the word "Record").
That's why it's difficult to be a fan of ultra running. On the women's side, the 100K record appears to be dubious and the 50 mile best is obviously soft. If Tomoe"s record is not valid then the record would be 7:00. However, if you compare distance records up to the marathon, men are about 30 seconds per mile faster so the women's 100K record should be around 6:40.
You are looking at the wrong lists: