New American 100 mile record was just set. He averaged 7:12 minute miles the entire time !

GaIen Rupp Number on Fan wrote:

Galen Rupp Number on Fan wrote: I like to troll on Letsrun and love it when people get mad about my posts. Easiest way to get rid of me is to ignore all my posts.

I did not post this. The second sentence is not true.

Just kidding. Yes I did.

Galen Rupp Number on Fan wrote:

GaIen Rupp Number on Fan wrote:

I did not post this. The second sentence is not true.

Just kidding. Yes I did.

You were transparent yesterday. Go away. Yes, troll, I do realize you'll enthusiastically satisfy your impulse to gloat in this response. I too was once an anonymous troll just like you in your current pathetic state of existence. Go grow up.

Galen Rupp Number on Fan wrote:

Who cares? 7:12/mile is barely jogging. Anyone on my D3 team could easily destroy this record if you gave them a few weeks to prepare for it. Only reason we don't is because it's a waste of time. Who wants to waste half a day and risk injury to get some meaningless record that anyone who wanted could take. 7:12/mile pretty damn slow.

Next up we'll be going for 50 miles running backwards record...

You waste four years running D3 and dog on a guy for running 12hrs to set a US record, nice.

Thanks for posting, Sage. You are one of the best, and that carries a lot of weight.

Most talented runners don't disparage other runner's achievements.

Sage - You're the Man! Big Fan! Keep up the good work!

Wear and tear wrote:

Is it just me, or is he the worlds oldest-looking 39 year old?

I was thinking that too. On another note: How does one average 7:12 miles? Really? I'm assuming he had to stop a few times to eat or use the bathroom. What? He made it up by dropping a dozen sub 5:00s along the way? Or...he ate while running 7:12 pace?

oiuoiu wrote:

Wear and tear wrote:

Is it just me, or is he the worlds oldest-looking 39 year old?

I was thinking that too. On another note: How does one average 7:12 miles? Really? I'm assuming he had to stop a few times to eat or use the bathroom. What? He made it up by dropping a dozen sub 5:00s along the way? Or...he ate while running 7:12 pace?

Why don't you just read the race report.

just takes a couple minutes wrote:

Why don't you just read the race report.

Finished! And it only took 20 min. I think it would have been more awesome if he'd used the regular restrooms and then dropped a few sub 5s to make up time. Well, that's what I would have done.

Some posters claim any 2:20 marathoner could DESTROY the 100 mile records . . . alas, a number of SUB-2:20:00 Americans have attempted 100 mile races, but did not end up with 11:59:28. Former record-holder (12:27:01) Bernd Heinrich ran 2:21:32 marathon at age 40.

Conversely, who is to say that if he concentrated on it, Jon Olsen might run 2:20:00+-?? He ran 2:27 this year and tacked on a 13 mile warmdown. Even a mid-pack ultra runner like myself managed 2:27, mostly because I did my share of fast running, short 5-10Km racing, etc.

It is true that Great Britain's Don Ritchie (11:30 and Cavin Woodward (11:38, plus the top Russian 100 milers are all sub-2:20 marathoners.

What is amazing is the number of people who have never run an ultra who think they are qualified to make meaningful comments about those who have.

What is amazing is the number of people who have never run an ultra who think they are qualified to make meaningful comments about those who have.

Ive never played in the NFL but I give opinions on those guys, I've never tried to hit a MLB fastball, but I opine on some of their terrible play (and good play here or there.)

Nonymous wrote:

theohiostate wrote:

Big Kudos to Jon Olsen. He ran 11:59:28, which means he not only got the North American record, he pushed to break 12 hours when he was undoubtedly exhausted.

well said, those 32 seconds could have easily been lost

It's a good thing he cut his picnic lunch down by 32 seconds or he wouldn't have made it!

You have no effing idea what you are talking about.

reallybetterbekidding wrote:

This is akin to running for 10m and saying you have the 10m world record. Or running sideways for 150m and saying you have the sideways 150m world record.

Of course usain bolt or any decent collegiate runner would beat you but they choose not to be idiots. 100 mile world record means NOTHING. Any decent kenyan runner under 2:30 marathon would smash this guy and karnazus. They are probably laughing at this right now. If you think this means anything you are an idiot and it is not amazing at all. Sure these guys are decently fit but by no means elite.

This record has probably been smashed a zillion times by your average ethiopian runner out for an extra long training run or cruising around the hills to the next village.

Super-impressive. I can't even imagine.

I've read through this thread, and have tried to understand the critics from an unbiased perspective. The crux of their arguments seems be the records' obscurity - so few people attempt to run 100 miles that it's meaningless. The competitive field in a local 5K is larger than then that of people who attempt this record, and since we're not in awe of the guy who wins the 5K, neither should we be at this. There is indeed a valid argument and it deserves to be addressed.

Perhaps a mere ten thousand Americans will have what it takes to see the starting line of a 100-miler in 2013, and the vast majority of them won't be competitive. There are probably several hundred people in America with the talent to break this record if they would only try. But they won't try, and here's why: there's a lot more to this record than talent. Talent alone does not a fast ultrarunner make. Anyone who's attempted these things will tell you that the courage to attempt it, the will to persevere, and the heart to endure is much more meaningful than talent and training. Those of us who know this will - without exception - recognize, respect, honor, and yes be in awe of, the achievement.

The competition isn't as small as the numbers show. As I said there are probably several hundred people in the USA with the talent it takes to break this record, but they won't. Consider the lead pack in a major marathon. Many are in it early, few are still there in the last 5K. As the race develops, one by one, people fall out back as their willingness and heart deteriorates. They represent all of those who have the raw talent to break this record, but will never attempt it. Talent alone can get you in that pack, but courage, perseverance, and heart keeps you there. Those several hundred people with the talent to set this record won't because they don't have the other qualities it takes to even start such an event. Seen this way, the competition is much larger than the sum of people who've attempted the record.

"But I will get injured." "I don't have half a day to do this." Nobody is fooled by these BS arguments. The real reason this record will stand is because those with the talent don't have the heart. Which is a shame, because I'd really like to see someone break 11:00 in my lifetime. Someone out there has the raw talent, but it takes a lot more than talent to accomplish such a feat.

[quote]i am curious wrote:

Like saying someone who can run a 1:42 would obliterate a 10000m record if they ran one. lol.

Well actually someone who could run a 1:42 marathon would destroy pretty much every distance record.

Very well said. It's funny how people will argue that fast marathoners would crush the 100 mile record, when those same fast marathoners are thinking, "100 miles? No f'n way."

Substitute "Hop on one leg for 20 miles" for "Run 100 miles" and you can say the exact same thing. These are stunts not races.

Substitute "Hop on one leg for 20 miles" for "Run 100 miles" and you can say the exact same thing. These are stunts not races.

Let's get this out of the way: Unless I'm mistaken, hopping on one leg for 20 miles would be a different sport than running, wouldn't it? Really we're arguing about the same sport, different distances.

Help me understand your argument. I see two options:

1.) You seem to claim to be bothered by the arbitrariness of "100 miles."

You'd be a complete idiot (and a tad hypocritical) to suggest that "100 miles" is less arbitrary than "26 miles and 385 yards." I'm going to assume you're not a complete idiot, give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume..

2.) you're really bothered by what seems to be the lack of popularity of "100 miles."

..which I addressed that in my post.