What does "still do well" even mean? That they line up at races and finish? That if Sage would line up they would only lose by 1-3hrs? I guess that's the issue - no ambition, no greatness, just slog and finish. Don't go for glory.
What does "still do well" even mean? That they line up at races and finish? That if Sage would line up they would only lose by 1-3hrs? I guess that's the issue - no ambition, no greatness, just slog and finish. Don't go for glory.
Okcw wrote:
I would say the correlation is strongest at 3000m. The top 3000m athlete would be the fastest at the 100mile ultra.
lol does that mean Lagat will move up to ultras in the next few years?
here we go wrote:
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.
Absolutely but I think winning big time events that draw talent or course records are becoming out of reach for the slower of foot. This was what most everyone was predicting would happen once real talent started getting into the mix. It just has happened a lot faster than thought. Something like hardrock though will always remain in the domain of pure ultra running/hiking so you can still keep the purity of ultra running away from the fleet of foot.
Lagat Fan! wrote:
lol does that mean Lagat will move up to ultras in the next few years?
Of course not in the next few years but I don't see why its not possible considering Krar competed at 800 meters and now he is at 100 miles. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's just see how regular elites will transform the ultra scene before the kenyans come along and re-arrange every course record on the books.
You jockey itchers do realize that Western States is a track race don't you?
best of both worlds wrote:
here we go wrote: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.
Absolutely but I think winning big time events that draw talent or course records are becoming out of reach for the slower of foot. This was what most everyone was predicting would happen once real talent started getting into the mix. It just has happened a lot faster than thought. Something like hardrock though will always remain in the domain of pure ultra running/hiking so you can still keep the purity of ultra running away from the fleet of foot.
I agree. There was never any question to me that faster runners - truly elite runners - would be able to dominate ultras against the guys that were ruling the scene 10 or 15 years ago. (not to take anything away from guys like Twietmeyer and Jurek - they were just racing against whoever showed up.) It does raise some interesting physiology questions - someone mentioned a page or two ago that the best 3000m runner should be the best 100-mile runner, and I'm inclined to agree that something like that is true. However, there do seem to be some elite runners who just don't move up well. Sort of like how Zersenay Tadesse has proven to be the best half-marathoner ever, and a great 10k runner, but has done crappy at marathoning. Some people seem to have unlimited range, and others seem to be locked into a narrow range of effective distances. What the debate boils down to is: is there a physiological type that is better suited to ultras? i.e. we know sprinters have limited range (no elite sprinter will ever become an elite distance runner), and we know middle distance runners (800/1500 types) generally don't make great distance runners, and we know distance runners can generally move up and become good ultrarunners, but is there a 4th category of physiological type - maybe someone like Killian Jornet - who is so well-suited to really difficult, really long races that the Bekeles and Gebreslassies of the world would never be able to beat him in his element? I'm just curious. I don't like to make this an "our guys can beat your guys" argument. I do know that in some of the ultras I ran, there did appear to sometimes be runners who competed pretty well in the longer, harder races, and I seriously doubt they could have gone out and done 5 miles in 30 minutes in a time trial.
Gamera wrote:
I agree. There was never any question to me that faster runners - truly elite runners - would be able to dominate ultras against the guys that were ruling the scene 10 or 15 years ago. (not to take anything away from guys like Twietmeyer and Jurek - they were just racing against whoever showed up.) It does raise some interesting physiology questions - someone mentioned a page or two ago that the best 3000m runner should be the best 100-mile runner, and I'm inclined to agree that something like that is true. However, there do seem to be some elite runners who just don't move up well. Sort of like how Zersenay Tadesse has proven to be the best half-marathoner ever, and a great 10k runner, but has done crappy at marathoning. Some people seem to have unlimited range, and others seem to be locked into a narrow range of effective distances. What the debate boils down to is: is there a physiological type that is better suited to ultras? i.e. we know sprinters have limited range (no elite sprinter will ever become an elite distance runner), and we know middle distance runners (800/1500 types) generally don't make great distance runners, and we know distance runners can generally move up and become good ultrarunners, but is there a 4th category of physiological type - maybe someone like Killian Jornet - who is so well-suited to really difficult, really long races that the Bekeles and Gebreslassies of the world would never be able to beat him in his element? I'm just curious. I don't like to make this an "our guys can beat your guys" argument. I do know that in some of the ultras I ran, there did appear to sometimes be runners who competed pretty well in the longer, harder races, and I seriously doubt they could have gone out and done 5 miles in 30 minutes in a time trial.
i think you have a good handle on things. i do have a hard time believing that there are guys out there winning ultras at a decent level who couldn't run something like a 40 minute 10k though. maybe on a local level, but if the race is bringing any sort of regional talent, the winner should be able to run that pretty easily. it bums me out how bad an attitude kilian has towards road running, for example his complaining about the UROC course last year. he's an absolute monster and a big influence on why i got into running, but he came off as a bit of a p*ssy in that situation. it would be fun to see what he could run for the 5k and up, with his VK skills i bet he could get somewhere into the 14/30 range with a few weeks/months of specificity.
I doubt Kilian's vertical abilities will translate into flat speed. He is too specialized. It would be like a sprinter training for an ultra too big a gap. I'm curious if he's even able to run a 100 miles on the track it takes a different set of muscles.
I don't know whether a trained Bekele could beat Killian, but the difference between a trail 100-miler and a marathon is much bigger than between a 10K and a marathon.
In both a 10K and a marathon, an elite runner is running very fast (well under 5-minute per mile pace even in the marathon). So having good running economy at high speeds is a crucial element of being an elite runner in the 10K or marathon.
In contrast, even in a relatively "fast" 100-mile ultramarathon like Western States 100, no one is averaging even an 8.5-minute per mile pace. This is because the course is hilly, the footing is mostly bad, it's hot out, and you're usually carrying at least two water bottles and a bit of food. Therefore, having good running economy at high speeds is NOT very important for a trail 100-miler.
Put another way, the difference in pace between a trail 100-miler and a road marathon is MUCH GREATER than the difference in pace between a road marathon and a mile track race (3:45 to about 4:45 for the mile to marathon, versus 4:45 to 8:45 for the marathon to 100-miler).
So when we compare Max King to other ultramarathoners, his endurance and aerobic capacity are still big pluses -- but the fact that he can cruise along at near 4-minute mile pace gives him no real advantage over somebody who can't even break 16:30 for 5K if that slower 5K runner still has great endurance and aerobic capacity.
So one of the components that is necessary to be a great 10K or marathon runner is not necessary to be a great ultrarunner. I think that is why you have people like Max King and Sage Canaday (very fast road runners) doing well at ultras, but you also have people with much slower track times doing equally well.
Put another way, if you held a 10K and required all of the runners to carry two full-size water bottles and switch directions every 80 meters (i.e. switchbacks on a trail), would Bekele still be the best in the world?
its the hills wrote:
I don't know whether a trained Bekele could beat Killian, but the difference between a trail 100-miler and a marathon is much bigger than between a 10K and a marathon.
In both a 10K and a marathon, an elite runner is running very fast (well under 5-minute per mile pace even in the marathon). So having good running economy at high speeds is a crucial element of being an elite runner in the 10K or marathon.
In contrast, even in a relatively "fast" 100-mile ultramarathon like Western States 100, no one is averaging even an 8.5-minute per mile pace. This is because the course is hilly, the footing is mostly bad, it's hot out, and you're usually carrying at least two water bottles and a bit of food. Therefore, having good running economy at high speeds is NOT very important for a trail 100-miler.
Put another way, the difference in pace between a trail 100-miler and a road marathon is MUCH GREATER than the difference in pace between a road marathon and a mile track race (3:45 to about 4:45 for the mile to marathon, versus 4:45 to 8:45 for the marathon to 100-miler).
So when we compare Max King to other ultramarathoners, his endurance and aerobic capacity are still big pluses -- but the fact that he can cruise along at near 4-minute mile pace gives him no real advantage over somebody who can't even break 16:30 for 5K if that slower 5K runner still has great endurance and aerobic capacity.
So one of the components that is necessary to be a great 10K or marathon runner is not necessary to be a great ultrarunner. I think that is why you have people like Max King and Sage Canaday (very fast road runners) doing well at ultras, but you also have people with much slower track times doing equally well.
Put another way, if you held a 10K and required all of the runners to carry two full-size water bottles and switch directions every 80 meters (i.e. switchbacks on a trail), would Bekele still be the best in the world?
Something I think it's god to note, however, is how Bekele has always been a monster in cross country. He's incredible on hills and mud. And it's not like he's never done long runs before. I mean, Geb said that for the marathon he did a few 40 mile runs. These guys could destroy the ultrarunning scene.
Wow... wrote:
Something I think it's god to note, however, is how Bekele has always been a monster in cross country. He's incredible on hills and mud. And it's not like he's never done long runs before. I mean, Geb said that for the marathon he did a few 40 mile runs. These guys could destroy the ultrarunning scene.
Well, he did DESTROY the 5k scene and then then 10k scene and after that the marathon scene.
The point most of you are forgetting is that these are the HARDEST WORKING athletes also. They were fast at shorter races because they worked hard so there is no reason to believe they wouldn't work just as hard if they were interested in doing ultras.
Wow... wrote:
its the hills wrote:I don't know whether a trained Bekele could beat Killian, but the difference between a trail 100-miler and a marathon is much bigger than between a 10K and a marathon.
In both a 10K and a marathon, an elite runner is running very fast (well under 5-minute per mile pace even in the marathon). So having good running economy at high speeds is a crucial element of being an elite runner in the 10K or marathon.
In contrast, even in a relatively "fast" 100-mile ultramarathon like Western States 100, no one is averaging even an 8.5-minute per mile pace. This is because the course is hilly, the footing is mostly bad, it's hot out, and you're usually carrying at least two water bottles and a bit of food. Therefore, having good running economy at high speeds is NOT very important for a trail 100-miler.
Put another way, the difference in pace between a trail 100-miler and a road marathon is MUCH GREATER than the difference in pace between a road marathon and a mile track race (3:45 to about 4:45 for the mile to marathon, versus 4:45 to 8:45 for the marathon to 100-miler).
So when we compare Max King to other ultramarathoners, his endurance and aerobic capacity are still big pluses -- but the fact that he can cruise along at near 4-minute mile pace gives him no real advantage over somebody who can't even break 16:30 for 5K if that slower 5K runner still has great endurance and aerobic capacity.
So one of the components that is necessary to be a great 10K or marathon runner is not necessary to be a great ultrarunner. I think that is why you have people like Max King and Sage Canaday (very fast road runners) doing well at ultras, but you also have people with much slower track times doing equally well.
Put another way, if you held a 10K and required all of the runners to carry two full-size water bottles and switch directions every 80 meters (i.e. switchbacks on a trail), would Bekele still be the best in the world?
Something I think it's god to note, however, is how Bekele has always been a monster in cross country. He's incredible on hills and mud. And it's not like he's never done long runs before. I mean, Geb said that for the marathon he did a few 40 mile runs. These guys could destroy the ultrarunning scene.
The so called hills in XC isn´t exactly the same as climbing for hours on a mountain.
its the hills wrote:
In contrast, even in a relatively "fast" 100-mile ultramarathon like Western States 100, no one is averaging even an 8.5-minute per mile pace. This is because the course is hilly, the footing is mostly bad, it's hot out, and you're usually carrying at least two water bottles and a bit of food. Therefore, having good running economy at high speeds is NOT very important for a trail 100-miler.
The winner was just tougher at 100 miles than the 100 mile experts its the only other reason lol.
As Rob Krar said, it's not about toughness. It's about being fit and fast, which is why he set the FKT at the Grand Canyon, to show to his competition, "look how fit I am.. look how much I have improved my descending, my climbing, my managing heat." He did to show his strength. Then he placed 2nd at WS after a conservative start.
Now a track athlete has won WS100. Throw "toughness" out the window.
The big boys run next month.......Badwater
+1Everyone in the ultra community knows that WS100 is not one of the REAL ultra events.
Mudder wrote:
The big boys run next month.......Badwater
Cowl wrote:
As Rob Krar said, it's not about toughness. It's about being fit and fast, which is why he set the FKT at the Grand Canyon, to show to his competition, "look how fit I am.. look how much I have improved my descending, my climbing, my managing heat." He did to show his strength. Then he placed 2nd at WS after a conservative start.
Now a track athlete has won WS100. Throw "toughness" out the window.
You're argument is kind of absurd, in my opinion. It goes back to a point I brought up earlier: once you run an ultramarathon, you are by definition an ultramarathoner. Rob Krar isn't an 800m runner. He's a runner who has run well at distances ranging from 800m to 100 miles. He's apparently run a number of ultras before. How long do you get to say he's a track guy beating ultramarathoners, and when does he become an ultramarathoner beating other ultramarathoners? Same with Sage Canaday. Because he was known in the US track scene before he started doing ultras, it seems he will forever be known as that track guy that crushes ultra guys at their own game.
Think of Ann Trason, who is pretty much synonymous with American ultra running. She was a very good track athlete in HS and college. Why isn't she considered a trackie who beat those ultrarunners at Western States 14 times? Or Ted Corbitt, the "father of American ultrarunning"? Started racing on the track, represented the US in the Olympic marathon. Should he be considered an Olympian who then started the US ultrarunning movement and then beat all the ultra dorks he created at their own game?
Collin wrote:
Interestingly, he quadrupled his lead in the hillier middle section, where I would have expected him to drop some time to Krar. Climbing is probably his biggest weakness, but he's still gapping people on the uphills, so that's a good sign.
Climbing is Max's biggest weakness?? The 2011 WORLD Mountain Running Champion?
Gamera, you don't understand the sport. It's just like any time someone races Lagat over 5000m (like this weekend). Even in the final lap the announcers are stating (and knowledgeable fans), that Lagat is a 3:26 man and they can't expect to out-kick him. Once a 3:26 man, always a 3:26 man, even if he ran it over 10-years ago and is more of a 3:36 guy currently.
The same with Krar. Once a track pedigree, always a track pedigree, regardless of how many ultras he runs. What will always separate him from the Seth Swansons of the world, the Kilian Jornets of the world, is that he was a highly successful track athlete.
Mudder wrote:
The big boys run next month.......Badwater
Another sprint event. Meanwhile Sri Chinmoy is going on right now in NY.
