Max King did NOT have a pacer for the race. Everyone else did. I'm sure it would have helped him in the latter stages.
Moby Dick wrote:
Climbing is Max's biggest weakness?? The 2011 WORLD Mountain Running Champion?
Max King did NOT have a pacer for the race. Everyone else did. I'm sure it would have helped him in the latter stages.
Moby Dick wrote:
Climbing is Max's biggest weakness?? The 2011 WORLD Mountain Running Champion?
Krar didn't have a pacer either. Neither did Seth Swanson.
How is Dean Karnazazes doing?
Jackie Noff wrote:
How is Dean Karnazazes doing?
Still cheating, like in Badwater and Kauai last year...
Looking at Max's ultra history, he has done more poorly in more hilly/mountainous racing, while destroying flatter races. His championship mountain running win was very different from the longer steeper climbs at WS100. A better comparison to this portion would be his Mount Washington road race, his climbs at Speedgoat.
talk about vascularity…same drugs as rupp? thank god max doesn't shave those things, children would be running away in fear.
Gamera wrote:
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.
The word surpassed comes to mind if you are uncomfortable thinking of it as faster roadies crushing ultra guys at their own game. Or you could call them unreal ultramarathoners to differentiate them from the real ultramarathoners.
Has anyone interviewed Max King after his race?
1) Does he have an obsession with zombies?
2) (deleted)
3) Did he lose this race by dropping a 6:24 split on one section (over four miles)?
"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."
On a MB full of idiotic drivel, this is the dumbest I've seen. What if Krar had decided not to run the 800 in college but ran trails (for speed!) on his own time? What does that do to your argument that it takes a "track pedigree" (whatever that means) to make a champion ultrarunner? Fast runners are fast runners.
CDG wrote:
"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."
On a MB full of idiotic drivel, this is the dumbest I've seen. What if Krar had decided not to run the 800 in college but ran trails (for speed!) on his own time? What does that do to your argument that it takes a "track pedigree" (whatever that means) to make a champion ultrarunner? Fast runners are fast runners.
Following up on your point, here is the post-race interview with Seth Swanson. He had no running background and started running trail races and ultras around Montana. He's only been at it a few years but just finished second at what might have been the most competitive/deepest WS ever.
http://www.irunfar.com/2014/06/seth-swanson-post-2014-western-states-100-interview.htmlI love how every year is the most competitive, deepest field ever.
Krar's track background is important because he spent years recruiting muscle fibers that guys like Swanson did not.
"Krar's track background is important because he spent years recruiting muscle fibers that guys like Swanson did not."
Or Max King, who came in nearly a half-hour after Swanson. Oh wait.
speed hiking
There are some important factors being glossed over. The challenge of running for 15+ hours straight is remarkable. If you have run a marathon, you know there are high and low points. If you run nearly four times that distance, the highs get higher and the lows lower. Self doubt and mental fatigue are compounded as severe calorie deficits mount. The fueling element is significant, needing to take in enough calories and hydration while still moving. These aspects may come easily, or they can ruin a race very quickly. Not to say that these traits are exclusive to ultrarunners, as there certainly are runners with a strong track background that have mastered them. However, these are puzzle pieces that are not as crucial or even necessary in shorter races. It's easy to talk about running a slow pace all day and eating on the go, but much harder to accomplish from my experience.
Cowl wrote:
I love how every year is the most competitive, deepest field ever.
Krar's track background is important because he spent years recruiting muscle fibers that guys like Swanson did not.
Also true for guys like Canady and Aish.
Cowl wrote:
Krar's track background is important because he spent years recruiting muscle fibers that guys like Swanson did not.
None of which helps him in ultras, because guys like Swanson did not.
HRE wrote:
Also true for guys like Canady and Aish.
So what is your point? Canady did not run Saturday and Aish finished 55th - behind 10 women. Obviously, he had a bad day and really I have to give him a lot of credit to line up and run and then plug away to the finish instead of taking a DNF.
But the point is that a track background doesn't matter if someone has talent - i.e. they are fast. Despite not having a track background, Swanson obviously has the talent to compete at long trail races with guys like Aish and King, who have run 13:22 and 8:30 steeple, on the track.
Guys like Killian have two distinct assets. In addition to running big miles, they can run vertically and at altitude. Very few flatland runners could run Krupicka's Green Mountain day in and day out. This isn't just about track speed. As well, of course, there's the little matter of having the self-discipline to run hard for 16 hours. The quick marathon is 2 or 3. If cocky flatlanders doubt all this, go race a short but vertical and technical trail race.
It's a shame people keep putting down Ultra runners. It's a different discipline. It takes a special talent. Of course if more people ran them (including elites), that times would be faster.
Cowl(?) wants to attribute Krar's win to spending years developing specific muscle fibers by training for short distance track races. That's supposedly why he was first and Swanson didn't beat him. But Swanson did manage to beat other guys who also spent years doing the same sort of work and actually were much more successful on the track. Aish was in two Olympic 10,000s.
My point is that if developing speed for track races is why Krar beats Swanson, why didn't Aish and King beat him? Obviously, other things come into play and it's simplistic to look at a guy with good track times who's done well at ultras and say it's all due to the trackwork.