MAX KING is WINNING Western States 100 Miler

Thanks for clarifying. It sounds like we are essentially saying the same thing.

here we go wrote:

Thanks for clarifying. It sounds like we are essentially saying the same thing.

A rare time of clarification and agreement at Letsrun. Both of our lives may have peaked here today.

Just in to be part of this legendary moment.

Okay, I'll bite.

There seem to be a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum that seem to have absolutely no idea what they are talking about....a lot of generalizations here IMO (but take what I say with a grain of salt as well).

Now, i'm not going to comment on the WS100 or any 100 mile ultra as I have not run that far myself - however, I will say from having some experience in a variety of different events from the track 1500m to SkyRunning events like Speedgoat to Transvulcania and more runnable trail ultras like White River and Lake Sonoma (as well as having raced all these mentioned guys) that what really matters is the course profile.

Throw VO2max and velocity at Lactate Threshold out of the window...that doesn't matter very much. (Killian's may, but only because he does a lot of high altitude stuff...). I saw him suffer at UROC and he suffered better than me, but the desire was there early on to try to win the race...

No, what matters most IMHO is Running Economy on specific terrain. There is a certain thing to be said about running on smooth dirt trails and running on rocky steps in the mountains. Percent grade and steepness of every climb matter. The duration of the ups and downs and how long they last and when they occur over the distance of the race matter a ton. The course determines a lot on whether or not a sub 2:25 marathoner can really smash a course or if they really may blow up. The course profile (not the distance) determines a lot! At Speedgoat there is going to be a 25-30% grade climb (off trail up Mt. Baldy at 11,000' for about a half mile) that i'm going to have to "power hike" up and it's going to be very slow going for me because I suck at that kind of movement pattern. It's not a movement pattern specific to fast road or track running...

Then there is the metabolism issue. Some guys are better at burning fat and sparing glycogen than others. Some guys can eat a ton and not have stomach issues. Sometimes these races are a fricking eating contest!

So having some raw speed and having a high Vo2max and velocity at Lactate Threshold effort helps give you more aerobic reserve...but in the very long runs if your stomach isn't solid, and if the muscles in your legs just fail from all the climbing/descending...then that's not going to matter much when you have 20 or 30 miles to go and all you can do is wobble along at 8-10min mile pace (if even that). Factor in altitude in a lot of these SkyRunning and mountain running events and there are more variables at play...

In regards to my performances not being as solid this year... well, there are a lot of things I'm still trying to figure out in training (mixing in an ultra nearly every month with road races like Mt. WA and the Carlsbad marathon is not ideal and I know that!). I've only been doing about 80-90mpw for most of these things whereas coming off of college and Hansons I was in the 120 range a lot doing some decent track workouts. I think there is something to be said about generating muscle tension at 5:00min/mile pace and boosting Vo2max - but on the flip-side if you can't climb and descend rocky/technical trails for thousands of feet at a time then the legs fail first in ultras (way before the glycogen stores do). But then again, it depends on the course...

So there is a movement happening in the sport with more guys and gals who have track and road backgrounds entering the the scene. This is what my "MUT Runner" film is about and I'm glad I've interviewed runners like Max, Rob and the women's WS100 champ Stephanie Howe. What does this mean for this niche of running? Well, I think it means that a lot of course records are going to go down! I can tell you for a fact that my course records at White River and Speedgoat are soft. There are a lot of guys that can take those times down by quite a bit (i.e. sub 5hrs at speedgoat, sub 6hrs at White River). Lake Sonoma (set by 31min+ 10km runner Zach Miller who beat Rob Krar and I head to head this year) is still soft. In the future, the top runners in these Mountain-Ultra-Trail events will finish closer and closer together IMHO.

This is stupid and getting to be the kevin bacon game of who beats who, I beat this guy who beat this guy so I'm better than that guy. Bottom line Krar won beat everyone and he has speed. I think Swanson only started running four years ago so you have no idea what his capacity is. I agree with the other guy who says this is about speed not whether you have run track or roads or not, speed is speed. Those two things make it clear there is no special ultra runner speed or toughness to be developed that sets one apart. Running for years and years at stupid long distances don't make you any better at stupid long distances than someone who hadn't been doing it. We also know beyond all doubt 100K or lower ultra distances speed DOES matter who in their right mind would deny that now. The only question was 100 miles and Krar has proven that its no detriment to be fast. The next logical question is it an advantage? I'm willing to say yes and be proven wrong. If a bunch of true 2:40+ marathoners take back the western states crown year after year just like the old days, then I will admit speed don't matter at 100 miles.

f*ck sage, sub 5 at speedgoat would be impressive. i'm just hoping to hang on for sub 6 or a bit better.

Of course speed is an advantage at any distance. But it's not the ONLY variable. Otherwise the best 100 meter runners would be best at any other distances as well. As distances lengthen speed remains an advantage but other variables come into play and guys who do not do as well at short distances CAN run faster than those who do.

HRE wrote:

Of course speed is an advantage at any distance. But it's not the ONLY variable. Otherwise the best 100 meter runners would be best at any other distances as well. As distances lengthen speed remains an advantage but other variables come into play and guys who do not do as well at short distances CAN run faster than those who do.

I mostly agree but those variables that you talk about would have the same chance of afflicting anyone. Speed are only available to those who have it. You take for example Aish didn't do as well but Max did pretty good and Krar killed it. That is only a 1/3 success rate but any other year you're lucky to have one guy of that caliber and if he fails it typecasts the whole lot when its just those same random variables that afflict everyone. Its a numbers games with more people someone will break through. If you're a 2:08 marathoner at a major you can't think of winning because there's 10 kenyans going out faster and chances at least one of them will hang on unless its some super humid day which is similar to those variables that can happen at an ultra

True, but the importance of speed varies according to the course. Think of it this way: If we took the same WS field that ran Saturday and put them in a 100K road race the outcome would have likely been quite different. Aish and King would have probably performed a lot better and other top 10 guys with less speed would finish further back.

When you throw in a lot of steep hills, bad footing, river crossings, etc. it opens up more opportunities to guys that would not have any chance if speed was the only factor.

Speed? In a 100-mile race? Seriously?

oh please wrote:

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.

I just see ultras as stunts, but not really something to be considered "competitive" like the track or roads. Kinda like those 24 hr races around a track and stuff like that.

You can add in joggling, running barefoot, stuff like that. Sure it's all difficult, but so what?

ataglance wrote:

oh please wrote:

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.

I just see ultras as stunts, but not really something to be considered "competitive" like the track or roads. Kinda like those 24 hr races around a track and stuff like that.

You can add in joggling, running barefoot, stuff like that. Sure it's all difficult, but so what?

Just when we thought there wouldn´t be any more stupid, immature posts on this thread - BANG!

ataglance wrote:

I just see ultras as stunts, but not really something to be considered "competitive" like the track or roads. Kinda like those 24 hr races around a track and stuff like that.

You can add in joggling, running barefoot, stuff like that. Sure it's all difficult, but so what?

They're not stunts, but they're definitely 1000x less competitive than, say, marathons. That's why guys like Sage end up doing them- so they can actually be competitive and become one of the best in the world. There would have to be very significant prize money to draw the Africans, but why bother when half marathons and marathons are more lucrative and can be done more frequently? The athletes doing ultras are doing it for the pride and fame, not for the money (which is only a bonus when it exists).

There is a certain level of speed necessary to do well probably at any distance but as the distance increases there is less advantage to having speed beyond that basic level. Dick Beardsley's best 10,000 was over a minute slower than Salazar's but his best marathon was two seconds slower. Greg Fredericks was briefly US 10,000 record holder but his best marathon was 2:19 if I recall correctly. Also, if I'm recalling correctly, he was much faster over 5-10 km than Charlie Maguire with whom he trained frequently (if malmo is following this he'll know) but was slower at the marathon than Maguire.

No one really knows exactly what the variables that determine performances. But the whole point of racing at longer distances is really to see how someone who does really well at mastering those other variables can match up with someone faster but who does not, for whatever reason, master those other variables as well.

1000x less competitive wrote:

They're not stunts, but they're definitely 1000x less competitive than, say, marathons. That's why guys like Sage end up doing them- so they can actually be competitive and become one of the best in the world. There would have to be very significant prize money to draw the Africans, but why bother when half marathons and marathons are more lucrative and can be done more frequently? The athletes doing ultras are doing it for the pride and fame, not for the money (which is only a bonus when it exists).

Yeah, in a few years when it does get more competitive and fields get deeper, I may pay attention. For now this area of distance running is an "East African Free Zone". I'm sure once the money is right they will follow the cash, then we wont see white guys dominating ultras like they do now.

What if the rest of the world would start participating in the American clown sports ("football" and baseball)?

1000x less competitive wrote:

They're not stunts, but they're definitely 1000x less competitive than, say, marathons.

This is really the other big main point and has got to enter into anyone's equation on just how much you think a slower guy can out-strategy a faster guy when there's numbers of them around. I'll make an analogy hopefully doesn't make anyone mad, you take for example women. There was what 300 runners? in the western states and there was at least something close to a good mix of genders, opposite of what you don't have in faster men. As distance goes up women do better and better against men in the same way slower men do better against faster men. You think the top 300 people gender mixed in a mile race would produce a top 10 for women? Of course not so I totally understand the reasoning of the gap closing since its very possible with the faster women at 100 miles. Does anybody really believe though the gap will close enough at any distance with major competition where a woman can sniff a win?

fifa world cup wrote:

Does anybody really believe though the gap will close enough at any distance with major competition where a woman can sniff a win?

It happened at Badwater when Pam Reed won the entire thing two years in ago, but at that point, there was less competition compared to the last few years and people just weren't running the course as well. In the last 5 years, her faster winning time would've been 6th, 5th, 7th, 7th, and 6th. The first year she won, the 2nd place time would've been good for 18th last year and 25th the year before. I think the lack of gap in races like Badwater has existed because it's basically impossible for anyone to be properly trained to reach their physical potential for a 135 mile race in 125 degrees, and so the person that falls apart the least wins. Looking at aerobic equivalents, the top guys at, say, 50 miles should be able to utterly destroy the record at Badwater, but it's possible to win the race with some extremely low points and massive slow downs. Win Gingerich won the race, he had considered dropping out for quite awhile. When Mike Morton, arguably the toughest guy competing in ultras, won in nearly course record time, even he still had very far from a hiccup-free race. So, I think in this kind of events, in which people aren't really fully capable of properly preparing and it just becomes a war of attrition, the right woman could step up and close the gap, even with a lot of competition, but it's still going to be very hard to do.

You know I think if you just really make it extremely extremely tough like your badwater example, women can beat men I will have to change my mind a bit on that. Being smaller, can dissipate heat better not to mention the lighter weight for climbing longer than 100 miles.