Which was more impressive Killians Hardrock CR or Emma Coburn's AR

Love to see a hot dog eating contest winner go up and down the Matterhorn the way he did.

In his irunfar article, Roes (himself an accomplished ultra runner), says that Kilian's Hardrock is one of the most impressive 100 mile races ever run. He crushed a course record already considered quite strong, and did it pretty casually.

I was impressed by both performances, but to me Kilian's is more impressive.

In that same article Roes also says that Killian probably would never run faster at the Western States 100 than current CR holder Timothy Olson because it's not in his skill set. Why was the Hardrock course record so "strong" anyway? What did the former course record holder do that was so impressive before?

20 minute guy wrote:

In his irunfar article, Roes (himself an accomplished ultra runner), says that Kilian's Hardrock is one of the most impressive 100 mile races ever run. He crushed a course record already considered quite strong, and did it pretty casually.

I was impressed by both performances, but to me Kilian's is more impressive.

the world record for a VK is mid 30s or so. i ran 44 something up that before i had much vert in my legs this spring, i'm in much better shape now but i don't think i could do better than 42. the amount of effort required to shave significant time off on pure climbs like that is exponential.

"Why was the Hardrock course record so "strong" anyway? What did the former course record holder do that was so impressive before?"

Kyle Skaggs trained on the course for three months before the race. He beat Scott Jurek's previous record by nearly three hours to finish in 23:23. Before Kilian's race this year, no one else has ever finished under 24 hours, and even among some of the best mountain ultra runners in the world, only three others have gone under 25. Part of the Skaggs mystique is that he came out of nowhere to set this monster record and then walked away from the sport completely.

I'm a huge fan of the race, but some folks neglect to consider the very restrictive lottery as a reason why the former CR hadn't been under serious threat before. It's good for the race, but not necessarily for the level of competition.

Remember that the third place finisher at hard rock got struck by lightning.

Wow. These guys are impressive. I can't believe that they give Olympic medals to anyone other than these guys. Or Super Bowl trophies, or the Stanley Cup. They should be on every channel all day every day. Xfit guy should worship at their feet. Their faces should be carved into Mt. Rushmore. It shouldn't be the Statue of Liberty, it should be the Statue of Kilian.

The WR for 100miles is 11:46:37. This guy took almost twice as much time...

Would it be impressive if someone ran a 25 min 5K on an extremely hard course? It might, but not as a "running" achievement.

Collin wrote:

He's 5'6", 125 pounds, and has a VO2 max of 92. I remember an interview in which he talked about an 'easy' 20 mile road run on hills in San Fran at sub-6 pace as part of his taper for Western States. If he trained specifically for a couple months, dude would run 2:10 to low-2:teens for 26.2. If he focused his career on marathon, he'd probably be the best white guy out there. I'm not sure what his mile time would be, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't under 4:10 right now without ever doing speedwork. You have no idea how insanely fit this guy is.

Can't take anything you say seriously after reading this. Your opinion is worth nothing.

george oscar bluth wrote:

Collin wrote:

He's 5'6", 125 pounds, and has a VO2 max of 92. I remember an interview in which he talked about an 'easy' 20 mile road run on hills in San Fran at sub-6 pace as part of his taper for Western States. If he trained specifically for a couple months, dude would run 2:10 to low-2:teens for 26.2. If he focused his career on marathon, he'd probably be the best white guy out there. I'm not sure what his mile time would be, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't under 4:10 right now without ever doing speedwork. You have no idea how insanely fit this guy is.

Can't take anything you say seriously after reading this. Your opinion is worth nothing.

Worth less than zero.

The part about him being able to run a mile under 4:10 right now is almost as stupid.

All hail Collin! An idiot be even the very lenient LetsRun standards!

Would it be impressive if someone ran a 25 min 5K on an extremely hard course? It might, but not as a "running" achievement.

MarathonMind wrote:

Would it be impressive if someone ran a 25 min 5K on an extremely hard course? It might, but not as a "running" achievement.

Hardrock is run almost entirely above 8000', and it's nine major climbs all peak above 12,000'. I for one am impressed.

Average elevation is 11,000'.

Kids here say the darndest things!

This is a thread that keeps on giving. I'm just going to lock onto this thing and hit the refresh button every half hour or so.

Keep up the good work trolls!

faster is better wrote:

The WR for 100miles is 11:46:37. This guy took almost twice as much time...

Would it be impressive if someone ran a 25 min 5K on an extremely hard course? It might, but not as a "running" achievement.

This is right on.

I used to wonder why most of the major ultra races always have to have some extra challenge to them. Oh, this one has 12000 feet of uphill gain in it! This one is held at an elevation of 14,000 ft! This one involves crossing a freezing cold river 3 times! This one is run through Death Valley in summer! This one is entirely single track and the trail is poorly marked! Hooray!

Why can't they just be about running? Why the extra stunts?

Two reasons I've come to realize after talking with ultra runners:

1. so the ultra-runner types can act like they are even tougher

2. so they have an excuse to go slower, take more walking breaks, and prevent easy comparisons with real running events.

Same reason why ultra types almost always pull some stunt if they ever run a normal marathon. "3:20 ain't bad considering I ran 20 miles just to get to the starting line!" "Sub 4:00 and it was my 9th marathon in 7 days!"

I understand not wanting to run 100 miles on paved surfaces but there are plenty of venues that can/do hold ultras on soft surfaces without any asinine stunts involved. The ultra-gods never run these though.

MarathonMind wrote:

Hardrock is run almost entirely above 8000', and it's nine major climbs all peak above 12,000'. I for one am impressed.

Is Reinhold Messner's achievement impressive? For sure. But not as a "running" achievement.

Is Mount Washington a running event? Even the best only have gone 7:00 pace or so. Do they suck?

There are flat ultras and hilly ultras and everything in between. Are you one of the proponents that XC courses should be track meets on grass? No one in XC even wants to run hills anymore.

It seems silly that "real" runners should bash a segment ("stunt" running) of our already very small sport.

Whoa, big difference there man. You can't compare a hilly XC course with running up and down a mountain at 10,000 feet or whatever. You can be a fan of non golf course XC and still roll your eyes at most ultra courses.

Look at the World Marathon majors, there are 5 total with 3 being flat and fast venues for world record attempts and 2 being hilly.

There is a Grand Slam of 100 milers, right? How many of those races are on courses that would allow one to run their fastest, in the same way one can at say Chicago, London, or Berlin?

The answer is Zero.