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

How many 8000m peaks has Killian run up? Time to stop being such a p*ssy.

spade detector wrote:

How many 8000m peaks has Killian run up? Time to stop being such a p*ssy.

his summits of my life project culminates with an everest speed record attempt.

nbskis wrote:

spade detector wrote:

How many 8000m peaks has Killian run up? Time to stop being such a p*ssy.

his summits of my life project culminates with an everest speed record attempt.

So, 1?

fast eddie mc wrote:

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.

What difference does it make to you? Why wouldn't some runners want to challenge themselves over very difficult terrain and at higher elevations? Why should us track/road/XC guys feel so compelled to ridicule and criticize ultra runners? And I don't buy this "ultra runners act high and mighty" BS. Look at this thread… the vast majority are ripping ultras. Who has the attitude here?

Funny thing is that most track "fans" in this country don't give a sh*t about the steeple, 5,000 or 10,000. Look at what happened in Sacramento last month when the distance finals were late… most track "fans" left the stadium. We're a niche sport… why the need to hate others that enjoy running in a very different venue (trails and mountains)?

My competitive days are long gone and I never ran a marathon much less an ultra, but I'd much rather spend my days running trails (and I'm fortunate to live in a place where I can) versus running the roads. Ultras are just an extension of what I do most days.

Agreed, see no rationality in the bashing of trailultras.

Kilian`s run is the most impressive IMO. How good a runner he is/could be on roads or track is irrelevant, and he does not care one bit. He stayed here in Norway this winter to ski the steep mountains in godforsaken Lyngen. He loves very technical stuff in the mountains, and he is incredibly good at it. The previous CR at HR was very good, so his race stands out as one of the best 100s ever run.

spade detector wrote:

nbskis wrote:

his summits of my life project culminates with an everest speed record attempt.

So, 1?

How much climbing on glaciated peaks do most runners do? I have gotten a few summits. Has anybody else on this thread? It's very rare for the most runners to climb more than one in their lives. Most runners don't even have climbing on their radar. By the time he's done with this project he'll have climbed three above 20,000 feet if he succeeds. And he'll have done them in the fastest time.

All the 8,000 meter peaks are in Asia. Climbing these peaks takes money and time. Even the best climbers rarely can go to 8,000 meter peaks at their whim.

do you climb? wrote:

spade detector wrote:

So, 1?

How much climbing on glaciated peaks do most runners do? I have gotten a few summits. Has anybody else on this thread? It's very rare for the most runners to climb more than one in their lives. Most runners don't even have climbing on their radar. By the time he's done with this project he'll have climbed three above 20,000 feet if he succeeds. And he'll have done them in the fastest time.

All the 8,000 meter peaks are in Asia. Climbing these peaks takes money and time. Even the best climbers rarely can go to 8,000 meter peaks at their whim.

I do none, because I'm a track runner. If ole boy is too good for running on tracks and roads, then he should at least have the balls to go full bore and do something really challenging. At the moment he's just hovering at half jogger, half alpinist.

Small penis syndrome?

Clever!

I don't think a lot of people realize that with the niche of MUT (Mountain-Ultra-Trail) Running alone there is a huge difference in events.

It's not just trail races vs. ultras on the roads and track - it's also mountain races that are off-trail (i.e. like some bits of Hardrock and even speedgoat) including SkyRunning events.

Totally different ball game when powerhiking, gnarly technical rock and all sorts of mountain elements like altitude and snow come into play.

For an example (and I really don't mean to pick on Max but he's just a good data point!), look at how Max King does on a 50km to 50-mile course like Way to Cool or Chuckanut or JFK or Ice Age versus a course like Lake Sonoma or Speedgoat or TNF50. Big difference. And I know he over-races and mixes it up so he's not always in ideal shape for the specific demands of each event (I make the same mistake and it hurts) ...but my point is: course profile is everything.

I think Max's willingness to mix it up all the time should really be respected. An 8:30 steeple to sub 14min 5km, to 2:14 marathon to World Mountain Running Champ to 4th at Western States 100 is darn good range!

Killian, on the other hand, is a born and raised mountain guy and it's his passion to stay in that arena...an arena where he really excels.

Until they add technical climbing over glaciers as a requirement for running events such as the steeplechase then that aspect is out of the equation. You guys are getting dumb.

Ok. Fine. You can't be badass by running fast for long distances on a flat circle. Sorry. Look at the stuff Kilian's done on youtube. Kilian's doing a very good job at what he does. Height alone doesn't make something challenging. People have done that already. He's doing things in a new way. Look at him going up and down Matterhorn and Mont Blanc. Look at what he does on his skis.

do you climb? wrote:

spade detector wrote:

I do none, because I'm a track runner. If ole boy is too good for running on tracks and roads, then he should at least have the balls to go full bore and do something really challenging. At the moment he's just hovering at half jogger, half alpinist.

Ok. Fine. You can't be badass by running fast for long distances on a flat circle. Sorry. Look at the stuff Kilian's done on youtube. Kilian's doing a very good job at what he does. Height alone doesn't make something challenging. People have done that already. He's doing things in a new way. Look at him going up and down Matterhorn and Mont Blanc. Look at what he does on his skis.

Lol right. Kouros and Messner are definitely both more badass. Kilian is a tweener.

And Bekele, who almost exclusively ran on flat ovals, is much more badass.

For those of you that think he can't run 5:00 miles very easily, you are unfathomably wrong. Before WS100, part of Kilian's TAPER (a few days before the race) was a hilly 20 miler on roads in San Fran at sub-6 pace. If he had focused his career on the marathon, he would be capable of being the best white guy out there, and I stand by that. Nobody else right is running under, what, 2:08 right now? 92 puts him among the most aerobically talented individuals of all time, far more talented than Hall, Ritz, or any of our other marathoners.

I do agree with this, and this is part of why I've chosen to focus more on marathons and halves over the past couple years. With the marathon, even an extremely fast vs an extremely slow course will only be a difference of, what, 10 minutes? St George is one of the fastest, and unless we're counting that one road marathon that goes something like 5000' up a mountain, most typical courses are within 2-5 minutes of St George (2 for Dubai or Berlin, 4 or 5 for more typical ones), with really slow courses being maybe 10 minutes slower. I'd like to do another 100 again, but I don't see the reason to do it on shitty trails full of sharp plants that cut up your legs or in heat that makes you vomit. If I do it, I want to see what time I can run if the stunt elements are removed. I'll probably still suck at it, but it'd be nice to see what I can do. That said, I do see why Hardrock appeals to people. That course is incredibly beautiful and I've yet to see photos from any other race that come even close to comparing to Hardrock. I don't have much interest in doing it, but I'd thoroughly enjoy getting up a peak or two on the course. The people doing Hardrock seem to do it more for the scenery than anything, and I respect that. It's not really about stunts for them... I think, more than anything, they want to link up some really cool terrain in Colorado.

One thing I've learned is this: finishing an ultra isn't a big deal. Gutting out a finish on an injury isn't "tough"; it's stupid. Running a marathon at your maximum capacity is vastly more difficult and painful than finishing a 100 miler on average 100 mile race terrain. No doubt, I had to dig deep in 3 of the 4 100 milers I've finished, but I had to dig much deeper to run my marathon PR.

Finishing a 100 miler is not something particularly special after the first time, and not something that people should make a big deal out of, which is why I'm not really interested in running media circus events like Western States. If I get back out for another trail 100, it'll either be Old Dominion or Wasatch. Old Dominion because it's a special, historic race with literally no real finish line and no fanfare. You do the race, 1 guy takes down your time, and you go to bed. The cutoff isn't overly easy like most 100s, and they don't give you a buckle for finishing in 35 hours. I like this. You actually have to be in halfway decent shape and not slack off for the entire race if you want a buckle. Wasatch would be because it's still very low-key, but more than anything, because it's on my home turf, and through places that I thoroughly enjoy running. That said, I imagine my next time would be on a road course just to remove all of the stunt elements, which really grew to irritate me in my time running ultras. For now, though, the 50k at Speedgoat (more than anything, because I love skiing at Snowbird) is the longest race that appeals a lot to me.

Collin wrote:

92 puts him among the most aerobically talented individuals of all time, far more talented than Hall, Ritz, or any of our other marathoners.

VO2 is a measure of O2 consumption, not performance.

And we stand by saying you are an idiot for thinking as much.

I should point out that, while I don't have all that much respect for just "finishing" 100s, I feel the same way about marathons. "Running" a 6+ hour marathon is pretty pointless and only impressive to people that don't know how bad that kind of time is. If people enjoy it, that's fine, but it's not impressive. Similarly, walking 100 miles in 36 hours seems pointless to me. Why do a race if you're not trained for the distance? With this in mind, though, I am very impressed by guys like Krar and, perhaps, even more Olson. Olson has never run as well at his 100 mile rivals at shorter events and is probably less fit than most of the other top 100 mile runners (for example, Max King beat him by 30 minutes in a trail marathon halfway between his first top-10 performance at WS100 and his first win there), but he is super tough and guts it out in 100s like no-one else. This is very commendable to me, so I'm not knocking ultras in general. I just prefer the 1980s ultra aesthetic: really really fast marathon dudes routinely ran ridiculous 50 mile times with no fanfare, and the big 100s weren't media circuses. People did it for the personal challenge, not for bragging rights, and that's how it should be.