Who would win: Paula Radcliffe versus Ann Trason in 50 Miler?

I'll shoot first.

Well, I think Trason in her prime would give Paula a good run for her money, although Paula would probably still win at 50 miles. Keep in mind Trason set the Female 50 mile world record of 5:40, meaning almost two back-to-back 2:45 marathons, on a course that one would guess is a lot less forgiving than the speedy London course, with no one cheering for her, and with no pacers (whether Paula used them or not, they were still there and set up for her). But if Ms. Radcliffe ran a 2:20, she would have to come back in 3:20, which I think she probably could.

Keep in mind 50m was "short" for Trason, who had a specialty of a 100 miles - - her 100 mile record of 13:47 is almost FOUR 3:30 marathons IN A ROW. She is still also the only woman ever to qualify for the Olympic Trials in the marathon while running a longer race. She was also the Ultra Runner of the Year for 10 years straight.

Paula has speed...duh! But she can't run 2:20 and then do another marathon. I think she'd be too exhausted. Ann can do 50 miles standing on her head and then race everyone home. Trason is one tough bitch for sure.

Hmmmm, Western States versus London, Chicago versus Leadville, the World XC course versus Miwok, list goes on and on...the venues are so far apart you have nothing to compare. When Ann did her Olympic qualifier she was doing a slightly longer run, they just picked up the split.

The average runner has no idea what and where Ann Trason runs.

You put Paula Radcliffe on Ann Trason's courses--Ann wins.

You put Ann on Paula Radcliffe's courses, Radcliffe wins.

They are not comparable runners. They are not comparable running styles. Other than being superb distance runners, they have no similarities.

"Trason is one tough bitch for sure" - Really mature comment, asshole.

Otherwise I think Paula would win.

50 miles is "short" enough that I think it is a fair question, ESPECIALLY if it was on the roads, track, or trails that weren't nutso technical. 50 miles, in those circumstances--Paula wins. Longer--100 miles or above, or very techy trails, Anne wins.

I pretty much agree with you here. Of course, a 50 mile race (even on nice roads or the track) is a long way, so there are no guarantees. Also, regarding what Bill Carr wrote, a 5:40 50 miler is not 2 2:45 marathons. 5:40 is 6:48 pace, or roughly 2:59 pace.

Now, Paula vs. the Japanese woman who set the road 100km record, *that* would be a race.

This is like asking: How long can Paula jog? Two back-to-back 2:45 marathons is a complete jog for a 2:15 marathoner on almost any terrain. Also, 5:40 50 miles is almost 3 hour pace which pretty much makes this argument a waste of time. Ann is the best ultra marathoner of all time, but she would not even come close to Paula in any Utra race even in the prime of her career. Ann runs ultras and Paula does not have to.

Also, why would Paula go out in 2:20 and come in at 3:20. Why not go out in 2:30 and come in at 2:30. 5:00 for 50 miles seems feasible for Paula.

I would think the real question should be: How long does a race have to be before Paula gets bored of the whole thing and gives up and lets Ann win?

Often times Ann's husband's name can be seen in the results of races she runs with eerily similar times. As for no pacing for Ann in ultra's, maybe some but not all of the time. And if you think Ann is pacing her husband your wrong.

And a lot of the time Carl's name is nowhere to be found in the finisher's list. If she has a pacer, so what? I think Paula R. had one, or some, at London--do her pacers count less because she had to hire some? Then there is the issue that pacing in ultras on trails is only vaguely related to pacing in road marathons.

There is a considerable talk here that sounds like it is by folks who have not ran many 50-milers and probably no 100ks or 100-milers.

Why not also compare a great miler against a great steeplechaser? They are two different artists, each great in their own right.

The courses many of these ultras are run on are ridiculous. How many people have been humbled by the Comrades Marathon, tons. The two are different worlds.

"I would think the real question should be: How long does a race have to be before Paula gets bored of the whole thing and gives up and lets Ann win?"

Over 50 miles on an easy course maybe Paula could win, but the Western States 100, no way in hell. Or how about a 24hr race, thats no contest.

Hey creepy gus,

Being called a tough bitch is a compliment in my area. Being called an asshole for saying that is just...creepy.

A few years back Dan Held, a 2:13 marathoner, very good but not great, won the US 50 trail championship. I think I recall that being his first trail race. So he beat all of the grizzled trail runners at there game. So why couldn't Paula do the same to a veteran trail lady?

Ditto, in the case of Salazar at Comrades, who was an empty shell of his former self and was able to pull it off.

To be fair, Held didn't beat any men on the same level as Trason in her prime was among women. And it wasn't like he just showed up out of the blue--he was coached somewhat at the time by Kevin Setnes, a longtime ultrarunner, and was very well prepared for his first race. Plus I believe he lived in the area and was familiar with the terrain. I believe he ended up 4th in the World 100k a few months later, which I believe is a pretty accurate indicator of where a solid 2:13 marathoner can fit in in the ultra scene.

Trason is still a major force at 42 or so, but in her prime I think she was a phenomenon. I generally agree with most of the earlier posts; I see no reason why an adequately prepared Radcliffe couldn't beat her on an average 50-mile road course (after all, it's not like Radcliffe hasn't shown any toughness of her own), but on a mountainous, technical 100-mile course, I don't think Radcliffe could just jump in and beat her without first devoting herself fully to the task. Even then she might lose. I'm not sure if Trason ever truly reached her peak; she didn't have any women pushing her for the most part, and she didn't have the huge financial incentives that Paula has benefitted from.

Inserting curse words doesn't make your argument more valid. Calling those you disagree with "dinks" who "squawk" doesn't affect the validity of their arguments. As it goes, I think you are probably a squawking dink yourself.

I believe there is plenty of validity in the claim that Trason, on a tough trail course, would have at least a reasonable chance of beating Radcliffe. There comes a point where it's sort of like saying "could Radcliffe beat all those people who do those multi-day eco-challenge things"; I mean, in all likelihood she's a better athlete than any of them, but that doesn't mean she can just walk in and dominate.

As someone said earlier, I think most of the shit-talking done about ultrarunners is done by people who have no experience with ultrarunning. I'm not trying to imply "oh, we're so heroic, you could never be this tough," but just to say that in my experience, being fast at traditional distance running events doesn't necessarily mean you'll be fast at ultras, especially mountainous trail ultras in hot weather, etc.

I can't say it quite as poetically as you, but...gee, the whole issue here is exactly the courses.

Ann T. runs ultras, primarily trail ultras, primarily 100-milers.

Paula R. runs roads except for the occasional XC run.

They are worlds apart in what they do or did.

The constant desire to put an elite road marathoner against an elite trail runner will be pointless until there is enough money (my big bucks prize for a 100k in '86 [19, not 18] was a dollar a klick) to entice the roadies over to the trails. Ultras are done for love of running (some racing) trails and long distances. There is a philosophical as well as financial barrier.

Hope you have a better evening--you could go for a run or something.

From what I've seen of ultras, I actually don't think 50 miles is long enough to tip the scales in favor of Trason, not even in her prime. The distance would have to be some where around 70 or 75 nefore I'd bet on Trason.

But:

a) such a contest between the two will obviously never occur.

b) this question now ranks #1 on the all-time "who the hell cares" list.

Remember when the 100 meter Olympic Champion and 200 meter Olympic Champion dueled over 150 meters in an epic America vs. the world battle? These duels are good on paper and for the press but not much more. After-all Maurice and Michael both dropped out of that 200 meter final in the 200 OT.

Radcliffe is a fabulous athlete. Much better than Trason. It is pure fantasy to even consider Radcliffe running an ultramarathon. It is too stupid to take seriously. I love Trason, I'm an ultramarathoner, but give me a break. Radcliffe would probably compete well with the top men at Comrades for the overall win. I bet Radcliffe could be a good 50km racewalker too... but, why bother?