Dayum! Y'all are like a bunch of old biddies. Rumors, gossip, put downs, casting aspersions.....Not like Charles went out and kicked an old dog. All he did was run a very solid 50 miler. Thought most of us on here were fans of the sport. Don't have something nice to say? Then...........(unless we're talking Max Siegal!)
For the record, I know nothing about this Charlie Lawrence except that I read his father was a football player. I know nothing about Charlie and I too have been surprised about attacks on his character or personality. But his performance is not worthy of a world record. Hell when you consider the shoe technology, Barney Klecker running just 3 minutes slower 43 years ago is a superior performance.
I posted this on the initial Tunnel Hill thread, but wanted to share it here, since this one is still going:
His splits according to the live results seem a little weird to me. 5:50 pace for the first 10.39 miles, 5:28 pace for the next 16.11, then he runs 5:56 pace coming in. Doesn't seem to be an issue with the timing mats because the runner in second had much steadier splits throughout.
What do people who know the 50-miler distance better than me make of these splits? Are the timing mats just off? Or is this how you would usually pace this? I get starting off conservative initially (not that it was even that conservative when world best pace was only ~2s per mile faster), but it seems like running 5:28 pace for that many miles, that early is almost suicidal? Does this mean that he could go a lot faster with proper pacing and more patience?
. But his performance is not worthy of a world record. Hell when you consider the shoe technology, Barney Klecker running just 3 minutes slower 43 years ago is a superior performance.
Using this logic all records set after super shoes should be cancelled out for pre super shoe records. A world record or in this case a 50 miler would be a world best like the 2 mile record, is the fastest time anyone has ran. No one can take that away from him until someone runs a faster time than him.
. But his performance is not worthy of a world record. Hell when you consider the shoe technology, Barney Klecker running just 3 minutes slower 43 years ago is a superior performance.
Using this logic all records set after super shoes should be cancelled out for pre super shoe records. A world record or in this case a 50 miler would be a world best like the 2 mile record, is the fastest time anyone has ran. No one can take that away from him until someone runs a faster time than him.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Barney Klecker’s run also wasn’t worthy of a world record. So Charlie’s effort is inferior to Klecker’s performance which also wasn’t worthy of a world record.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Barney Klecker’s run also wasn’t worthy of a world record. So Charlie’s effort is inferior to Klecker’s performance which also wasn’t worthy of a world record.
Wasn't worthy of a world record? Guess what is worthy of a world record? Being the dude who ran the fastest time on a certified course. Guess what he did? He did that. So you can live in fantasy land all you want, but that what it means to have the world record. Facts don't care about what you feel is worthy of your approval.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Barney Klecker’s run also wasn’t worthy of a world record. So Charlie’s effort is inferior to Klecker’s performance which also wasn’t worthy of a world record.
Wasn't worthy of a world record? Guess what is worthy of a world record? Being the dude who ran the fastest time on a certified course. Guess what he did? He did that. So you can live in fantasy land all you want, but that what it means to have the world record. Facts don't care about what you feel is worthy of your approval.
I know a lot more about this than you do. This is NOT worthy of a world record. It is mediocre as hell. I know I could have done it, for example. It would have meant nothing to me though.
Wasn't worthy of a world record? Guess what is worthy of a world record? Being the dude who ran the fastest time on a certified course. Guess what he did? He did that. So you can live in fantasy land all you want, but that what it means to have the world record. Facts don't care about what you feel is worthy of your approval.
I know a lot more about this than you do. This is NOT worthy of a world record. It is mediocre as hell. I know I could have done it, for example. It would have meant nothing to me though.
It would have meant you'd have a lot more credibility when you set yourself up as an authority on what is or is not worthy of a world record.
I know a lot more about this than you do. This is NOT worthy of a world record. It is mediocre as hell. I know I could have done it, for example. It would have meant nothing to me though.
It would have meant you'd have a lot more credibility when you set yourself up as an authority on what is or is not worthy of a world record.
No I would have been considered biased. Anyone with at least a 110 IQ, which is not impressive, should recognize that 4:48:21 for 50 miles is not worthy of a men’s world record. There are women who could do it.
I know a lot more about this than you do. This is NOT worthy of a world record. It is mediocre as hell. I know I could have done it, for example. It would have meant nothing to me though.
Should've, could've, would've. The fifty mile record has a long history going back to comrades and London to Brighton. In which many great runners have made their mark on the fifty mile distance, many of which have had great results from the 10k to the marathon. Looking at the oldest ultra marathon in the US (JFK 50 miler), the fastest three times on that course are held by former D1 track/xc athletes. You can say back in my day I could've ran faster all you want. But you didn't and to try to take away from such a fantastic athletic achievement is childish.
I know a lot more about this than you do. This is NOT worthy of a world record. It is mediocre as hell. I know I could have done it, for example. It would have meant nothing to me though.
Should've, could've, would've. The fifty mile record has a long history going back to comrades and London to Brighton. In which many great runners have made their mark on the fifty mile distance, many of which have had great results from the 10k to the marathon. Looking at the oldest ultra marathon in the US (JFK 50 miler), the fastest three times on that course are held by former D1 track/xc athletes. You can say back in my day I could've ran faster all you want. But you didn't and to try to take away from such a fantastic athletic achievement is childish.
As a litmus test, if a woman can run that fast, it is NOT worthy of a men’s world record. I feel bad for you that you cannot grasp this.
It would have meant you'd have a lot more credibility when you set yourself up as an authority on what is or is not worthy of a world record.
No I would have been considered biased. Anyone with at least a 110 IQ, which is not impressive, should recognize that 4:48:21 for 50 miles is not worthy of a men’s world record. There are women who could do it.
It's not an either/or thing. You can be both not credible and biased at the same time. Like now.
No I would have been considered biased. Anyone with at least a 110 IQ, which is not impressive, should recognize that 4:48:21 for 50 miles is not worthy of a men’s world record. There are women who could do it.
It's not an either/or thing. You can be both not credible and biased at the same time. Like now.
HRE you really just are a stupid person IF
1) You cannot recognize that several women in this world could be trained to run 4:48:21 for 50 miles
2) There are men who could run 4:48:21 for 50 miles in practice.
Do you understand this? And recognizing that this is the case, it is a terribly weak record for a man.
Wasn't worthy of a world record? Guess what is worthy of a world record? Being the dude who ran the fastest time on a certified course. Guess what he did? He did that. So you can live in fantasy land all you want, but that what it means to have the world record. Facts don't care about what you feel is worthy of your approval.
I know a lot more about this than you do. This is NOT worthy of a world record. It is mediocre as hell. I know I could have done it, for example. It would have meant nothing to me though.
Worthiness has nothing to do with it. It is either a WR or it is not and if is certified it will be official.
Now if the record is soft anyone is welcome to go out and run faster and make the record more "worthy".
I know a lot more about this than you do. This is NOT worthy of a world record. It is mediocre as hell. I know I could have done it, for example. It would have meant nothing to me though.
Worthiness has nothing to do with it. It is either a WR or it is not and if is certified it will be official.
Now if the record is soft anyone is welcome to go out and run faster and make the record more "worthy".
You made so much sense EXCEPT your first sentence was nonsensical. You wrote worthiness has nothing to do with it, but you failed to define “it.” What the hell is “it?”