Josh Cox will attempt 50k wr attempt this weekend

Also before one else asks, I know my thread title is redundant, thank you LetsRun Grammar Police!

it was also be notable if he crapped his pants.

number 2 wrote:

turkey leg wrote:

Of those critical of his attempt, how many of you have done something as notable?

The guy in the arena . . .

It would be notable if he ran a 50k against a notable distance runner.

A Barney Klecker bump.

go longer wrote:

...

Maybe talk to Max King and Chris Lundstrom and Michael Wardian about how easily and assuredly speed translates up. Talk to them about how all those 16 - 18 minute 5 km guys like Jurek and Anton and Nick Clark and Roes are just hobby-jogging for hours and any old 15 min 5 km guy could whup 'em.... "IF THEY WANTED TO." See what they say because they have a forum from which to speak since they have actually tried racing these guys. Best...

I don't think anyone said a 15 min 5k guy is better than "Max King and Chris Lundstrom and Michael Wardian" at the 50k distance.

What was said is that a guy that is a 12:39 5k guy and a 2:03:59 42km guy wouldn't have a problem destroying the 50km record. Geb's talent would "transfer up."

Not one of the top ultra guys makes any claim that they would beat the elite marathoners at 50-100 miles should a bunch of elites decide to train properly. Nonetheless, to act as though racing 50 or 100 miles or longer is not a worthy athletic endeavor is simply narrow-minded. It seems then that those running in any regional 10km won in 30 minutes or so would be subject to the same criticism: they aren't really racing the best, they're not the best, so their efforts are then without merit. They should quit. they are arrogant, etc. Not one of the top ultra folks believes they are superior athletically to elite 10km runners - marathoners. Arrogance is no more prevalent among ultrarunners than it is in the regional 5km to 10 km crowd.

well said.

Second that.

I am drunk

second that.

Not the running one. the drunk one.

go longer wrote:

Not one of the top ultra guys makes any claim that they would beat the elite marathoners at 50-100 miles should a bunch of elites decide to train properly. Nonetheless, to act as though racing 50 or 100 miles or longer is not a worthy athletic endeavor is simply narrow-minded. It seems then that those running in any regional 10km won in 30 minutes or so would be subject to the same criticism: they aren't really racing the best, they're not the best, so their efforts are then without merit. They should quit. they are arrogant, etc. Not one of the top ultra folks believes they are superior athletically to elite 10km runners - marathoners. Arrogance is no more prevalent among ultrarunners than it is in the regional 5km to 10 km crowd.

yes, but the regional 10km crowd doesn't get excessive coverage from national running publications, book deals, or undue attention from the running world, both corporate and otherwise.

you're right, there isn't a whole lot of difference between an "elite" ultrarunner and a regionally sub-elite road racer, at least athletically. the difference comes in that the media ACTS like the ultrarunners are something special and they get shoe deals and free gear, or book deals, whereas the regional 30 min 10k guy is completely anonymous and ignored, even more so than fat hobby joggers who run marathons and lose weight. the "good but not great" runner is the MOST ignored in our sport. if you aren't a feel-good fat-ass story or a runner destroying an obscure and excessively long event, you'd better be an olympian, or you don't count for much.

Thru 13.1 in 69:18

Thru 26.2 in 2:18:35

Any word on the track tack on?

you found this where.

I saw 1/2 in 68:33 range.

nowhere near the marathon yet.

20 miles 1.44.25 - on 2.16 pace

he and his coach expect he will run negative splits including a fast last 5 miles. we'll see about that

2.17.32 through the marathon

Look, I'm not an ultra guy, and I'm not supporting them, but there is one thing you are skipping in this analogy.For the 30-min 10k guy, there are other people competing at that distance at a national level who are faster, and there are big races (Peachtree, Falmouth, Beacon, etc) where the elites at that distance compete and win.On the other hand, for the ultra guys, they aren't ducking competition. I have ZERO doubt that there is a whole slew of fast marathoners who would easily beat many ultra guys in a 50k or 100k, but those guys don't. So the ultra guys really are the best of the current crop who chooses to compete.I completely agree that there are people, who IF they chose to compete, would beat a lot of the good ultra guys. However, so long as those guys don't compete, the ultra guys will be the best. It's a little bit silly, because they're basically the best by picking a distance long enough that the faster guys won't compete, but whatever. It's as legitimate a race as any other, and to win you have to show up.

calitree wrote:

yes, but the regional 10km crowd doesn't get excessive coverage from national running publications, book deals, or undue attention from the running world, both corporate and otherwise.

you're right, there isn't a whole lot of difference between an "elite" ultrarunner and a regionally sub-elite road racer, at least athletically. the difference comes in that the media ACTS like the ultrarunners are something special and they get shoe deals and free gear, or book deals, whereas the regional 30 min 10k guy is completely anonymous and ignored, even more so than fat hobby joggers who run marathons and lose weight. the "good but not great" runner is the MOST ignored in our sport. if you aren't a feel-good fat-ass story or a runner destroying an obscure and excessively long event, you'd better be an olympian, or you don't count for much.

Barry in SD wrote:

2.17.32 through the marathon

Looks like my record will be safe.

Dude, that is still rolling for a 50km effort... what's the latest?

missed wr by 7 seconds