If it is a marked course and there are aid stations every 6 miles or so I have a hard time grasping with why a runner would need a pacer (other than age or illness related issues). I recently spectated a 100 mile race and could not believe how many runners used them.
Running is a solo sport. Toughen up and run the damn thing by yourself.
I'll assume you have never done anything longer than a marathon. When you begin to approach distances like 100 miles, pacers serve many purposes. First, the mind begins to play tricks on you. Decisions that see elementary become difficult and the pacer can be the one to make those decisions. They can also be there to tell you that what you are seeing isn't actually there. Second, safety becomes paramount for the pacer. Making sure you don't get lost, making sure you are eating/drinking often and enough, making sure you are tending to injuries, etc. Third, and finally, companionship. It's amazing the difference a friend can make during an ultra. Once you enter the six to seven hour range, in my experience, the body is shutting down but it will respond to someone else being there with you. My first fifty miler, I had a pacer for miles thirty to forty, but he had to leave for the last ten miles. The difference, setting aside the fatigue of the miles at that point, was palpable. Ultras are a lot about the mental aspect, and the pacers can be help in that area.
Oftenrunning52 wrote:
Ultras are a lot about the mental aspect, and the pacers can be help in that area.
That's the exact reason pacers shouldn't be allowed.
I've done eight 100-milers and had a pacer once. I can honestly say that I like running alone better. Of course, this is purely anecdotal.
Ponderer.. wrote:
If it is a marked course and there are aid stations every 6 miles or so I have a hard time grasping with why a runner would need a pacer (other than age or illness related issues). I recently spectated a 100 mile race and could not believe how many runners used them.
Running is a solo sport. Toughen up and run the damn thing by yourself.
I know what you mean. I recently spectated Felix Baumgartner's leap from space, and I don't understand why he had to be in radio contact with mission control.Toughen up!
The reason for pacers in a 100 miler is going to be different than the reason for pacers in a 5,000m, it boils down to helping the athlete shoulder the load and to run to their best ability.
Obviously arguments surrounding the ethics of pacers can go either way, but there is no denying their use in any distance event.
like a couple of others have said pacers serve a number of roles when you are in a 100 miler. even more so if it is a 100 mile mountain race.
there are times when altitude and race fatigue can make you crazy and it helps if there's someone to bring you out of it bottom line
if you think you are a one man show then go run leadville alone and then come back and make judgments
I don't like the pacers because it seems they can solely affect the outcome of the race. If you're too exhausted to be able to follow the trail anymore, but your pacer is there to keep you on track and motivated, that's a lot different from just getting the wind break effect in a marathon.
It's fine for mid-packers, but IMO you shouldn't be able to win a major race with personal pacers.
The purpose of a track or road pacer is to set a desired speed, provide some physical benefit (i.e. drafting), and/or enforce a pacing strategy. Technically speaking, an ultra "pacer" isn't allowed to perform any such role. Most race rules specify that a pacer is purely a trailer and cannot lead the runner, assist the runner (physically), or mule/carry for the runner. As the ultra racer, you're still the one setting the pace, and you're the one that has to decide to move forward, stop, eat, puke, and do all of the other fun things that 100 miles of running involves. The pacer is purely there for companionship and safety.
I've never raced with pacers, but there are times when I certainly wouldn't turn one away. To be perfectly honest, I've never even been to ultras at the 100k distance or below that allowed pacers .... only 100-milers.
Ho Hum wrote:
I don't like the pacers because it seems they can solely affect the outcome of the race. If you're too exhausted to be able to follow the trail anymore, but your pacer is there to keep you on track and motivated, that's a lot different from just getting the wind break effect in a marathon.
It's fine for mid-packers, but IMO you shouldn't be able to win a major race with personal pacers.
That's the thing though, even the top ultra runners would be midpackers at any decent sized marathon.
Typical Letsrun Moron wrote:
That's the thing though, even the top ultra runners would be midpackers at any decent sized marathon.
Here we go again with this mentality..Because I am sure a "top ultra guy" like a Mike Wardian is considered a "midpacker" in the marathon by routinely running sub 2:28 in the marathon.
Having done a few 100's (with and without pacer) and been a pacer at many more, I can tell you it can sometimes be the difference between life and death as far as safety. One race in particular I was pacing a guy and about the 80 mile point (who knows what time it was..10 pm?) it plunged to about 40 degrees and started pouring down rain. The slowing down of pace (ie not generating as much body heat), the lack of nutrition, the distance/fatigue and the weather wrecked him. I had to take off the jacket I was wearing and give it to him, along with the gloves I had brought along, just to keep him warm and awake. He still maintains to this day if it wasn't for me being there, he'd have veered off course, fallen asleep and been left for dead.
Typical Letsrun Moron wrote:
That's the thing though, even the top ultra runners would be midpackers at any decent sized marathon.
Uli Steidl was a 2:13 guy. That's not "mid-packer".
100-miler are harder than marathons. I'd MUCH rather be a top guy at the hundo (vs. the marathon).