Max King 8th at Comrades Marathon in 5:37:27

This was a down year. Salazar's victory was in an up year and is a superior performance by time.

Ultra running does not get the respect it deserves. Nice run for Max

Holy crap

David Gitabe goes 5:18

and

Colleen DeReuck at 52yrs goes 6:50

Also, American Sarah Bard was 4th in the women's race (6:42). She ran the marathon trials in LA and also got 4th at last year's 100K WC (where Camille Herron won). Huge race for her, and top American—men or women—on the day.

Max ran great. Re: a comparison with Salazar's win, keep in mind that the "up" direction is shorter (~87k v. ~89k for "down"). Until the "down" record fell this year, the "up" and "down" men's CRs were only 4 minutes apart (now just over 6). So while not the same of course, the up/down times are actually more comparable than you might think. That said, Salazar's run was probably still superior, especially with it being a win.

5:30+ for a marathon? GTFO...

Fordyce wrote:

Holy crap

David Gitabe goes 5:18

and

Colleen DeReuck at 52yrs goes 6:50

De Reuck's father ran that race some 15 times, and he brother placed top 10.

Greased lightning. wrote:

5:30+ for a marathon? GTFO...

It's was even a downhill marathon.

2 marathons and a 5k.

Comrades will pull you off the course if you are too slow. Boston should do that to any runner slower than 4 hour pace.

Greased lightning. wrote:

5:30+ for a marathon? GTFO...

You should GTFO if you don't even know what you're talking about

Even more ridiculous wrote:

Comrades will pull you off the course if you are too slow. Boston should do that to any runner slower than 4 hour pace.

I think this is cruel but fair. If you can't average nine-minute miles you have no business in a *running* race. Just go for a long walk.

Flaherty wrote:

Also, American Sarah Bard was 4th in the women's race (6:42). She ran the marathon trials in LA and also got 4th at last year's 100K WC (where Camille Herron won). Huge race for her, and top American—men or women—on the day.

Max ran great. Re: a comparison with Salazar's win, keep in mind that the "up" direction is shorter (~87k v. ~89k for "down"). Until the "down" record fell this year, the "up" and "down" men's CRs were only 4 minutes apart (now just over 6). So while not the same of course, the up/down times are actually more comparable than you might think. That said, Salazar's run was probably still superior, especially with it being a win.

I think Alberto "Androgel" Salazar was taking the legal SSRI Prozac (fluoxetine) at the time of his run.

Of course the previous 'down' and still the 'up' record holder is Dr. Leonid Shvetsov of Russia, who lived in Albuquerque, N.M. for many years... where he was very popular with lots of runners.

Alberto got totally crushed by Leonid in terms of 'pharmaceutical support'.

Better luck next time Alberto.

Leonid is back living and 'coaching' in Russia now.

Good times.

6:05/mile pace for 55+ miles for Max

Winner ran just under 5:45/mile.

Haulin!

That sounds pretty boring.

Dretch wrote:

That sounds pretty boring.

Only to the weak and/or narrow-minded. Limits being pushed is never boring.

Eh, gotta draw the line somewhere or you might as well be Dean K. shuffling along some highway for 2 days straight so you can tell Runners World that you broke some made up record.

Flaherty wrote:

Also, American Sarah Bard was 4th in the women's race (6:42). She ran the marathon trials in LA and also got 4th at last year's 100K WC (where Camille Herron won). Huge race for her, and top American—men or women—on the day.

Max ran great. Re: a comparison with Salazar's win, keep in mind that the "up" direction is shorter (~87k v. ~89k for "down"). Until the "down" record fell this year, the "up" and "down" men's CRs were only 4 minutes apart (now just over 6). So while not the same of course, the up/down times are actually more comparable than you might think. That said, Salazar's run was probably still superior, especially with it being a win.

Interesting that the winner's time of 6:25 was considerably slower than Trason's downhill time of 5:58 back in 1997. Trason also set the a course record at the time of 6:13 on the uphill course in 1996. In both of these years she won WS 2 weeks later. I think a lot of younger readers here may not know how good Ann Trason was.

The down course has 16 miles of uphill running.

ctrlaltdel wrote:

Interesting that the winner's time of 6:25 was considerably slower than Trason's downhill time of 5:58 back in 1997. Trason also set the a course record at the time of 6:13 on the uphill course in 1996. In both of these years she won WS 2 weeks later. I think a lot of younger readers here may not know how good Ann Trason was.

I don't believe it's fair to compare from year-to-year, as there can be significant variations in ~weather and also the measurement of the course. Last year's uphill course was apparently a little long, making Caroline's time a bit slower than it would have otherwise been. She could have likely gotten the uphill CR. I was a bit shocked to read they had done the "official measurement" on the course for this year-- you mean it's not a standardized distance that's the same every year?! What's the point of keeping records if the distance is questionable from year-to-year? This is where you have to appreciate the legitimacy of modernly measured marathons-- if they say it's a marathon, it's spot on in distance.

Additionally, from studying Ann and how she raced, she threw caution to the wind-- while she won on both the up and down courses, she also had 2 DNFs at Comrades (being ill the first yr) and also at Western States. She's admirable for putting herself out there and taking risks. I listened to the commentary, and there was a lot of talk about going out conservative and trying to negative splits. That's not how the sub 6 hr ladies raced! They prepared for the downhill to stave off late-race cramping, but they also went balls-to-the-wall from start to finish. If you're strong enough, prepared, and run within yourself, you should be able to race the full distance. I feel the same with the 100K holds true-- if women are going to go sub 7 hrs, you have to race the full distance.

It's also worth mentioning that the sub 6 hr women had legitimate leg speed from the marathon-100K. It takes 7:10 or faster 100K ability to run sub 6:00 on the downhill at Comrades. All 3 of the sub 6 women were sub 2:40 marathoners as well. Even with the Russian twins, they were exceptional marathoners (sub 2:30), but not entirely proven to be exceptional ultra runners- despite their success at Comrades. It takes all the right tools from marathon-100K to run well at ultras/Comrades.

Was there really only 2 wks between Comrades and Western States? It's usually been 3-4 wks. Nowadays, with the increasing competition, it would be challenging to do both, and do both well, with 2 wks of recovery (if true).

It was likely a great loss to the level of competition to have a few of us out with injuries (combined with the Russian ban), but the top women still ran respectably and honorably, with more South Africans than usual in the top 15! It was an enjoyable race to follow, and I'm inspired to aim for next year and hope for better luck with the health!