I'm actually impressed that he is at over 60 miles since last night. I'd like to know what his pace has been though. He is clearly putting in longer days now...
Robert Young fakes run across America
-
I'm disappointed in you Indy. No live updates from anyone downtown over your lunch break?!
I'm actually impressed that he is at over 60 miles since last night. I'd like to know what his pace has been though. He is clearly putting in longer days now... -
rollerofsausage wrote:
Breer, I'm from Iowa wrote:
Regarding current countdown, I imagine someone is keeping a more accurate tally but my back of envelope calculation shows that where he was at 11:30am EST (near Indy Airport) it looks like:
771 miles to Times Square (using Google maps with "avoiding highways" option to eliminate interstates and choosing shortest option)
About 12 Days 20 Hours to beat record
This comes out to 60.06 miles per 24-hour period for the next 308 hours.
So if he averages a very optimistic 50 miles a day, then he still comes up 2 1/2 days short of the record.
I think in a week if they're on pace to miss the record by less than 2 days they will try to cheat. They're all in and didn't cheat all the way to Kansas for nothing! -
and because I get accused of doing this under aliases, I'll do it myself.
www.marathoninvestigation.com
btw, traffic from letsrun contributes to about 2.5% of my total pageviews. -
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
Rob Dylan wrote:
It would be an interesting poll to see what most non-runners would think about this:
A) Run 100 miles in 24 hours.
B) Run 1 mile in 3:50:00.
The key in your question is "Non-runners" i.e. the ignorant.
A is persistence - just over 4 mph for 24 hours
B is talent
Right-o and the point of this exercise. I specifically said 24 hours because many can do that, very few the sub-4. -
1980 record expert wrote:
larkimm wrote:
Do we know that the 1980 record wasn't faked? Where are his GPS trace files...?
I was on Letsrun during that 1980 Transcon run. It was epic too. 1856 pages of debate. We did not believe a word that tool said and run him through the ringer. There were also intense debates between Ultra dudes and Milers. It was awesome.
Ha, ha. I think Al Gore hadn't yet invented the internet. -
I understand some people not wanting to dig into his personal life because it feels a bit invasive, but he is the one who has put this info out there. And I think it also lends some color to what's happening now. In my mind there are basically two ways to look at his accounts of his childhood:
A) You think it's entirely made up or grossly exaggerated. If this is you, it seems reasonable that you would question his current claims and record attempts given the lack of any proof.
B) If you think this his book is accurate or only slightly embellished (this is where I find myself) then you should absolutely be concerned about the potential psychological effects and his current mental state.
Others have suggested that he may be a bit naive in this whole endeavor and that his crew are the ones manipulating him. Though I think there was definite cheating in the beginning, I'm beginning to think that it was not planned from the start. Rather I think it may have been impulsive by his team and a reaction to the pressure to stay on track. -
brown odor wrote:
Natty Dread wrote:
PrairieRunner wrote:
Rob Dylan wrote:
It would be an interesting poll to see what most non-runners would think about this:
Which is the more impressive running feat to you:
A) Run 100 miles in 24 hours.
B) Run 1 mile in 3:50:00.
The times could vary bu you get the picture. My gut says "A" will be the overwhelming top pick.
A lot of non-elite ultrarunners can run 100 miles in 24 hours - I'm thinking flat loop course. Breaking 4:00 in the mile takes much more than training, i.e., genetics.
I pick 'B', by far.
Those are two completely different bars - one is world class and the other can be achieved by many "descent" runners with training.
A more relative comparison would be:
A) Run 100-miles in (less than or equal to) 12hrs
B) Run a mile in (less than or equal to) 3:50
Now you are comparing two world-class performances.
{Note: previous posting of this was eaten by the antiquated parsing monster}.
They are supposed to be different bars, there is obviously a correct answer and every one on this board will say 'B'.
The general non-running public might find 'A' more impressive. That is why the OP said it would be an interesting survey, to see if the non-running public is as ignorant as we think they are.
Aye, spot on. -
doubler wrote:
and because I get accused of doing this under aliases, I'll do it myself.
http://www.marathoninvestigation.com
btw, traffic from letsrun contributes to about 2.5% of my total pageviews.
Like what you do Doublr, you can count me as a supporter, but you've been caught using an alias in this thread, makes people wonder.
Whether you promote under an alias or not, makes no difference, your blog is good stuff. -
DRobertsIMG wrote:
Rob Dylan wrote:
It would be an interesting poll to see what most non-runners would think about this:
Which is the more impressive running feat to you:
A) Run 100 miles in 24 hours.
B) Run 1 mile in 3:50:00.
The times could vary bu you get the picture. My gut says "A" will be the overwhelming top pick.
There's actually a historically accurate answer to this question, and it is A. [puts Brooks-branded flame retardant suit on]. It was the ability to cover 100 miles in a day that distinguished our ancestors from their prey. Running a mile in 3:50 might allow you to outrun your fellow cavemen, but it wouldn't get you anywhere near an antelope. But a sustained run that allowed you to pursue it until it collapsed from exhaustion? That's where we found our evolutionary advantage in being bipedal. That's how we became the dominant species on the planet. That's our bag, baby, historically speaking.
Running a 3:50 mile is certainly a much rarer skill, arguably even a more valuable one today (since chasing an antelope to the point where it collapses from exhaustion lost some of its cachet after that Whole Foods opened up down the street), but looking at which one has made the bigger impression on our history, the answer is clearly A.
Wow. I can't believe I actually wrote that out. This is what spending days obsessively following runner snark has reduced me to.
In the context of history I agree. In the context of life today, the other correct answer. -
U lister wrote:
Which major media outlets think this?
Links or it never happened.
Loser Runner Cult wrote:
Ultra Rad wrote:
Stings doesn't it. You know it does. Deep down inside you know your best days (like breaking an hour for a 10K) are far behind you. All you have left now is to pull on that fannypack, strap on that bandana and go out in the woods and do what most people call a hike, and call it a "ultra-marathon."
You go for it, oh walker of the woods. You go!
LRC is definitely coming away from this thread looking like a bunch of ugly weirdos to a lot of outsiders, new first time visitors and major media outlets. The "fast runner"'s homophobic anti-ultrarunner hate post some pages back was two days after the Orlando nightclub shooting.
"LetsRun.com is a community of the most amazing group of people united by their love of running. "
LRC is not making itself look like an amazing group of people here and there is a stronger thread of hate on here than there is love.
Stay classy LRC..
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7355147&page=204
6/15/2016 4:09PM
fast runner wrote:
CaptainandtheToenail wrote:
Frank is a legend around here (I live about an hour from his store). This video shows the running style you need to have to get across the US quickly. He floats like a butterly without any energy exterted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIeDWc6KFIk
I conclude from that video that to be a great ultra runner you have to run like a sore assed gay. -
brown odor wrote:
doubler wrote:
and because I get accused of doing this under aliases, I'll do it myself.
http://www.marathoninvestigation.com
btw, traffic from letsrun contributes to about 2.5% of my total pageviews.
Like what you do Doublr, you can count me as a supporter, but you've been caught using an alias in this thread, makes people wonder.
Whether you promote under an alias or not, makes no difference, your blog is good stuff.
understood. But I am part of a very small minority that is not anonymous 100% of the time. But rest assured, I do not start threads promoting my blog posts any more.
The only times I have, I did under 'doubler'. I don't do that any more because a) it's not necessary and b) those threads immediately result in heavy duty trolling. -
ray gun to my head wrote:
It seems like Ray fixing his shoes made him move 20 extra miles today.
turning the metaphor on its head, lazarus and co. are raising RY from the dead!!! -
I never, ever promote my own web site because it is wrong. In case you are wondering what web site I am referring to. here it is
http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/
But I am not promoting it whatsoever.
carry on. -
Roberto Abooey wrote:
LRC is definitely coming away from this thread looking like a bunch of ugly weirdos to a lot of outsiders, new first time visitors and major media outlets. The "fast runner"'s homophobic anti-ultrarunner hate post some pages back was two days after the Orlando nightclub shooting.
The brojos have never taken the time to upgrade the site in a way that would allow users to quickly flag and delete these types of comments. Same goes for the ridiculously offensive racist threads that have nothing to do with running. I can only conclude that it's because they don't care.
If they cut that stuff out of the forum and a higher percentage of threads were running-related, I'd read and post here a lot more. As it stands, I sure as hell don't want my name associated with this site, even when there is a good thread like this. -
Question..? wrote:
RYinvestigator wrote:
Very weird: http://imgur.com/pR2dU8e
“Well the pain of running beats getting a nail hammered through my foot. Not really anything is as painful as that.†He remembers being zipped in a suitcase and pushed down the stairs, and being hanged with a cord attached to a coat hanger.
Why is a story of child abuse 'weird'?
As a registered psychologist who works with victims of child abuse, it common for survivors of abuse to develop strong adverse reactions when placed in situations that are similar to what occurred in the abuse. For example, a child regularly locked in a closet will develop a fear of closed in spaces. However, there are many examples that are less obvious and more subtle; a certain smell can trigger a panic response in some survivors of abuse and they may not even remember at first why that smell is eliciting that response.
Therefore, what is weird/rare about that photo to me - is that a person who had suffered childhood trauma by specifically being zipped into a suitcase (a memory strong enough to mention and write about as the specific abuse they suffered) would find it funny and enjoyable to recreate that experience. It is of course possible the situation left no lasting effect on him, but then it is strange that he specifically talks about it. -
113 wrote:
The brojos have never taken the time to upgrade the site in a way that would allow users to quickly flag and delete these types of comments. Same goes for the ridiculously offensive racist threads that have nothing to do with running. I can only conclude that it's because they don't care.
If they cut that stuff out of the forum and a higher percentage of threads were running-related, I'd read and post here a lot more. As it stands, I sure as hell don't want my name associated with this site, even when there is a good thread like this.
Have you seen Facebook comments on any site? It's the same everywhere. Grow some thicker skin. -
Robert is smokin Indianapolis! Yet no updates. No pics, nothing.
Perhaps he likes to run through cities and see people instead of through the barren corn fields. Either that or the geezers are sleeping and he took the bus. -
doubbler wrote:
I never, ever promote my own web site because it is wrong. In case you are wondering what web site I am referring to. here it is
http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/
But I am not promoting it whatsoever.
carry on.
thanks. I said none of that, however. -
You mean when someone links to his blog like five times in a thread, you think it MIGHT be him. Say it ain't so. ;)
-
doubler wrote:
doubbler wrote:
I never, ever promote my own web site because it is wrong. In case you are wondering what web site I am referring to. here it is
http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/
But I am not promoting it whatsoever.
carry on.
thanks. I said none of that, however.
this is me, please dont look
www.marathoninvestigation.com
