Camille Herron DESTROYS 100mi women's world record by running 12:42 - old record 13:45

Something amiss? wrote:

Ultrariffic wrote:

The WMA calculator gives this a 96% rating, equivalent to 2:22 marathon. Trason's old record is given 88%, equal to a 2:34 marathon. Massive jump.

Which WMA calculator are you looking at? The tables at the following site seem to have bogus world best times when looking at distances above marathon:

http://www.runscore.com/Alan/AgeGrade.html

the rest of you are blabbering wrote:

Ultrawoman wrote:

Difference between men and women performance equiv. in distance races is about 10%.

The Mens Marathon WR is 122.95min; the Womens Marathon WR is 135.42min. Thus, the Womens Marathon WR is 10.14% greater than the Men's. (135.42-122.95)/122.95 = 10.14%

So equivalent 100 miles for women would be 12:36:51 compared to men's track record. I realize this was not on the track.

This is the only post worth reading in this thread.[/quote]

Why use a Russian's track WR? The Men's 100 Miles Road WR is 33 years old, set by Yiannis Kouros, at 706.6min. Thus, the equivalent Womens WR (using the 10.14% factor) is 778.2min (12hrs58min).

it is, what it is wrote:

Why use a Russian's track WR? The Men's 100 Miles Road WR, set by Yiannis Kouros at 706.6min has stood for 33 years. Thus, the equivalent Womens WR (using the 10.14% factor) is 778.2min (12hrs58min).

Camille's 12:42:39 shattered the previous women's record, and significantly exceeds the 12hrs58min men's equivalent.

I'm going back through this thread to try and put the record in proper perspective. To this point in the thread, folks have described the effort with the following terms, which I've tried to list from lowest to highest recognition:

"great">>>"impressive">>>"terrific">>>"VERY VERY solid">>>"beyond impressive">>>"most impressive">>>"absolutely remarkable">>>"massive">>>"just ridiculous">>>"insane">>>"beyond comprehension"

I'm thinking the "beyond comprehension" could the closest so far; but really, just how do we grasp the incredibility of this effort? Will this record last another 30 years?

This is amazing, no?

Ultrariffic wrote:

Which WMA calculator are you looking at? The tables at the following site seem to have bogus world best times when looking at distances above marathon:

http://www.runscore.com/Alan/AgeGrade.html

]

That is the same site I'm siting (with the Tables provided), which seems to have bogus world best times when looking at distances above the marathon, so unless a reasonable explanation is offered, its WMA calculator rating for this 100 mile distance is bogus.

this is amazing, no? wrote:

I'm thinking the "beyond comprehension" could the closest so far; but really, just how do we grasp the incredibility of this effort? Will this record last another 30 years?

This is amazing, no?

I was going to say "f-in awesome." It was a legendary performance. And I think that the race will attract a few more elite ultrarunners next year in an effort to see how they can perform at 100 miles.

The McMillan Calculator equates it to a 2:12 marathon for a woman. She may have achieved the best performance of all-time, any distance.

What does this mean? Could women really close the gap on men the longer the distance? Some people are extraordinary, and this may be the case.

something amiss? wrote:

Ultrariffic wrote:

Which WMA calculator are you looking at? The tables at the following site seem to have bogus world best times when looking at distances above marathon:

http://www.runscore.com/Alan/AgeGrade.html

http://www.pvtc.org/wmalookup06.html

That is the same site I'm siting (with the Tables provided), which seems to have bogus world best times when looking at distances above the marathon, so unless a reasonable explanation is offered, its WMA calculator rating for this 100 mile distance is bogus.[/quote]

So it's "bogus" because you think it's "bogus". I have to admit, unassailble position right there.

What Camille did is very, very impressive and deserves major kudos...but I honestly can't say that I'm surprised with the time

and result. I don't think Zach Bitter has broken 2:28-2:30 for a marathon and he can run a pretty fast 100-miler on a track as well.

Of course I've only had horrible 100-mile experiences only (like epic failures), and I haven't tried a "flat 100miler or 100km...but I just wanted to say this:

"Flat and Runnable" 100-milers seem to be A LOT different than mountain/hilly 100-milers. So the track/flat road ultras are a lot more predictable and correlate much better to road marathon times. It's not about the distance as much as it's about the running surface and the hills (or lack of hills/mountains) and the duration/weather of the event. A mountain 100km like CCC might take a top guy 12 hours. That same guy (lets say a Hayden Hawks type) might be able to run a 100-miler on the track in the 11-hour range. The 100-mile on a track is a shorter race than the 100km in the mountains in terms of duration!...and there are less variables that can go exponentially wrong in that track 100-miler.

That's why a guy like Max King can rock a 100km world champs on the road, but any big 100km+ race in the mountains and Francois D'haene (2:28 marathoner maybe?) is going to win and probably beat him by at least 30-min if not an hour. Likewise Francois kicked butt at UTMB this year over guys who have run much faster road marathons (and faster at 50-100km on the roads/more tame trails).

With her Comrades win (most competitive ultra in the world hands down...at least on the men's side), she for sure should be UROY.

YMMV wrote:

So it's "bogus" because you think it's "bogus". I have to admit, unassailble position right there.

No, I'm saying the values that were used in the third line of the tables, for the 100 mile distance, and other distances beyond the marathon distance, appear to be incorrect (i.e., bogus); so if they are, then it stands to reason the calculator at those distances is wrong as well.

something amiss? wrote:

YMMV wrote:

So it's "bogus" because you think it's "bogus". I have to admit, unassailble position right there.

No, I'm saying the values that were used in the third line of the tables, for the 100 mile distance, and other distances beyond the marathon distance, appear to be incorrect (i.e., bogus); so if they are, then it stands to reason the calculator at those distances is wrong as well.

Well, the men's open record only scores 96.5% and Camille's is 95%. The men's and women's marathon records score much higher: 101% and 100%. This seems very reasonable as the ultras aren't as competitive, with a lot more headroom for improvement.

I have no idea why you would consider these ratings as "bogus". They are based on slowdown algorithms which are quite robust.

YMMV wrote:

something amiss? wrote:

No, I'm saying the values that were used in the third line of the tables, for the 100 mile distance, and other distances beyond the marathon distance, appear to be incorrect (i.e., bogus); so if they are, then it stands to reason the calculator at those distances is wrong as well.

Well, the men's open record only scores 96.5% and Camille's is 95%. The men's and women's marathon records score much higher: 101% and 100%. This seems very reasonable as the ultras aren't as competitive, with a lot more headroom for improvement.

I have no idea why you would consider these ratings as "bogus". They are based on slowdown algorithms which are quite robust.

I consider it "bogus", because of the fact that the WR's in the marathon, give an WMA as 100%, as would be expected. I think the logic is seriously convoluted if not grossly wrong to award the WR at any distance only 96%/95%.

"the ultras aren't as competitive, with a lot more headroom for improvement. "

You think this explains the reasoning as to why the WMA tables are grossly biased, if not fraudulent against ultra-ultra-long distances?

Until that "headroom" is actually demonstrated, then World Record's at those distances should be fully recognized for what we are, regardless if some calculator guy tries to diminish them.

Edit: "we" should be "they"

I'm afraid you don't understand how scoring tables work. They are designed so as to not have to be re-written every few years as a result of new records being set. Camille just sliced 62 minutes off the 100-mile record. Is it all of a sudden far better than Paula's marathon record? No rational person would think so.

A record in an event with only a few hundred participants a year is almost always going to be weaker than one with tens of thousands competing in the same time frame. If you can't grasp this, just use the existing records independently and don't compare them with other events, because doing so would make no sense.

I'm clarifying that those tables are extremely biased and wrong, when they don't award a WR at a distance with 100%, particularly when those WR's is NOT easy and quickly changing. (And even if they were, like records in swimming, then any table with credibility should be updated more often for those records, rather than simply bias against certain distances, whether they be in swimming, or running.]

And that record she SHATTERED was 26 years old! Emphasis added because the reasoning of 'not having to re-write the table every few years' does not hold-up to the facts of reality.

Oh, now we get to see more BOGUS BIAS at work. World Records at ultra-ultra- longdistance need to be far better than Paula's marathon record, in order to esteem them as much.

Until somebody actually steps up and sets a World Record, it is just speculation by the calculators at those longer distances. For a supposedly credible WMA calculator to venture into such speculation is, as I said, BOGUS, and thus, as you say "makes no sense" to use such calculator for those distances.

Edit, should read:

Until somebody actually steps up and sets a World Record, it is just speculation by the calculators at those longer distances. The degree of speculation in a calculator is based on the methods used in its derivation. For a supposedly credible WMA calculator that, by its nature, keys off of World Records, but chooses to not base grading off of World Records at certain distances, is to venture into outright erroneous (if not fraudulent) speculation for those particular distances, and thus, as I said, BOGUS, and thus, as you say "makes no sense" to use such calculator for those distances.[/quote]

Yikes, I missed one.

GoneFarAway wrote:

People get over it...yeah, she ran a decent race, but it's not like... (blah, blah blah)...

I have updated my list of the widely diverging opinions in this thread regarding Camille Herron's recent distance World Record in which she DESTROYed the previous 26 year-old record by over an hour. I've tried to list these opinions, from lowest-to-highest recognition, below:

decent>>>"great">>>"impressive">>>"terrific">>>"VERY VERY solid">>>"beyond impressive">>>"most impressive">>>"absolutely remarkable">>>"massive">>>"just ridiculous">>>"insane">>>"beyond comprehension"

Since I started my list of varying opinions in this thread on Camille's recent World Record, the honorable Sage Canaday stopped in, and I consequently need to update the list.

S. Canaday wrote:

What Camille did is very, very impressive and deserves major kudos...but I honestly can't say that I'm surprised with the time and result.

"can't say that I'm surprised with the time and result">>>"decent">>>"great">>>"impressive">>>deserves major kudos>>>"terrific">>>"VERY VERY solid">>>"beyond impressive">>>"very, very impressive">>>"most impressive">>>"absolutely remarkable">>>"massive">>>"just ridiculous">>>"insane">>>"beyond comprehension"

Thanks for weighing in, Sage!

[quote]this is amazing, no? wrote:

In fairness to Sage and his opinions on the matter, I should add one more of his viewpoints to the list, which I initially overlooked. I went ahead and put that viewpoint at the end of the list (top recognition), because it is coming from a well-known ultra-runner, and the distinction/recognition he places in this particular viewpoint (see list) evidently holds high importance in the ultra-running community.

------------

What follows is a list of the widely diverging opinions in this thread regarding Camille Herron's recent distance World Record in which she DESTROYed the previous 26 year-old record by over an hour. I've tried to list these opinions, from lowest-to-highest recognition, below:

"can't say that I'm surprised with the time and result">>>"decent">>>"great">>>"impressive">>>"deserves major kudos">>>"terrific">>>"VERY VERY solid">>>"beyond impressive">>>"very, very impressive">>>"most impressive">>>"absolutely remarkable">>>"massive">>>"just ridiculous">>>"insane">>>"beyond comprehension">>>"for sure should be UROY" (per Sage Canaday)