ZACH BITTER SETS NEW 100 MILE WR!!! 11:19:18- 6:47 PACE- Official Thread

No Walmsley fanboy wrote:

YMMV wrote:

For shitzengiggles, I threw Zach's performance into the WMA calculator, and it gave a 50-mile equivalent of 4:34 (and 2:07 for a marathon). Walmsley's record is 4:50. These things are tricky at the outlier distances, but just sayin'....good on ya Zach.

Yep, we have said this multiple times. Walmsley is not that fast. As a matter of fact 50 year old have run 100k fast then him a good 20-30 years ago.

I respect Walmsley when he races smart. I consider Zach's record and Jim's WS record as in the same ballpark in terms of quality. I would like to see JW take a swing at Zach's record, and for Zach to work on his trail chops for WS.

Zach is a local guy near me.. really nice dude, very modest and a great representative for the running community. Great job for him.. what a stud!

YMMV wrote:I put his time in MacMillan's calculator and it just about broke the algorithm. Let's just say it is very very good...probably nearly or as good as the current 100K record.

Zach had a very strong run, but 100 miles on the track or roads has not seen nearly the level of competition that 100 km has for the better part of 40 years. Whatever one accepts for the 100 km WR (6:09 or 6:10) I would say they're superior to Zach's run. That in no way shape or form is to put down an outstanding run by Zach. But even 6:20 is no joke for 100 km. McMillan is nearly useless the longer the race gets beyond the marathon.

No Walmsley fanboy wrote: Yep, we have said this multiple times. Walmsley is not that fast. As a matter of fact 50 year old have run 100k fast then him a good 20-30 years ago.

One needn't be a fan boy to give something an honest evaluation. Jim never gave 100 km serious attention. He stumbled onto the US 100 km team when he was very inexperienced for ultras, after a good run at JFK (well before he ran he excellent course record at JFK) which is 50 miles. 100 km can be approached similarly to 50 miles, but is still 12 miles longer, and that was his issue, aside from his aggressive start.

Nobody should be surprised by Bitter's performance. He ran 11:40 previously and other sub 12 and slightly over 12 hour times. I think the temperature controlled ice rink was probably key. No wind, no sun, or other environmental variations with constant 50-55 F, the perfect running temperature.

The thing that I'm impressed by is that he did it at an event that had 6 day, 48, and 24 hour races running concurrently. That's a lot of people (100+) to weave around on a three lane track, unless they all let him pass each lap. Otherwise he probably hit the 100 split much quicker than his record due to running extra distance in lane 2.

Bitter taste wrote:

Nobody should be surprised by Bitter's performance. He ran 11:40 previously and other sub 12 and slightly over 12 hour times. I think the temperature controlled ice rink was probably key. No wind, no sun, or other environmental variations with constant 50-55 F, the perfect running temperature.

The thing that I'm impressed by is that he did it at an event that had 6 day, 48, and 24 hour races running concurrently. That's a lot of people (100+) to weave around on a three lane track, unless they all let him pass each lap. Otherwise he probably hit the 100 split much quicker than his record due to running extra distance in lane 2.

Zach Bitter ran with 24 and 48 hour runners not with the 6 day crowd.

SteelTownRunner wrote:

No Walmsley fanboy wrote: Yep, we have said this multiple times. Walmsley is not that fast. As a matter of fact 50 year old have run 100k fast then him a good 20-30 years ago.

One needn't be a fan boy to give something an honest evaluation. Jim never gave 100 km serious attention. He stumbled onto the US 100 km team when he was very inexperienced for ultras, after a good run at JFK (well before he ran he excellent course record at JFK) which is 50 miles. 100 km can be approached similarly to 50 miles, but is still 12 miles longer, and that was his issue, aside from his aggressive start.

It's always the same with the Walmsley fanboys. If it goes well Walmsley is the GOAT. If it doesn't go well there are hundreds of excuses.

If you show up at at the Worlds you take it serious. What happened was that Jim ran the first half way too fast and folded later.

Bitter taste wrote:Nobody should be surprised by Bitter's performance. He ran 11:40 previously and other sub 12 and slightly over 12 hour times. I think the temperature controlled ice rink was probably key. No wind, no sun, or other environmental variations with constant 50-55 F, the perfect running temperature.

The thing that I'm impressed by is that he did it at an event that had 6 day, 48, and 24 hour races running concurrently. That's a lot of people (100+) to weave around on a three lane track, unless they all let him pass each lap. Otherwise he probably hit the 100 split much quicker than his record due to running extra distance in lane 2.

As mentioned before, he had 5 prior attempts, 4 fast 100 completions, 3 under 12 hours.

The 6 day did not start until hours after his race was over. The field was limited and participants were aware of his running. Though much of it was in lane 2, the track had 31 inches per lane instead of standard 42 inch, so he wasn't running that much farther altogether. His time was pretty close to what he was aiming for, irrespective of running lanes.

No Walmsley fanboy wrote: [quote]It's always the same with the Walmsley fanboys. If it goes well Walmsley is the GOAT. If it doesn't go well there are hundreds of excuses. If you show up at at the Worlds you take it serious. What happened was that Jim ran the first half way too fast and folded later.

the reality is one would hope a runner would take it seriously, but a) that's not always the case and b) seriousness is no substitute for experience. The reality is it's taken Jim a few tries in more than one race to 'figure it out'. You can say that's a pro, con, or otherwise. This isn't to laud or bash the man; it's purely to offer some objective perspective. If one (you) is to quote his sole 100 km performance as something that's representative of his ability, that grossly ignores a lot of other information. Numbers can tell a story, but frequently, that story is incomplete.

You conveniently forgot that Hoka designed a whole 100k event around Walmsley this spring. He lost that one too.

Hoka 100 wrote:

SteelTownRunner wrote: [quote]

the reality is one would hope a runner would take it seriously, but a) that's not always the case and b) seriousness is no substitute for experience. The reality is it's taken Jim a few tries in more than one race to 'figure it out'. You can say that's a pro, con, or otherwise. This isn't to laud or bash the man; it's purely to offer some objective perspective. If one (you) is to quote his sole 100 km performance as something that's representative of his ability, that grossly ignores a lot of other information. Numbers can tell a story, but frequently, that story is incomplete.

You conveniently forgot that Hoka designed a whole 100k event around Walmsley this spring. He lost that one too.

Hardly. Jim was trying get both the 50 mile and 100 km WRs in one shot, except he wasn't going at 100 km WR pace (sub 6:09:00); his pace if held constant would have him breaking 6 hours for 100 km. He could have told you that was a bit of a moon shot, especially as the weather warmed. To call that exhibition a race is honestly giving it dignity I don't feel it deserves. Some good came out of it, but it was hardly a race. Jim was there to time trial, and hopefully get some record giving Hoka some publicity. His training for a flat fast run was somewhat abbreviated after racing the Fast 100 (what turned out to be a 50 mile race in Hong Kong instead of 100 km). I am aware that before that he ran his 64 minute 13.1 in Houston (neither as exciting nor unremarkable as people on both extremes make it out to be).

The Carbon X exhibition was not for him to run the best 100 km he could, or produce a somewhat 'safe' quality time (as the "winner" ended up doing). He both showed that 4:50 for 50 miles is impressive, and showed how good the likes of Barney Klecker and Bruce Fordyce were when they ran those times in the course of competition, and rabbited solo record attempts. This was ultimately to make a show for Hoka, which he did. But it is hardly representative of what I think an honest take would be for his 100 km ability in a well paced effort.

YMMV wrote:

No Walmsley fanboy wrote:

Yep, we have said this multiple times. Walmsley is not that fast. As a matter of fact 50 year old have run 100k fast then him a good 20-30 years ago.

I respect Walmsley when he races smart. I consider Zach's record and Jim's WS record as in the same ballpark in terms of quality. I would like to see JW take a swing at Zach's record, and for Zach to work on his trail chops for WS.

Jim's 50 mile record is literally 1 second per mile slower than Zach's marathon PR pace. I'll let that sink in for a second.

These two are not even close to the same calibre of runner. Jim's 50 is actually getting pretty close to what the best Africans to do. He ran 1:04:00 in his only serious half marathon off of a couple months of speed-focused training. That's not world class, but it's very good. I'd be surprised if he couldn't at least run sub 2:14 on a fast marathon course. Zach has PRs of 1:10:16 and 2:31:29. These are not the times that a world class ultrarunner should be able to run. This would be like trying to be a top marathoner with something like 14:30 5k ability. It's just not realistic.

I'd venture a guess that ~4:40 is the best that any top level African marathoner could do if they focused on 50 miles for a year or 2. On the other hand, I've felt for years that legitimate top guys could run under 10:30 for 100 miles. There's never been a top marathoner that trained appropriately for a fast 100 miler and went after it. If that happened, the record would go down by a lot.

And, before we say that it's necessary to be an experienced ultra guy, let's remember that Calvin Woodward, a 2:19:50 marathoner with one 50 mile run to his name, ran 11:38 for 100 miles in his first attempt with insanely aggressive pacing and a pretty hard fade. I'd love to see what he could have done if he had run the 100 a few more times. Sub 11? Seems likely, and he's pretty far from an elite African.

Let's the facts speak:

Zach Bitters PR over 100 k is 6:44:04

Jim Walmsley PR over 100k is 6:55:14

A Half Marathon PR is pretty irrelevant when it comes to ultramarathons and Jim Walmsley has not run one real Marathon so far. According to his HM time he might run a 2:14 but he has to run it first.

https://statistik.d-u-v.org/getresultperson.php?runner=156233

https://statistik.d-u-v.org/getresultperson.php?runner=562726

Walmsley and Bitter are both great. They have raced each other btw:

2018 Western States

1 14:30:04 20 Jim Walmsley M 28 Flagstaff AZ

2 15:54:53 13 Francois Dhaene M 32 Saint Julien FRA

3 16:08:59 M3 Mark Hammond M 33 Millcreek UT

4 16:23:32 M7 Ian Sharman M 37 Bend OR

5 16:45:29 M4 Jeff Browning M 46 North Logan UT

6 16:54:23 M10 Kyle Pietari M 31 Edgewater CO

7 16:54:49 22 Cody Reed M 26 Flagstaff AZ

8 16:59:17 26 Charlie Ware M 32 Tucson AZ

9 17:09:39 M9 Paul Giblin M 40 Paisley GBR

10 17:20:09 135 Kris Brown M 29 Santa Barbara CA

11 17:26:40 41 Zach Bitter M 32 Phoenix AZ

12 17:27:00 27 Courtney Dauwalter F 33 Golden CO

Markus wrote:

Let's the facts speak:

Zach Bitters PR over 100 k is 6:44:04

Jim Walmsley PR over 100k is 6:55:14

A Half Marathon PR is pretty irrelevant when it comes to ultramarathons and Jim Walmsley has not run one real Marathon so far. According to his HM time he might run a 2:14 but he has to run it first.

https://statistik.d-u-v.org/getresultperson.php?runner=156233https://statistik.d-u-v.org/getresultperson.php?runner=562726

-10000000/10. Jim will almost certainly run the 100k world record next time he runs a road 100k, and you know it. Zach seems like a nice guy, but he's not legitimately an elite runner, and he never will be.

Although Zach's 100 Mile is certainly a great accomplishment, I don't put him in the elite category either. How many legitimate elite runners in their prime have gone after such records? Only thing that may get some elites to run 100 mile distance for time is significant prize money which is currently non-existent for ultra running in general, but especially for time trials.

A 6:44 100k time is absolutely an elite runner.

There's quite a bit I agree with in this post, but Zach is a stronger runner than this reported marathon PB. If I recall correctly, he has run 2:20-2:25 at some point, or at least has had runs that indicate that ability. That's in line with Zhalybin (the more experienced runner who got passed by Khartinov in the last 800 meters when Khartinov ran the 11:28:03 WR and Zhalybin also came under Don Ritchie's 11:30:xx).

A couple of side notes - Don Ritchie and Cavin Woodward both only had ~2:19 marathon PBs, but neither ran marathons in their primes or at their peak fitness for a number of reasons, not least of which was their focus on longer races and the fewer race offerings than there are now. Also, when Ritchie ran 11:51:12 in his 2nd best 100 mile effort on 15 June 1979 (splitting 50 miles in 5:23:44, and 100 km in 6:49:38. This was the first 100 with 4 runners under 15 hours) in Flushing Meadows Park in Queens, NYC, temperatures hit 87°F and Don estimated he'd have been able to run 40 minutes faster in cooler conditions (reminder that the Dome / Pettit Center where Zach just ran was a constant 55°F).

Ultimately, a mid 2-teen marathoner, with enough road / track training / mileage (not on trails), and enough persistence / determination / motivation etc, should be able to crack 11 hours, and I would expect someone to be able to crack 10:30 before we even consider what an elite east African can do.