Back in July of 2011, I wrote a post titled "The Great Debate". It asked the question, what kind of talent would be drawn into ultras if there were higher prize money on the line. In fact, I even mentioned a hypothetical situation where $100,000 might be offered up. Well, a lot of recent buzz has centered around the Run Rabbit Run 100 miler in Steamboat Springs that is hoping to award, you guessed it, a $100k purse!
I'm not saying I predicted it, because a lot has evolved in the ultramarathon world of racing and marketing that pointed to things like this happening. This will absolutely change the face of the sport, possibly polarizing the ultra purists and those who want to see a more progressive trend towards lucrative earnings.
I will never be in a position to earn prize money by running, and most of us will not. Thus, it's almost a non factor in why I would choose to run. The reason I don't run high profile big city marathons is because I don't like the crowds, logistics, and costs of running on roads in cities. Nobody is forcing me to run them, and plenty of other events have sprung up to give me more cost effective and enjoyable options. I simply see a $100k ultra as another option. If you don't like paying $200-400 entry fees for races like Leadville, WS, and JFK, don't run them. The popularity of the event shouldn't make you feel more, or less complelled to participate. It may make it seemingly more attractive, but you have other chances to run beautiful trails for much less opportunity cost.
Big money races, however, will cause whatever "governing" bodies to have to tighten down rules and regulations. Andy Jones Wilkins, a seven time top ten finisher at Western States, caused a bit of a stir by pointing out possible rule infringements by elites at the 2010 Western States 100. This raises the question, who will be out on the often remote mountain courses to "police" whether runners are following the rules? Mike Spinnler, the JFK 50 race director has a very hard stance on the use of listening devices. Anyone caught in person, or by photographic evidence will have their results erased from the records. Most high profile races, especially those with prize money, have a set of rules and guidelines for runners. How do you monitor these to control proper use of pacers, crew, and gear?
I believe the purist stance would be to have NO pacers, NO drop bags, and NO crew. If women's marathon records are considered illegitamate by the USATF because they "paced" with faster male counterparts, then how would pacers be allowed in ultras? I would then consider how many runners have had multiple clothing and nutrition options because of drop bags and crews having them ready at aid stations. An experienced crew can shave minutes, or more off a 50-100 mile just by being efficient. Perhaps the only fair way to go about this is to say that runners cannot use any nutrition outside of what the aid stations provide, and that whatever you wear, you must carry for the entire event. If a race has temps that range from 30-100 degrees, then you should be equipped at the start for all potential conditions. This would mean the folks who are showing up to the races are hopefully better trained to tackle the distance and elements, then when they're allowed to basically have their own roving aid stations with them. This could cut down the massive number of people, some very undertrained, from entering competitive lotteries. I wonder if Yiannis Kouros ever used a drop bag, or if Anne Trason regularly had pacers?
Drug testing. I hate to say it, but cash prize events should test the athletes before, not after the races. It would inflate the entry costs a lot, because drug testing isn't cheap, but it would help keep the sport clean. Maybe. A $100k prize, especially held at altitude, could entice more than a handful of runners to try doping, even if they never did before. $100k would support many of the current elite runners, who when not running, often work normal day jobs like the rest of us.
For now, and I suspect most of 2012, I'll be keeping myself away from the huge starting lines and races. But, for those friends stepping up to the bigger stages, I'll be cheering you on.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Stuff that I used in 2011. The shoe edition
*Updated 12/6/11
A lot of opinions regarding running gear have made their way to various blogs and social network chatter. This is no exception, and in all likelyhood is probably going to be more of the same. At any rate, I do hope that the few folks reading this will come away with a good idea of the gear that I use and ultimately help them in their pursuit of becoming a better runner/enjoy running more/make running more comfortable etc. I have been rotating about 8-10 pairs of shoes per year. It would seem like I've hopped on the bandwagon having used everything from Five Fingers to Hokas. Over the last few years I can thank The Sole Source running store for helping supply me with all the latest and greatest footwear, as well as Brooks Running. Without their support, I'd be spending thousands of dollars on shoes I may not even like.
I suppose the best place to start is to acknowledge what kind of runner I am, so you know where the background of my opinion comes from.
Age: 30
My speed: I am what I would consider a front middle of the packer. This is best described as being slightly faster than your average runner, but still significantly slower than the elites.
Body type: 5 ‘8” and 155 lbs. Sounds like an ideal size, but I’m actually built kind of “top heavy” in that a lot of my weight distribution is in the upper body, large torso, and shorter legs. Not that I look like some freak, but I look more like a wrestler than a runner. For smaller framed men and women, these reviews may not be as practical, and that goes for biggger athletes as well. If you're 6'4" and weigh 250, I would need to write another review to cover your needs. That's an idea!
Feet: Size 9.5. Right foot is about a half size larger than the left, and my big toe is not the one that sticks out farthest. This is important to know as far as how shoes fit on my particular feet. I am also about as flat footed as Fred Flintstone. Zero arch, no pronation, skinny heels, and efficient stride. I am most likely to blister and lose toenails on my big toe(not sure why).
Surfaces that I worn these shoes on: Treadmill, roads, indoor track, gravel trail, Massanutten rocks, smooth Leadville trails, Western States trails, snow, ice, smooth trails and river crossings. Wet and arid conditions.
Onto to the reviews!
In the last few years I have adapted to lighter weight shoes and shoes with a smaller heel to forefoot drop. This was a gradual process in which I built up my miles in a year span so that I could eventually log higher miles, as in 80+ miles per week, in shoes weighing less than 8 ounces. While I don’t run minimalist all the time, I do it enough to keep my feet strong and my stride efficient. It should be noted that I don’t wear just one specific type of shoe all the time. If you consider a work out plan like P90X, which focuses on muscle confusion, I would say your feet are no less different. Wearing one type of shoe, be it minimalist, or bulky, can cause the muscles/joints in your feet to weaken due to no variation in footwear. If you want your legs and feet to become stronger on multiple running surfaces, you wouldn’t only run on roads would you? No, you’d diversify your surfaces to include rocks, roots, smooth trails, and roads. Also, because races, especially in Virginia, have such varying terrain, it only makes sense that I run in multiple kinds of shoes when training on the trails specific to a race course.
Shoes are a lot like the food pyramid. You need a little of everything, but not always a ton of one thing. Minimalist shoes increase proprioception and the muscle memory needed for good foot strike form. However, they can't correct your entire body's form, which still requires effort on the runner to learn and practice. Bulkier shoes are great for the long haul and can prevent injuries sustained in long distance events. When the muscles break down, it can certainly help to have a shoe to support the body when it weakens over time and distance. Minimalist can help strengthen your feet, yet may simply not be enough to realistically protect you at all distances. Some bodies just aren't compatable with light footwear for long races.
Brooks Cascadia 4: The recent Cascadia 6 have had mixed reviews, and thus I have stuck with and oldie, but a goodie. These shoes have a medial post and great rock protection. While they are not minimalist, they are light enough to feel fast on smooth trails and even roads. The Cascadias keep your feet in good shape on technical rocky trails and rocky descents. Recommended for trail races 50 miles and longer. 12 ounces per shoe, 11mm drop. The Cascadias drain water well, but I wish they had a gusseted tongue to help keep debris out.
* Updated 12/6/11
Hoka One One Bondi B: 11 ounces, 4mm drop. These are the complete opposite of minimalist. The Bond B sits high off the ground, has tons of cushion, yet still feels light weight for it's girth. The 4mm drop promotes a pleasant forefoot strike regardless of the 1 inch+ of foamy heel. This giant buffer, however, has a good and dark side, like the force. The bad thing is that I believe all the sponginess will weaken your joints, which are designed to stabilize the body on impact and push off. The plus side is that if you are running on tired joints and muscles after, lets say 50 miles, the Hokas would probably give them a welcome break. The "rocker" motion is supposed to take stress of the quads and transfer to the glutes. I would not recommend running all your miles in these shoes, but perhaps 50%, and another 40% in traditional shoes, and the remaining 10% in minimalist footwear. Minimalist shoes are like practicing boxing on a punching bag with bare hands. They promote good form and muscle memory while building up natural strength. Chunky shoes like Hokas are similar to training with 16 ounce boxing gloves on. They help protect your hands, aka feet, so you can go the distance AFTER you have learned to strike correctly. Hokas tend to run about a half size small. Still not sold on the idea any running shoe is worth $170 (that goes for Newtons as well). I paid $100 for my new Bondis.
Vibram Five Fingers Bikila: 6.8 ounces and a true zero drop. I don’t wear these often, but every few weeks I will put 10-15 miles on them. I have owned the Bikilas for over a year now. I keep my runs under 10 miles. These are a good shoe for recovery runs and tapering because they force a short, efficient, and low impact stride. They are enough shoe for smooth trails, but they won’t protect your feet from sharp jabs caused by even small pebbles. The uppers also won’t protect your feet from much. I run mostly on crushed gravel, or paved roads. Use these kind of shoes wisely! I’ve seen too many overzealous runners get injured from thinking they can go from zero miles to a 50k in a couple months wearing these. A couple months is not even close to enough time for your feet (plantar fascia), Achilles, and legs to compensate for a lifetime of running in high drop shoes.
Brooks Green Silence: 7.2 ounces, 8mm drop. Not really minimalist shoe as far as the heel drop. These are, however, a very light shoe that didn’t feel like they needed to be broken in. I had this pair for about 16 months, and they still feel good. Scott Jurek set the American 24 hour record, running 165 miles wearing only these. While I certainly wouldn’t recommend that, I can support the idea that these could get most people to a 50 mile finish in good shape. Most people won’t find it to be enough for more than a marathon. Though ok on non-technical trails, I’d keep it on pavement. The foamy heel, which cut the weight down, gets roughed up very easy on rocks. Some might find the lack of lateral support and protection hard on the feet, but again there’s always a trade off for lighter shoes.
La Sportiva Wildcat: 13 ounces, 12mm drop. These are the heaviest shoes I run in, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised. These sit much higher than any other shoe I have, other than the Hokas, and probably have close to a 1 inch heel. Initially I worried the high heel would be unstable and lead to rolling my ankles, but the mid height ankle supports the foot very well. These excel on rocky trails and offer some of the best rock protection of any shoe. That said, they are not the fastest feeling shoes, nor the best for roads, though I’ve done 10+ mile runs on pavement just fine in them. The Wildcats sport an under the lace “gaitor” that is an improvement over previous lacing systems where the laces were under the “gaitor”. The mesh upper breaths very well, but it also invites water and can be rather cold in winter weather. Most will find the toe box a bit on the wide side, and the shoe runs about a half size too small. Recommend , and designed for long technical ultras, including 100 milers.
New Balance Minimus: 7.1 ounces, 4mm drop. Well, to put it plainly these are like water shoes with a little more cushion. The Minimus has enough protection to venture onto some rocks, but I would not consider doing a technical ultra in them. Though they are more shoe than the Five Fingers, they still require a solid build up before regular high mile use, if any. Just because the commercials show Tony Krupicka dancing on boulders doesn’t mean you should automatically run 30-100 miles in them. The shoe drains well, but the upper provides little protection. Recommend for shorter non technical trail runs, and possibly “smoother” trail ultras like Way Too Cool, Holiday Lake, etc. I also found the toe box felt quite cramped and uncomfortable after a few miles. Wearing socks, especially thick socks only adds to this. Some people opt for running sockless, or at least a very thin sock.
New Balance MT100: 7.8 ounces, 10mm drop. The soft material provides just enough protection from the rocks to get away with running an ultra in them. I still wouldn’t want to kick any rocks too hard in them. The mesh upper drains well, and the lack of any real material for the tongue means getting the shoes wet doesn’t add much weight. On highly varying surfaces, there is some lacking lateral support, and you could find yourself feeling a little uneasy. The shoe rides low and provides a good sense of where the ground is, and offsets the risk of ankle roll. The MT100 can be worn as a cross country flat, or for a 50 mile ultra. For the right people, it could even be used for a 100 mile race, though not suggested. The only real weakness of the MT100 is the traction, which I felt to be somewhat poor with the minimal cross shaped grips. Built for speed, but not necessarily rocks.
A lot of opinions regarding running gear have made their way to various blogs and social network chatter. This is no exception, and in all likelyhood is probably going to be more of the same. At any rate, I do hope that the few folks reading this will come away with a good idea of the gear that I use and ultimately help them in their pursuit of becoming a better runner/enjoy running more/make running more comfortable etc. I have been rotating about 8-10 pairs of shoes per year. It would seem like I've hopped on the bandwagon having used everything from Five Fingers to Hokas. Over the last few years I can thank The Sole Source running store for helping supply me with all the latest and greatest footwear, as well as Brooks Running. Without their support, I'd be spending thousands of dollars on shoes I may not even like.
I suppose the best place to start is to acknowledge what kind of runner I am, so you know where the background of my opinion comes from.
Age: 30
My speed: I am what I would consider a front middle of the packer. This is best described as being slightly faster than your average runner, but still significantly slower than the elites.
Body type: 5 ‘8” and 155 lbs. Sounds like an ideal size, but I’m actually built kind of “top heavy” in that a lot of my weight distribution is in the upper body, large torso, and shorter legs. Not that I look like some freak, but I look more like a wrestler than a runner. For smaller framed men and women, these reviews may not be as practical, and that goes for biggger athletes as well. If you're 6'4" and weigh 250, I would need to write another review to cover your needs. That's an idea!
Feet: Size 9.5. Right foot is about a half size larger than the left, and my big toe is not the one that sticks out farthest. This is important to know as far as how shoes fit on my particular feet. I am also about as flat footed as Fred Flintstone. Zero arch, no pronation, skinny heels, and efficient stride. I am most likely to blister and lose toenails on my big toe(not sure why).
Surfaces that I worn these shoes on: Treadmill, roads, indoor track, gravel trail, Massanutten rocks, smooth Leadville trails, Western States trails, snow, ice, smooth trails and river crossings. Wet and arid conditions.
Onto to the reviews!
In the last few years I have adapted to lighter weight shoes and shoes with a smaller heel to forefoot drop. This was a gradual process in which I built up my miles in a year span so that I could eventually log higher miles, as in 80+ miles per week, in shoes weighing less than 8 ounces. While I don’t run minimalist all the time, I do it enough to keep my feet strong and my stride efficient. It should be noted that I don’t wear just one specific type of shoe all the time. If you consider a work out plan like P90X, which focuses on muscle confusion, I would say your feet are no less different. Wearing one type of shoe, be it minimalist, or bulky, can cause the muscles/joints in your feet to weaken due to no variation in footwear. If you want your legs and feet to become stronger on multiple running surfaces, you wouldn’t only run on roads would you? No, you’d diversify your surfaces to include rocks, roots, smooth trails, and roads. Also, because races, especially in Virginia, have such varying terrain, it only makes sense that I run in multiple kinds of shoes when training on the trails specific to a race course.
Shoes are a lot like the food pyramid. You need a little of everything, but not always a ton of one thing. Minimalist shoes increase proprioception and the muscle memory needed for good foot strike form. However, they can't correct your entire body's form, which still requires effort on the runner to learn and practice. Bulkier shoes are great for the long haul and can prevent injuries sustained in long distance events. When the muscles break down, it can certainly help to have a shoe to support the body when it weakens over time and distance. Minimalist can help strengthen your feet, yet may simply not be enough to realistically protect you at all distances. Some bodies just aren't compatable with light footwear for long races.
Brooks Cascadia 4: The recent Cascadia 6 have had mixed reviews, and thus I have stuck with and oldie, but a goodie. These shoes have a medial post and great rock protection. While they are not minimalist, they are light enough to feel fast on smooth trails and even roads. The Cascadias keep your feet in good shape on technical rocky trails and rocky descents. Recommended for trail races 50 miles and longer. 12 ounces per shoe, 11mm drop. The Cascadias drain water well, but I wish they had a gusseted tongue to help keep debris out.
* Updated 12/6/11
Hoka One One Bondi B: 11 ounces, 4mm drop. These are the complete opposite of minimalist. The Bond B sits high off the ground, has tons of cushion, yet still feels light weight for it's girth. The 4mm drop promotes a pleasant forefoot strike regardless of the 1 inch+ of foamy heel. This giant buffer, however, has a good and dark side, like the force. The bad thing is that I believe all the sponginess will weaken your joints, which are designed to stabilize the body on impact and push off. The plus side is that if you are running on tired joints and muscles after, lets say 50 miles, the Hokas would probably give them a welcome break. The "rocker" motion is supposed to take stress of the quads and transfer to the glutes. I would not recommend running all your miles in these shoes, but perhaps 50%, and another 40% in traditional shoes, and the remaining 10% in minimalist footwear. Minimalist shoes are like practicing boxing on a punching bag with bare hands. They promote good form and muscle memory while building up natural strength. Chunky shoes like Hokas are similar to training with 16 ounce boxing gloves on. They help protect your hands, aka feet, so you can go the distance AFTER you have learned to strike correctly. Hokas tend to run about a half size small. Still not sold on the idea any running shoe is worth $170 (that goes for Newtons as well). I paid $100 for my new Bondis.
Vibram Five Fingers Bikila: 6.8 ounces and a true zero drop. I don’t wear these often, but every few weeks I will put 10-15 miles on them. I have owned the Bikilas for over a year now. I keep my runs under 10 miles. These are a good shoe for recovery runs and tapering because they force a short, efficient, and low impact stride. They are enough shoe for smooth trails, but they won’t protect your feet from sharp jabs caused by even small pebbles. The uppers also won’t protect your feet from much. I run mostly on crushed gravel, or paved roads. Use these kind of shoes wisely! I’ve seen too many overzealous runners get injured from thinking they can go from zero miles to a 50k in a couple months wearing these. A couple months is not even close to enough time for your feet (plantar fascia), Achilles, and legs to compensate for a lifetime of running in high drop shoes.
Brooks Green Silence: 7.2 ounces, 8mm drop. Not really minimalist shoe as far as the heel drop. These are, however, a very light shoe that didn’t feel like they needed to be broken in. I had this pair for about 16 months, and they still feel good. Scott Jurek set the American 24 hour record, running 165 miles wearing only these. While I certainly wouldn’t recommend that, I can support the idea that these could get most people to a 50 mile finish in good shape. Most people won’t find it to be enough for more than a marathon. Though ok on non-technical trails, I’d keep it on pavement. The foamy heel, which cut the weight down, gets roughed up very easy on rocks. Some might find the lack of lateral support and protection hard on the feet, but again there’s always a trade off for lighter shoes.
La Sportiva Wildcat: 13 ounces, 12mm drop. These are the heaviest shoes I run in, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised. These sit much higher than any other shoe I have, other than the Hokas, and probably have close to a 1 inch heel. Initially I worried the high heel would be unstable and lead to rolling my ankles, but the mid height ankle supports the foot very well. These excel on rocky trails and offer some of the best rock protection of any shoe. That said, they are not the fastest feeling shoes, nor the best for roads, though I’ve done 10+ mile runs on pavement just fine in them. The Wildcats sport an under the lace “gaitor” that is an improvement over previous lacing systems where the laces were under the “gaitor”. The mesh upper breaths very well, but it also invites water and can be rather cold in winter weather. Most will find the toe box a bit on the wide side, and the shoe runs about a half size too small. Recommend , and designed for long technical ultras, including 100 milers.
New Balance Minimus: 7.1 ounces, 4mm drop. Well, to put it plainly these are like water shoes with a little more cushion. The Minimus has enough protection to venture onto some rocks, but I would not consider doing a technical ultra in them. Though they are more shoe than the Five Fingers, they still require a solid build up before regular high mile use, if any. Just because the commercials show Tony Krupicka dancing on boulders doesn’t mean you should automatically run 30-100 miles in them. The shoe drains well, but the upper provides little protection. Recommend for shorter non technical trail runs, and possibly “smoother” trail ultras like Way Too Cool, Holiday Lake, etc. I also found the toe box felt quite cramped and uncomfortable after a few miles. Wearing socks, especially thick socks only adds to this. Some people opt for running sockless, or at least a very thin sock.
New Balance MT100: 7.8 ounces, 10mm drop. The soft material provides just enough protection from the rocks to get away with running an ultra in them. I still wouldn’t want to kick any rocks too hard in them. The mesh upper drains well, and the lack of any real material for the tongue means getting the shoes wet doesn’t add much weight. On highly varying surfaces, there is some lacking lateral support, and you could find yourself feeling a little uneasy. The shoe rides low and provides a good sense of where the ground is, and offsets the risk of ankle roll. The MT100 can be worn as a cross country flat, or for a 50 mile ultra. For the right people, it could even be used for a 100 mile race, though not suggested. The only real weakness of the MT100 is the traction, which I felt to be somewhat poor with the minimal cross shaped grips. Built for speed, but not necessarily rocks.
Monday, November 21, 2011
The Race Within a Race- JFK 50 miler 2011
About a month ago I told Anna Bradford, a 16 time JFK finisher with the Reston Runners that I wanted to volunteer for the team this year. I also stated a desire to pace a first time JFK runner, and preferably first time ultra runner. Little did I know what the day would have in store for me.
It was a day of course records, personal worsts, and the dramatic fight for both. It was a day that started off like the most idyllic of autumn days. Perhaps it was the cool chill of the November morning, the sun rays beaming through the swaying trees along the C&O canal, or boisterous crowds of Weverton and Antietam. It was a day that began like so many others, yet finished like none that came before.
It is 5am and breezy 32 degrees. Just about par for the course, as far as JFK 50 weather goes. The 5am wave starts and disappears into the dark, low lit, empty streets of Boonsboro. A couple hours later the 7am runners follow the same path, but are instead greeted by the glow of the early morning sunrise. Today, I am pacing Tom Buck, a runner who is back at JFK after a DNF at mile 27 last year. Not more than a few hours into the day the phone buzzes. Tom dropped about 5 miles into the race due to sever cramping. He was freezing and alone on the Appalachian Trail after all the other 5am runners passed him. He waited a while and had been yelling for help when a nearby boy scout troop finally found him. It appears potential food poisoning was the culprit that knocked Tom out of the race early. Looks like I wouldn't be doing any pacing today. Or would I?
As the day progressed I made my way around the course to help crew and cheer on runners. At mile 15 everyone was still peppy and happy. At mile 27 people were showing signs of fatigue, but were still generally happy and moving well. For most folks that warm fuzzy feeling starts to fade after the 30 mile mark, and when they arrive at mile 38 the day is almost sealed. It was at Taylor's Landing, mile 38, that this story begins.
Anna Bradford is having one of her slowest JFK races ever. She arrives at mile 38 ONE minute under the time cut off. One minute from getting pulled from the vent, and ending the streak. After 16 finishes, a PR of 9:29 in 2009, she is well aware of the situation, and what needs to be done if she wants finish JFK number 17 today. That's when the call comes in. It was like a major league baseball manager calling to the bull pen for the closer to come in and get it done. I was summoned to pace Anna to the finish and help turn the situation around. However, it wasn't just Anna! There was another Reston Runner, Pat Brown, who was flirting dangerously close to the cut off as well. I now had two people to get to the finish. Could they both maintain the pace needed to cover the last 12 miles in 3 hours? Would they fade on the rolling country roads of Williamsport? Would one get dropped as the other got stronger?
We get down to business, and start running. We know we don't have the luxury to walk it in, and any time running is minutes in the bank for the finish. It's a mix of running and walking on the remaining 3 miles of C&O towpath. Pat is looking good and he catches us and eventually passes. The sun is dipping lower on the horizon, and provides one last reminder that we will be running into the night. The sound of the dam signals the end of the notorious towpath, but the beginning of the final 8.2 miles of hilly roads. We grab our reflective vest, make our way onto the road, and begin the final push.
Eight. We pass the first of the mile markers that indicate the final eight miles of the course. For now it's a matter of maxing out the stretches of running between the inclines. I pick out visual markers, like a telephone pole, or a sign, and ask Anna to run until we get to them, and even beyond if she can. Though the effort is draining after 42 miles of running, Anna pushes, and good old Pat Brown is still hanging with us. It's not long before we pick up a few other runners looking for some guidance. We're on in the same boat, all trying to make it under the 12 hour cutoff. As the new "peloton" charges through the remaining six miles we pass dozens of other runners. Many of these folks were in their own fight for the finish, and for some of the 5am runners, and those hurting bad, we understood the sad reality that they would not finish in time. Sometimes the reality of a DNF is motivation enough.
Five miles to go, and 90 minutes to get there. It seems as if we are in a "safe" place to finish, but there's no point in cutting it close. All it takes is a random car accident closing down a road, train crossing, or twisted ankle, and you don't finish in time. I tell Anna, "better to finish 10 minutes under, than 1 minute over. Let's not get too relaxed." We are running impressive stretches of a quarter mile, half mile, and taking walking breaks as a nice "reward" for the tiring effort. I am paying close attention to everyone's breathing, cadence, and foot strikes. These folks are on heavy legs and tired lungs, but they maintain.
Downsville, mile 46. We roll through the last aid station, and Anna pushes hard. Our small pack of women drop back, to which I explained that they are still doing fine and there is no need to hold Anna's pace. We have 75 minutes to go four miles. The dark roads seem endless. The monotony of the pitch black is occasionally disrupted by the blinding glare of oncoming head lights, or the illumination of the road by vehicles behind us. It's us, the road, traffic cones, and silent grit. Is that coffee, or the smell of a skunk? Does anyone else smell the intense odor of pot? Ah, the odiferous scents of an ultra experience.
We're down to 63 minutes to go 3 miles. We keep truckin' to the same old beat. We arrive at the final water stop with 1.5 miles to go. Anna and Pat are tired, but there's no stopping for us. We are running fast, and our peloton is down to just us three Reston Runners. ONE mile to go! I take one more glance back to see how far behind our new friends are, but much to my surprise/delight, they have held Anna's pace and are bringing it. We are a well oiled machine motoring our way to the finish. We make the final right hand turn, push up the last little hill, and lock onto the finish line. Anna and Pat have made one of the most epic late mile turn arounds I have ever seen. They finish with Amie, a first timer who hung with us to the end, and another runner named Jenny. 11 hours and 35 minutes. Anna and Pat made up a 24 minute gap with the time cut off in just 12 miles. Two minutes per mile gained beginning at mile 38. Wow!
In my five years running the JFK 50 miler I have had experiences that have allowed me to see aspects of this race that most runners will not. I have DNF'ed the event after being pulled, and I have completed the run with basically every pace group from 11 hours to 7 hours. Up until this year, the only runner groups I had not run with were the sub 6 and 7 hour elites, and the 11 to 12 hour runners. This year, that all changed.
It was truly an awe inspiring experience to watch the 5am starters and follow the physical and emotional genesis of the back of the pack group. There is so much team work and motivational effort that comes together within this particular population, so it was amazing to see it first hand. I don't think many elites, or middle of the pack runners, realize how much more it takes to run 11-14 hours for fifty miles. The solidarity, determination, and comradery I witnessed was truly humbling. I am so proud of Anna and Pat for really shifting their bodies into an untapped gear when the going got tough. I am also grateful for the ultrarunning community, and groups like the Reston Runners for really being the embodiment of the ultra marathon spirit.
Congrats to all finishers, newbies and old schoolers. You all remind us that even our least stellar runs can produce the most motivational and gutsy performances.
See you next year!
-Mike Bailey (aka "frozen eyeball guy", "marathon costume guy", "lost all the time guy", "Asian guy with long hair guy"...etc)
It was a day of course records, personal worsts, and the dramatic fight for both. It was a day that started off like the most idyllic of autumn days. Perhaps it was the cool chill of the November morning, the sun rays beaming through the swaying trees along the C&O canal, or boisterous crowds of Weverton and Antietam. It was a day that began like so many others, yet finished like none that came before.
It is 5am and breezy 32 degrees. Just about par for the course, as far as JFK 50 weather goes. The 5am wave starts and disappears into the dark, low lit, empty streets of Boonsboro. A couple hours later the 7am runners follow the same path, but are instead greeted by the glow of the early morning sunrise. Today, I am pacing Tom Buck, a runner who is back at JFK after a DNF at mile 27 last year. Not more than a few hours into the day the phone buzzes. Tom dropped about 5 miles into the race due to sever cramping. He was freezing and alone on the Appalachian Trail after all the other 5am runners passed him. He waited a while and had been yelling for help when a nearby boy scout troop finally found him. It appears potential food poisoning was the culprit that knocked Tom out of the race early. Looks like I wouldn't be doing any pacing today. Or would I?
As the day progressed I made my way around the course to help crew and cheer on runners. At mile 15 everyone was still peppy and happy. At mile 27 people were showing signs of fatigue, but were still generally happy and moving well. For most folks that warm fuzzy feeling starts to fade after the 30 mile mark, and when they arrive at mile 38 the day is almost sealed. It was at Taylor's Landing, mile 38, that this story begins.
Anna Bradford is having one of her slowest JFK races ever. She arrives at mile 38 ONE minute under the time cut off. One minute from getting pulled from the vent, and ending the streak. After 16 finishes, a PR of 9:29 in 2009, she is well aware of the situation, and what needs to be done if she wants finish JFK number 17 today. That's when the call comes in. It was like a major league baseball manager calling to the bull pen for the closer to come in and get it done. I was summoned to pace Anna to the finish and help turn the situation around. However, it wasn't just Anna! There was another Reston Runner, Pat Brown, who was flirting dangerously close to the cut off as well. I now had two people to get to the finish. Could they both maintain the pace needed to cover the last 12 miles in 3 hours? Would they fade on the rolling country roads of Williamsport? Would one get dropped as the other got stronger?
We get down to business, and start running. We know we don't have the luxury to walk it in, and any time running is minutes in the bank for the finish. It's a mix of running and walking on the remaining 3 miles of C&O towpath. Pat is looking good and he catches us and eventually passes. The sun is dipping lower on the horizon, and provides one last reminder that we will be running into the night. The sound of the dam signals the end of the notorious towpath, but the beginning of the final 8.2 miles of hilly roads. We grab our reflective vest, make our way onto the road, and begin the final push.
Eight. We pass the first of the mile markers that indicate the final eight miles of the course. For now it's a matter of maxing out the stretches of running between the inclines. I pick out visual markers, like a telephone pole, or a sign, and ask Anna to run until we get to them, and even beyond if she can. Though the effort is draining after 42 miles of running, Anna pushes, and good old Pat Brown is still hanging with us. It's not long before we pick up a few other runners looking for some guidance. We're on in the same boat, all trying to make it under the 12 hour cutoff. As the new "peloton" charges through the remaining six miles we pass dozens of other runners. Many of these folks were in their own fight for the finish, and for some of the 5am runners, and those hurting bad, we understood the sad reality that they would not finish in time. Sometimes the reality of a DNF is motivation enough.
Five miles to go, and 90 minutes to get there. It seems as if we are in a "safe" place to finish, but there's no point in cutting it close. All it takes is a random car accident closing down a road, train crossing, or twisted ankle, and you don't finish in time. I tell Anna, "better to finish 10 minutes under, than 1 minute over. Let's not get too relaxed." We are running impressive stretches of a quarter mile, half mile, and taking walking breaks as a nice "reward" for the tiring effort. I am paying close attention to everyone's breathing, cadence, and foot strikes. These folks are on heavy legs and tired lungs, but they maintain.
Downsville, mile 46. We roll through the last aid station, and Anna pushes hard. Our small pack of women drop back, to which I explained that they are still doing fine and there is no need to hold Anna's pace. We have 75 minutes to go four miles. The dark roads seem endless. The monotony of the pitch black is occasionally disrupted by the blinding glare of oncoming head lights, or the illumination of the road by vehicles behind us. It's us, the road, traffic cones, and silent grit. Is that coffee, or the smell of a skunk? Does anyone else smell the intense odor of pot? Ah, the odiferous scents of an ultra experience.
We're down to 63 minutes to go 3 miles. We keep truckin' to the same old beat. We arrive at the final water stop with 1.5 miles to go. Anna and Pat are tired, but there's no stopping for us. We are running fast, and our peloton is down to just us three Reston Runners. ONE mile to go! I take one more glance back to see how far behind our new friends are, but much to my surprise/delight, they have held Anna's pace and are bringing it. We are a well oiled machine motoring our way to the finish. We make the final right hand turn, push up the last little hill, and lock onto the finish line. Anna and Pat have made one of the most epic late mile turn arounds I have ever seen. They finish with Amie, a first timer who hung with us to the end, and another runner named Jenny. 11 hours and 35 minutes. Anna and Pat made up a 24 minute gap with the time cut off in just 12 miles. Two minutes per mile gained beginning at mile 38. Wow!
In my five years running the JFK 50 miler I have had experiences that have allowed me to see aspects of this race that most runners will not. I have DNF'ed the event after being pulled, and I have completed the run with basically every pace group from 11 hours to 7 hours. Up until this year, the only runner groups I had not run with were the sub 6 and 7 hour elites, and the 11 to 12 hour runners. This year, that all changed.
It was truly an awe inspiring experience to watch the 5am starters and follow the physical and emotional genesis of the back of the pack group. There is so much team work and motivational effort that comes together within this particular population, so it was amazing to see it first hand. I don't think many elites, or middle of the pack runners, realize how much more it takes to run 11-14 hours for fifty miles. The solidarity, determination, and comradery I witnessed was truly humbling. I am so proud of Anna and Pat for really shifting their bodies into an untapped gear when the going got tough. I am also grateful for the ultrarunning community, and groups like the Reston Runners for really being the embodiment of the ultra marathon spirit.
Congrats to all finishers, newbies and old schoolers. You all remind us that even our least stellar runs can produce the most motivational and gutsy performances.
See you next year!
-Mike Bailey (aka "frozen eyeball guy", "marathon costume guy", "lost all the time guy", "Asian guy with long hair guy"...etc)
Monday, October 24, 2011
Top US Ultramarathon Course Records
*updated 10/28/2011
My list of the current most impressive ultramarathon course records on US turf. My opinion is largely tied to the history of the event. In other words, older races that have seen their share of gifted runners, have a bit more credibility. Also, any race where the course changes significantly from year to year also makes it tougher to pin point a strong record. I will add that my opinion may not be worth anything, but it is, afterall, just my silly opinion.
JFK 50- Eric Clifton's 5:46 from 1994. The fact that hundreds of the top distance runners in the US have failed to break this mark makes it the most impressive current course record I can think of. Clifton, a 2:38 marathoner, simply had the perfect day. Numerous 50 mile champs and sub 2:20 marathoners have tried, but no one else has yet to break the 5:50 barrier at JFK.
*I do, however, predict that Michael Wardian will set a course record in 2011. He's fresh off an impressive course record 5:33 at the Tussey Mountainback 50 Miler. I predict low 5:40's if not something in the high 5:30's, possibly in the 5:38-5:42 range. I also think guys like Geoff Roes, Todd Braje, Matt Woods, and Andy Henshaw have the ability to challenge the record in the future. There are a couple other guys on the bubble like Michael Arnstein, Max King, and Oz Pearlman, but, for now, my money is on Wardian.
*Recently added- Ian Sharman's 12:44 from the 2011 Rocky Raccoon. Sharman crushed Eric Clifton's long standing course record, and handily won over a deep field with Karl Meltzer, Tony Krupicka, Mike Arnstein, Mike Wolfe, Zach Gingerich, and Hal Koerner.
Hardrock- Kyle Skagg's 23:23 in 2008. Nobody else has broken 24 hours. Arguably the toughest official 100 miler in the country. The record isn't very old, and few true elites have run Hardrock, but it is by no means a "soft" record. I think the person who breaks the record will absolutely have to be a high altitude runner, perhaps Kilian Jornet, a healthy Tony Krupicka, or Geoff Roes. Skaggs, afterall, trained an entire summer on the Hardrock course before racing it. Kilian is probably the most realistic challenger considering his UTMB dominance. It does sound like Hardrock legend Karl Meltzer wants to reclaim the course record. But, in which direction?
Leadville- Matt Carpenter's 15:42 in 2005. It would take another high altitude specialist to challenge this. Not even Krupicka, in his best form, came close. This will stand for a while, and more impressively is that Carpenter never really pursued ultras. Recent winning times have been nearly a minute per mile slower.
Badwater- Valmir Nunez 22:51 in 2007. The combination of being able to run in extreme heat and run the equivalent of a 150 mile 24 hour race is mind blowing. 120+ degrees for 135 miles, and a "chilly" 90 degrees at night. I can't think of anyone who could challenge this, though recent happenings suggest Mike Morton could, though I doubt he's interested in the Badwater record, or race. But, you can't ignore that his 163 miles covered during a hot, sandy, Hinson Lake 24 hour suggests he could be the man. His time serving in Afghanistan doesn't hurt either. Could he be the first person to break 22 hours? We also can't rule out former/current champs Oswaldo Lopez and Akos Konya.
Speaking of Mike Morton. His 163 miles on a hot day at the Hinson Lake 24 hour in September was just sick. He ran through crowds of 250+ slower runners(much slower), and nearly matched Scott Jurek's American record for 24 hours. Scott ran a fast, paved, course in ideal conditions (with other fast pace setters). Morton's performance belongs on this list. His Western States course record is also a story of legend. He's been off the radar for nearly a decade, but wow is he back in a big way. He may not race again for a while, but what a come back!
Any Ann Trason course record will probably not get broken any time soon. Though, I suspect someone like Ellie Greenwood has the speed and tenacity to challenge some of them.
Western States: Geoff Roes' 15:07 in 2010. After the results from 2011, this record may not last as long as originally thought. I suspect a sub 15 hour time isn't too far off. But, for now, to have the course record of the oldest 100 mile race, is still pretty impressive.
Promise Land- Clark Zealand's 4:30 from 2002. On the grand scheme of things, Promise Land is probably considered a smaller race. However, over the years some very talented runners have run this event, and nobody has really come near Zealand's time of 4:30. Most years winners have been a solid 15-20 minutes off. In truth, I could see some west coast elites coming out and running 4:20's, but it hasn't happened yet.
*New. Jim O'brien's 1989 17:35 at Angeles Crest. Overlooked this race, mostly because I'm an east coaster. But, sure enough this event has been around 25 years, has had a remarkebly consistent course, and was 2 miles longer during O'brien's CR year. Guys like Jurek, Koerner, and Pacheco haven't really come any closer than 1-2 hours. Jurek wasn't close to O'brien's time, eventhough this overlapped the time he started his amazing 7 year winning streak at Western States. Gives some perspective doesn't it?
Mountain Masochist: Geoff Roes' 6:27 from 2009. Geoff knocked a ridiculous 21 minutes off Dave Mackey's impressive CR. The speed was lacking in the '10 event with a 7:23 winning time, but in most years nobody even comes within 30 minutes of Geoff's time. I'd say Tony Krupicka's White River course record is close to on par, but that course is about 3 miles shorter than the Masochist (53ish mile course).
Okay, I am adding Geoff Roes' 18:30 from the 2009 Wasatch 100. It's an old race with some gnarley climbs. Not quite Hardrock and Leadville type of altitude, but enough to make it rough on the flatlanders. Geoff knocked over an hour off Kyle Skagg's '07 record, and other than Mr.Meltzer, nobody has been within an hour of Geoff, or under 19 hours. Mr. Roes owns 3 of arguably the top 10 most impressive US ultra course records.
Honorable Mention- Maybe these are more impressive. Less impressive. What do you think?
Tom Johnsons 5:33 from the 1994 American River 50, along w/Ann Trason's 6:09 in '93
Tony Krupicka's 6:27 from the 2010 White River 50. Bested Uli Steidl's old CR twice.
Zach Gingerich's 13:23 from the 2010 Umstead 100. Warm day, where he crushed the CR. Nobody else has been under 14 hours, though I suspect another low 13's, or sub 13 may happen soon.
Andy Henshaw's 6:47 from the 2011 Mad City 100k
Dave Mackey's 7:53 at the 2008 Miwok 100k.
*Not a race, but it's worth mentioning Jennifer Pharr Davis' AT overall speed record of 46 days and 11 hours. Completed July 2011.
My list of the current most impressive ultramarathon course records on US turf. My opinion is largely tied to the history of the event. In other words, older races that have seen their share of gifted runners, have a bit more credibility. Also, any race where the course changes significantly from year to year also makes it tougher to pin point a strong record. I will add that my opinion may not be worth anything, but it is, afterall, just my silly opinion.
JFK 50- Eric Clifton's 5:46 from 1994. The fact that hundreds of the top distance runners in the US have failed to break this mark makes it the most impressive current course record I can think of. Clifton, a 2:38 marathoner, simply had the perfect day. Numerous 50 mile champs and sub 2:20 marathoners have tried, but no one else has yet to break the 5:50 barrier at JFK.
*I do, however, predict that Michael Wardian will set a course record in 2011. He's fresh off an impressive course record 5:33 at the Tussey Mountainback 50 Miler. I predict low 5:40's if not something in the high 5:30's, possibly in the 5:38-5:42 range. I also think guys like Geoff Roes, Todd Braje, Matt Woods, and Andy Henshaw have the ability to challenge the record in the future. There are a couple other guys on the bubble like Michael Arnstein, Max King, and Oz Pearlman, but, for now, my money is on Wardian.
*Recently added- Ian Sharman's 12:44 from the 2011 Rocky Raccoon. Sharman crushed Eric Clifton's long standing course record, and handily won over a deep field with Karl Meltzer, Tony Krupicka, Mike Arnstein, Mike Wolfe, Zach Gingerich, and Hal Koerner.
Hardrock- Kyle Skagg's 23:23 in 2008. Nobody else has broken 24 hours. Arguably the toughest official 100 miler in the country. The record isn't very old, and few true elites have run Hardrock, but it is by no means a "soft" record. I think the person who breaks the record will absolutely have to be a high altitude runner, perhaps Kilian Jornet, a healthy Tony Krupicka, or Geoff Roes. Skaggs, afterall, trained an entire summer on the Hardrock course before racing it. Kilian is probably the most realistic challenger considering his UTMB dominance. It does sound like Hardrock legend Karl Meltzer wants to reclaim the course record. But, in which direction?
Leadville- Matt Carpenter's 15:42 in 2005. It would take another high altitude specialist to challenge this. Not even Krupicka, in his best form, came close. This will stand for a while, and more impressively is that Carpenter never really pursued ultras. Recent winning times have been nearly a minute per mile slower.
Badwater- Valmir Nunez 22:51 in 2007. The combination of being able to run in extreme heat and run the equivalent of a 150 mile 24 hour race is mind blowing. 120+ degrees for 135 miles, and a "chilly" 90 degrees at night. I can't think of anyone who could challenge this, though recent happenings suggest Mike Morton could, though I doubt he's interested in the Badwater record, or race. But, you can't ignore that his 163 miles covered during a hot, sandy, Hinson Lake 24 hour suggests he could be the man. His time serving in Afghanistan doesn't hurt either. Could he be the first person to break 22 hours? We also can't rule out former/current champs Oswaldo Lopez and Akos Konya.
Speaking of Mike Morton. His 163 miles on a hot day at the Hinson Lake 24 hour in September was just sick. He ran through crowds of 250+ slower runners(much slower), and nearly matched Scott Jurek's American record for 24 hours. Scott ran a fast, paved, course in ideal conditions (with other fast pace setters). Morton's performance belongs on this list. His Western States course record is also a story of legend. He's been off the radar for nearly a decade, but wow is he back in a big way. He may not race again for a while, but what a come back!
Any Ann Trason course record will probably not get broken any time soon. Though, I suspect someone like Ellie Greenwood has the speed and tenacity to challenge some of them.
Western States: Geoff Roes' 15:07 in 2010. After the results from 2011, this record may not last as long as originally thought. I suspect a sub 15 hour time isn't too far off. But, for now, to have the course record of the oldest 100 mile race, is still pretty impressive.
Promise Land- Clark Zealand's 4:30 from 2002. On the grand scheme of things, Promise Land is probably considered a smaller race. However, over the years some very talented runners have run this event, and nobody has really come near Zealand's time of 4:30. Most years winners have been a solid 15-20 minutes off. In truth, I could see some west coast elites coming out and running 4:20's, but it hasn't happened yet.
*New. Jim O'brien's 1989 17:35 at Angeles Crest. Overlooked this race, mostly because I'm an east coaster. But, sure enough this event has been around 25 years, has had a remarkebly consistent course, and was 2 miles longer during O'brien's CR year. Guys like Jurek, Koerner, and Pacheco haven't really come any closer than 1-2 hours. Jurek wasn't close to O'brien's time, eventhough this overlapped the time he started his amazing 7 year winning streak at Western States. Gives some perspective doesn't it?
Mountain Masochist: Geoff Roes' 6:27 from 2009. Geoff knocked a ridiculous 21 minutes off Dave Mackey's impressive CR. The speed was lacking in the '10 event with a 7:23 winning time, but in most years nobody even comes within 30 minutes of Geoff's time. I'd say Tony Krupicka's White River course record is close to on par, but that course is about 3 miles shorter than the Masochist (53ish mile course).
Okay, I am adding Geoff Roes' 18:30 from the 2009 Wasatch 100. It's an old race with some gnarley climbs. Not quite Hardrock and Leadville type of altitude, but enough to make it rough on the flatlanders. Geoff knocked over an hour off Kyle Skagg's '07 record, and other than Mr.Meltzer, nobody has been within an hour of Geoff, or under 19 hours. Mr. Roes owns 3 of arguably the top 10 most impressive US ultra course records.
Honorable Mention- Maybe these are more impressive. Less impressive. What do you think?
Tom Johnsons 5:33 from the 1994 American River 50, along w/Ann Trason's 6:09 in '93
Tony Krupicka's 6:27 from the 2010 White River 50. Bested Uli Steidl's old CR twice.
Zach Gingerich's 13:23 from the 2010 Umstead 100. Warm day, where he crushed the CR. Nobody else has been under 14 hours, though I suspect another low 13's, or sub 13 may happen soon.
Andy Henshaw's 6:47 from the 2011 Mad City 100k
Dave Mackey's 7:53 at the 2008 Miwok 100k.
*Not a race, but it's worth mentioning Jennifer Pharr Davis' AT overall speed record of 46 days and 11 hours. Completed July 2011.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
MMT or Grindstone: Which is Tougher?
Virginia is home to many exciting and popular ultramarathons. With the frenzy of new races every year, there is always a general curiosity as to which are the toughest. Virginia is also home to some well known 100 mile ultras, including two of the toughest east of the Rockies. There's the Massanutten Mountain Trails 100 (MMT), and the Grindstone 100. So which is tougher? Ask around and you'll get arguments from both sides supporting one, or the other as the toughest. 100 mile phenom Neal Gorman has shared his insights, from an elite's perspective, on his blog Trails and Tales. As both of these races have increased in popularity, the debate is being tossed around in even more conversations. Well, here's my take.
Based on stats alone you would automatically assume MMT is the easier race. Here's how they size up.
MMT- Elevation gain 16,200 ft. 103.7 miles. Course record(on current course) 18:18. 81.3% trails, 16.6% dirt roads, 1.7% paved. Average finish time: 31 hours. Cutoff: 36 hours. 4am start. Temps: 60-90 F
Grindstone- Elevation gain 23,200 ft. 101.86 miles. Course record(on current course) 17:13. Mostly single track and some fire roads and pavement. Average finish time: 30 hours. Cutoff 38 hours. 6pm Friday start. Temps: 40-75 F
My anwser is two sided. Bear with me. I believe Grindstone is a harder race for slower runners, and MMT is harder for faster runners. The average times are roughly an hour faster at Grindstone, eventhough the cutoff is two hours more. How can that be? I think it's because slower runners must run through two nights at Grindstone and only one at MMT. Though not as technical, running even moderately rugged trails is slower at night, than in the day. The sleep deprivation factor is also worse, and the slowest runners will actually be slower at Grindstone then at MMT. Thus, the additional two hour cutoff. The time gap between the middle of the pack and the back of the pack at Grindstone is about seven hours, while the same gap between pace groups is roughly four hours at MMT. Therefor, Grindstone is the tougher race for the slowest runners.
MMT hurts faster runners mostly due to the extreme technical nature of the course. The photo to the above left is a small sample of what the rest of the course looks like. It doesn't matter if you can run a 2:30 marathon, no amount of speed will get you over those rocks any faster. At MMT, it largely comes down to how long you can keep moving forward after your feet have taken a days worth of beating. Often, it's not the super fast runners that win MMT, but rather the fast ones who have enough conditioning and will power to keep at it for hours and hours over those relentless rocks. At Grindstone the fastest runners get to finish in the daylight, including many sections towards the end that are semi technical. Not only are these folks faster to begin with, but they benefit from being able to see the trail better, and thereby making it more runnable for themselves. Typically, the night portion of a 100 mile race is mentally the toughest for all runners. So having it come at the beginning of Grindstone can be easier, but not for those who know they will be enduring a mind draining second sunset. Slower runners are already limited to the visibility of their lights, and at MMT depth perception at night is even harder with the rocks.
But, what about Grindstone's climbs? Facts are facts. Grindstone has 7,000 more feet of gain, and quad busting descent than MMT. However, these climbs are sometimes spread out over several miles, thereby making them runnable for faster runners, and long power hikes for everyone else. Still, I believe it's quicker to power hike uphill for 3 miles at Grindstone, than having to tip toe through MMT's rock gardens regardless of whether it's uphill, downhill, or flat. Grindstone, without a doubt, will bust up your quads and have you dreading anything downhill after 60 miles. Yet, even if you chose to walk at Grindstone, your walking speeding would still be faster than at MMT. Even if you aren't capable of running the climbs at Grindstone, people who are very good climbers (aka Donna Utakis) would excel, whereas at MMT even their exceptional climbing ability would be negated once the course leveled out. MMT's rocks simply negate everything you could do faster on less technical trails.
Cumulative body damage. Once again, MMT's rocks deliver a double whooping. They slow you down AND they abuse your body. Grindstone trashes quads, but MMT has a special way of causing agony in a rare way most other races cannot. Ankle twists, pointy rocks, falls, cuts, and bruises are all part of the race of attrition. The potential to get royally jacked up is higher at MMT, and the odds that you'll suffer any of these gems is likely for any speed runner. You will probably run a higher percentage of MMT feeling beat up than at Grindstone.
Let's not forget the weather either. Grindstone's early October date usually yields rather pleasant and ideal race conditions. Typically runners might get a chilly night in the 40's and highs in the 70's at daytime. They are running in the cold, more than in the sun. MMT, however, is notorious for it's shifty weather patterns. They've had hail, severe storms, and temperatures that could be anywhere from 50 degrees to over 90 and humid. You might even experience all of these conditions during the same race. Due to the unpredictable weather, you might get caught off guard with soaked clothing and shoes. Also, at MMT, runners often have to deal with longer gaps between aid stations during the hottest parts of the day. During the "hottest" parts of Grindstone you have aid every 5-7 miles, not 8-10. Managing your gear and logistics is probably trickier at MMT.
Neal Gorman stated, Grindstone may be a tougher race, but MMT is a tougher course. That's an idea I mostly agree with, though I will reiterate my belief Grindstone is disproportionately tougher for the back of the pack runner, and MMT is disproportionately tougher for the speedsters. Ironically, Neal ran nearly identical times at both races, which would suggest they are equal. Neal was more "relaxed" towards the end of Grindstone due to 2nd place being almost 50 minutes back, whereas he was chasing Karl Meltzer for most of the first 60 miles at MMT. Overall, however, I will say that MMT is indeed the tougher event to experience.
Coincidently, Karl Meltzer owns both course records on the current courses. In regards to why the course record is slower at Grindstone, I'd say it's because Karl was never challenged at that race, and ended up running most of it fairly conservatively. Well, not in the same way he would have run with someone nipping at his heels. Grindstone has also not been around long enough to see the same caliber of runners MMT has, though that should change in the next few years. When Karl won MMT last year, he was not being chased the last 30 miles. Though in 2006, on a different version of the MMT course, Karl broke 18 hours chasing Sim Jae Duk who ran 17:40. He did that on possibly a tougher course(back when it still had over 18,000ft of gain). Realistically, I think if Grindstone had at least three elites competing for most of the day, we might see times in the mid to low 17 hour range.
So, there you have it. MMT edges out Grindstone, in my humble silly opinion, as the tougher race. The reality is that both are tough races, and if you really want to find out for yourself, the best way is to run them!
(Photos courtesy of Rob Dolan and Chet White)
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
2011 Grindstone 100: A pacer's narrative
This past Saturday I had the pleasure of pacing my friend Zsuszanna Carlson at the rugged and wild Grindstone 100. In this story, I'll refer to Zsuszanna by her nickname, simply "Z", because no matter what, I always mispell her name. Anyway, I had offered to pace her several weeks before the race, but didn't confirm actually pacing until two days prior. I was more than happy to oblige. This was my second time pacing at Grindstone, and one of many times running with my friend Z.
The objectives were quite simple. Pick up Z at mile 66, North River, and run with her to the finish. When your runner arrives after 66+ miles of mountain running through the night, you're never quite sure what you're gonna get. A number of the runners coming into the aid station looked sleep deprived, haggard, weary on trashed quads, you name it. Could you really blame them? Would Z be joining the ranks of the walking dead? Initial word was that she was 4th, or 5th female, and running very close to our local friend, and strong runner, Kerry Owens. This was good news, but news that, at this point, may be several hours old. Then just around noon, Kerry pops out of the woods and seconds later there's my friend Z. Z is the fourth female and looking energized, but she is also 15 minutes off her time splits from last year. In 2010, Z was fourth female in 29:40. Would today be the same?
Z doesn't stay at the aid station long and pretty soon we are off to conquer the final 35 miles. The fall weather is as lovely as you could ask for. It was cool in the morning, but near 70's in the day. A perfect temperature to be outside, yet for the tired runners it came as an exausting wave of heat. At times like this even the beauty of your surroundings can't dull out the growing pain and fatigue. We climb to the ridgeline with Kerry, but pull away nearing Lookout Mountain at mile 72. Several runners have dropped at the aid station, including the first female. Z is in 2nd place! Another quick in and out, and soon enough we are making our three mile descent into Dowells Draft. This is where Kerry finally passed us for good, and would charge on to become 2nd female. Z's quads are shot, blisters are hurting, and the relentless pounding is taking it's toll. Our goals now are to beat last year's time and maintain a top 3. I know what she is feeling, but I also know what it will take for her to reach her goals. We talk about life, relationships, running, and so on. Talking is the most I can do to keep her focused off the pain, but we gotta keep moving.
Mile 80 comes and goes, and then a long climb up Crawford Mountain. It is late in the day, but the remaining sunlight keeps it warm on the exposed southwest ridges. 87 miles done. The sunlight fades away and the chill of the evening approaches. Z is looking strong and determined. We shift from fleeting moments of goofy song singing to silent focus. Z is tough, but even so she reminds me how much she is hurting. The miles roll on, but don't we know how far back the next female is, and with ten miles to go, Z is very close to her projected finish from last year. We don't want to finish in the same time, we want to beat it. The night brings cold, but the climbs bring heat. It's an on and off battle to regulate body temperature and to keep moving forward.
The moon is about two thirds full and casting shadows along the trail. Then there's the occasional bobbing of headlamps in the distance and the quick small talk as runners pass eachother in the quiet night. Though it breaks the monotony to see other runners, there's always the fear that one is a female contesting for a top 3. We hear a female voice. What? It turns out the female is a pacer for a male runner. Z is still 3rd. The time gaps between these short interactions are a little reminder of how isolated you really are on the mountain. We arrive at Elliot Knob and make the final descent of the race. Z's quads are thrashed, and after 95 miles of ups and downs, this one hurts the most. The lights from the town below are a welcome site that make us feeling like we are finally in the home stretch. However, Z is still running, and trying to break 29:40. It will be close.
We spot tents in the woods, and smell the odor of recently extinguished camp fires. We are very close to Camp Shenandoah, and we are now 1.5 miles from the finish. Z has 29 minutes to cover 1.5 miles to set a personal best. With this knowledge she starts walking. "Z, you gotta run this! Any mistake, and we don't break 29:40" I urge her not to cut too close, though we are so near to the finish. It doesn't help either that the trails are sparsely marked, and it is very dark. A wrong turn would be easy to do. Z is now running with all her might. We make our way around the lake. There's only a half mile to go! What a sight to behold. The clear night sky, a bright autumn moon reflecting off the lake, and then there's Z running her heart out. Truly a majestic backdrop for an inspiring finish. We enter into the camp, and from 100 yards away we can see the finish clock. It is 11:31pm, and Z has finished her second Grindstone 100 in a personal best time of 29:31. She also finishes as the 3rd female. I simply stand back and watch my tired friend enjoy her accomplishment. I am proud of Z, and thankful to be part of her journey.
The objectives were quite simple. Pick up Z at mile 66, North River, and run with her to the finish. When your runner arrives after 66+ miles of mountain running through the night, you're never quite sure what you're gonna get. A number of the runners coming into the aid station looked sleep deprived, haggard, weary on trashed quads, you name it. Could you really blame them? Would Z be joining the ranks of the walking dead? Initial word was that she was 4th, or 5th female, and running very close to our local friend, and strong runner, Kerry Owens. This was good news, but news that, at this point, may be several hours old. Then just around noon, Kerry pops out of the woods and seconds later there's my friend Z. Z is the fourth female and looking energized, but she is also 15 minutes off her time splits from last year. In 2010, Z was fourth female in 29:40. Would today be the same?
Z doesn't stay at the aid station long and pretty soon we are off to conquer the final 35 miles. The fall weather is as lovely as you could ask for. It was cool in the morning, but near 70's in the day. A perfect temperature to be outside, yet for the tired runners it came as an exausting wave of heat. At times like this even the beauty of your surroundings can't dull out the growing pain and fatigue. We climb to the ridgeline with Kerry, but pull away nearing Lookout Mountain at mile 72. Several runners have dropped at the aid station, including the first female. Z is in 2nd place! Another quick in and out, and soon enough we are making our three mile descent into Dowells Draft. This is where Kerry finally passed us for good, and would charge on to become 2nd female. Z's quads are shot, blisters are hurting, and the relentless pounding is taking it's toll. Our goals now are to beat last year's time and maintain a top 3. I know what she is feeling, but I also know what it will take for her to reach her goals. We talk about life, relationships, running, and so on. Talking is the most I can do to keep her focused off the pain, but we gotta keep moving.
Mile 80 comes and goes, and then a long climb up Crawford Mountain. It is late in the day, but the remaining sunlight keeps it warm on the exposed southwest ridges. 87 miles done. The sunlight fades away and the chill of the evening approaches. Z is looking strong and determined. We shift from fleeting moments of goofy song singing to silent focus. Z is tough, but even so she reminds me how much she is hurting. The miles roll on, but don't we know how far back the next female is, and with ten miles to go, Z is very close to her projected finish from last year. We don't want to finish in the same time, we want to beat it. The night brings cold, but the climbs bring heat. It's an on and off battle to regulate body temperature and to keep moving forward.
The moon is about two thirds full and casting shadows along the trail. Then there's the occasional bobbing of headlamps in the distance and the quick small talk as runners pass eachother in the quiet night. Though it breaks the monotony to see other runners, there's always the fear that one is a female contesting for a top 3. We hear a female voice. What? It turns out the female is a pacer for a male runner. Z is still 3rd. The time gaps between these short interactions are a little reminder of how isolated you really are on the mountain. We arrive at Elliot Knob and make the final descent of the race. Z's quads are thrashed, and after 95 miles of ups and downs, this one hurts the most. The lights from the town below are a welcome site that make us feeling like we are finally in the home stretch. However, Z is still running, and trying to break 29:40. It will be close.
We spot tents in the woods, and smell the odor of recently extinguished camp fires. We are very close to Camp Shenandoah, and we are now 1.5 miles from the finish. Z has 29 minutes to cover 1.5 miles to set a personal best. With this knowledge she starts walking. "Z, you gotta run this! Any mistake, and we don't break 29:40" I urge her not to cut too close, though we are so near to the finish. It doesn't help either that the trails are sparsely marked, and it is very dark. A wrong turn would be easy to do. Z is now running with all her might. We make our way around the lake. There's only a half mile to go! What a sight to behold. The clear night sky, a bright autumn moon reflecting off the lake, and then there's Z running her heart out. Truly a majestic backdrop for an inspiring finish. We enter into the camp, and from 100 yards away we can see the finish clock. It is 11:31pm, and Z has finished her second Grindstone 100 in a personal best time of 29:31. She also finishes as the 3rd female. I simply stand back and watch my tired friend enjoy her accomplishment. I am proud of Z, and thankful to be part of her journey.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Ultramarathon Hall of Fame. Who would be in it?
I found myself daydreaming during a hike the other day about an ultramarathon hall of fame. Most sports have one, and actually many non sport related careers and industries have them. So, hypothetically, what if ultrarunning had one? There is an American Ultrarunning Hall of Fame, but as far as I know there isn't a general one for the entire sport. Setting aside the formalities of what governing body would decide, or what is considered an ultra, here's who I think would make the list. You'll notice it's mostly an American roster, largely due to the fact those are the only names I am familiar with, but we all know many other countries have produced amazing ultramarathoners.
For starters, I suppose in order to be "qualified" of a hall of fame type "career", there should be some longevity, records, contribtuions, and overall success in the world of distance running over 26.2 miles. Of course, many of these folks are still competitive today, but I'd probably consider runners whose careers pre date the last five years. Perhaps prior to 2006, which, for the time being, would probably rule out current elites like Geoff Roes, Tony Krupicka, and Killian Jornet. Just an example.
The hypothetical Ultrarunning Hall of Fame class of 2011
Yiannis Kouros- the big kahuna
Ann Trason- the best female ever
Terry Fox- though he never formally ran ultras
Ted Corbitt
Sandra Kiddy
Marcy Schwam
Bernd Heinrich
Tim Twietmeyer
Stu Mittleman
Allan Kirik
Barney Klecker
Oleg Kharitonov- HOF performance, 11:28 100 mile world record. It should be noted that a 14 hour 100 was done in 1934 by Arthur Newton who set the bar for the distance.
Scott Jurek
John Geesler
Roy Pirrung
Sue Ellen Trapp
Chad Ricklefs
Bruce Fordyce
Dennis Herr
Karl Meltzer
Nikki Kimball
Howard Nippert
Carl Anderson
Valmir Nunez
Matt Carpenter
Arnulfo Quimare
Dean Karnazes- the guy everyone loves to hate
Eric Clifton
David Horton
Pam Reed
Mike Morton
Kami Semick
Courtney Campbell
Potential HOF'ers: Annette Bednosky, Anne Lundblad, Anita Ortiz, Hal Koerner, David Goggins, Monica Scholz, Dave Mackey.
It'll be interesting to see who is still running in ten years, as the sport really seemed to explode in the mid 2000's. With so many talented runners, I wonder how many will be quick 3-5 years stars, and who will stick around for a while?
For starters, I suppose in order to be "qualified" of a hall of fame type "career", there should be some longevity, records, contribtuions, and overall success in the world of distance running over 26.2 miles. Of course, many of these folks are still competitive today, but I'd probably consider runners whose careers pre date the last five years. Perhaps prior to 2006, which, for the time being, would probably rule out current elites like Geoff Roes, Tony Krupicka, and Killian Jornet. Just an example.
The hypothetical Ultrarunning Hall of Fame class of 2011
Yiannis Kouros- the big kahuna
Ann Trason- the best female ever
Terry Fox- though he never formally ran ultras
Ted Corbitt
Sandra Kiddy
Marcy Schwam
Bernd Heinrich
Tim Twietmeyer
Stu Mittleman
Allan Kirik
Barney Klecker
Oleg Kharitonov- HOF performance, 11:28 100 mile world record. It should be noted that a 14 hour 100 was done in 1934 by Arthur Newton who set the bar for the distance.
Scott Jurek
John Geesler
Roy Pirrung
Sue Ellen Trapp
Chad Ricklefs
Bruce Fordyce
Dennis Herr
Karl Meltzer
Nikki Kimball
Howard Nippert
Carl Anderson
Valmir Nunez
Matt Carpenter
Arnulfo Quimare
Dean Karnazes- the guy everyone loves to hate
Eric Clifton
David Horton
Pam Reed
Mike Morton
Kami Semick
Courtney Campbell
Potential HOF'ers: Annette Bednosky, Anne Lundblad, Anita Ortiz, Hal Koerner, David Goggins, Monica Scholz, Dave Mackey.
It'll be interesting to see who is still running in ten years, as the sport really seemed to explode in the mid 2000's. With so many talented runners, I wonder how many will be quick 3-5 years stars, and who will stick around for a while?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)