Nao Kazami breaks 100K World Record 6:09:14

Sub-6 is mind-boggling but it is still jogging pace for a 2:03 marathoner. It will never happen, but if the world's best marathoners ran the 100K it could turn out to be a very soft record.

Jim talked about running this exact race in a podcast recently, so I guess we'll get to find out!

This also beats Donald Ritchie's 100k record time of 6:10:20 that was run on a track.

Donnie wrote:

This also beats Donald Ritchie's 100k record time of 6:10:20 that was run on a track.

But is that more impressive than a marathon on a track?

Thon on a tack wrote:

Donnie wrote:

This also beats Donald Ritchie's 100k record time of 6:10:20 that was run on a track.

But is that more impressive than a marathon on a track?

Actually that would be about 2.4 times as impressive.

Small Pond wrote:

Sub-6 is mind-boggling but it is still jogging pace for a 2:03 marathoner. It will never happen, but if the world's best marathoners ran the 100K it could turn out to be a very soft record.

You are making a fals assumption. Just because a 2:03 marathoner LOL that’s the world record how about you actually make a claim like a 2:07 marathoner. So, if a 2:07 marathoner rant 100k could they break the record? Yes, but not off the benchmark they would have to train for it for a while first. Hell, maybe they would fall apart mentally after 40 miles and give up. You can’t just assume

No it is not wrote:

Small Pond wrote:

Sub-6 is mind-boggling but it is still jogging pace for a 2:03 marathoner. It will never happen, but if the world's best marathoners ran the 100K it could turn out to be a very soft record.

You are making a fals assumption. Just because a 2:03 marathoner LOL that’s the world record how about you actually make a claim like a 2:07 marathoner. So, if a 2:07 marathoner rant 100k could they break the record? Yes, but not off the benchmark they would have to train for it for a while first. Hell, maybe they would fall apart mentally after 40 miles and give up. You can’t just assume

Mental toughness is something many sub 2:10 marathoners just do not have. Ask anyone who can run sub 2:30 what they think about running for 4-5 hours like slow marathoners do. The answer I get is that there is no way they would want to run for that long at any pace. They would get bored out of their minds.

I bet ultra runners have autism if they were tested.

There's no other explanation for someone who can focus on something so menial for so long.

A world marathoner not being tough is ridiculous and others being too bored to run the distance does not speak to the quality of the record.

The question is whether there is something about Kazakami's physiology that gives him the edge, in a 100K race, over far more talented distance runners

Mentality wrote:

Mental toughness is something many sub 2:10 marathoners just do not have.

I would argue that mental toughness is in fact something that many sub-2:10 marathoners do have.

fatbody wrote:

Jim talked about running this exact race in a podcast recently, so I guess we'll get to find out!

Jim crashed and burned badly when he did the World Championship in 2015.

Records are weak. Comrades is 90k and if the winners ran the extra 10k most years, they would beat the current 100k mark even with the tougher route that comrades has.

lollerama wrote:

Mentality wrote:

Mental toughness is something many sub 2:10 marathoners just do not have.

I would argue that mental toughness is in fact something that many sub-2:10 marathoners do have.

Only one showed up in Boston this year.

Small Pond wrote:

A world marathoner not being tough is ridiculous

It is not ridiculous.

Kipchoge, Kipsang and the rest can barely hold marathon pace for 2 hours while the vast majority can do it for 3 hours, 4 hours or more. Sub elites can at least hold on for almost 2 and a half hours. I almost made it to 3, but with some hard work I think I can squeak out a respectable 3 and a half.

not happening wrote:

fatbody wrote:

Jim talked about running this exact race in a podcast recently, so I guess we'll get to find out!

Jim crashed and burned badly when he did the World Championship in 2015.

He also crashed and burned badly when he did Western States last year. And then he set the record yesterday. What's your point?

Jake77 wrote:

Is this more impressive than Jim @ Western States?

Is a world record more impressive than a local race record?

Walsmley fanboys should deal with reality, outside of US he's not so hot.

People have been running 100Ks since forever. Amazing to think this record stood since 1978. Was this the longest held ultra record ever? Didn't Jim Walmsley attempt a 100K around 3-4 years ago? How about that Yiounnis guy, what's his 100K PR?

Malachi in Va wrote:

People have been running 100Ks since forever. Amazing to think this record stood since 1978. Was this the longest held ultra record ever? Didn't Jim Walmsley attempt a 100K around 3-4 years ago? How about that Yiounnis guy, what's his 100K PR?

You mean Yiannis Kouros?

6:43:34 in a certified race. 1990 IAU 100km WC Duluth Edmund Fitzgerald 100K

Wusses wrote:

Small Pond wrote:

A world marathoner not being tough is ridiculous

It is not ridiculous.

Kipchoge, Kipsang and the rest can barely hold marathon pace for 2 hours while the vast majority can do it for 3 hours, 4 hours or more. Sub elites can at least hold on for almost 2 and a half hours. I almost made it to 3, but with some hard work I think I can squeak out a respectable 3 and a half.

Are you serious? By that logic a 33:00 10K is tougher than 26:17.

The reason that the 100K record is soft is because there is little prestige and money, it would f-up training and it would be an injury risk.