21–30 of 45 posts
Interestingly, the 100mi road record is 11:46:37. I doubt that was done with ~10mi of vertical climb though...
Who gives a damn about their official cutoff? Data point/fact: Garry Robbins finished in 60:00:06. Coming to the finish from the wrong direction is a problem; maybe they could figure it out somehow and translate that to a penalty of some number of seconds.
Supposedly he would've been DQ'ed because he wasn't following the course the entire way.
Who gives a damn about their official cutoff? Data point/fact: Garry Robbins finished in 60:00:06. Coming to the finish from the wrong direction is a problem; maybe they could figure it out somehow and translate that to a penalty of some number of seconds.
So, first off, I don't think anyone, least of all in the running community wants to take anything away from Gary's accomplishments. He ran an amazing race, no question about it. That being said, this race has its allure and mythical status specifically because it has a variety of rules/challenges that must be precisely followed. Not meeting any of them means you are not a finisher of the Barkley Marathon. If we start…
Article is scant about anything other than the >60hr time. It doesn't say he would not have qualified had he come in under 60. (So the fellow who finished under 60 hours met all those other requirements to the letter? Not a single wrong turn, etc?)
> Ok, so if we say 6 seconds, that's really close enough.
Close enough to what? Nobody is saying change 60:06 to 60:00.
> What about 6 minutes? What about 60?
It's very simple. Any time should count as a time, if anyone official is there at all to witness and record it. At the cutoff time they prepare to go home, and then leave. Nobody owes you a recorded time after the cutoff.
When the last timer packs up leaves, any subsequent finishers can simply be left not recorded. The status is something like "they are not officially noted as having finished". That's a big difference from saying "did not finish". If one person claims "did not finish" and another "finished", one of them is lying or mistaken. But there is no contradiction between "finished" and "not recorded".
They were there; that's why they (and thus all of us) know he was 6 seconds over. It's effectively recorded.
If Gary is not going to be on record as a finisher, then shut the fuck up about the six seconds. Just say "Not recorded! I saw someone that might or might not have been Gary at some time after the 60th hour; I had reset my stopwatch by then in any case ..."
The six second precision with which we know that Gary supposedly didn't finish is the laughable contradiction here.
I've done a bunch of a ultras and know quite a few better runners than myself and seeing them tap out on this race just tells you how gnarly it really is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congrats, that's damn hard effort. I've run 50K and I could see maybe pushing it out to 50 miles. But going on to 100 miles seems just so so so much farther. Don't know how you do it!
Running 100 miles doesn't begin to describe the Barkley. It's more like running 100 miles...on a section of the Appalachian Trail...that hasn't been maintained in 20 years.
This is mind blowing. I do a bit of running, some half marathons etc. but nowhere close to Ultras and this just amazes me and also excites me. I would want to push myself to do this at least once...see how my body responds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, first off, I don't think anyone, least of all in the running community wants to take anything away from Gary's accomplishments. He ran an amazing race, no question about it. That being said, this race has its allure and mythical status specifically because it has a variety of rules/challenges that must be precisely followed. Not meeting any of them means you are not a finisher of the Barkley Marathon. If we start…
> Not meeting any of them means you are not a finisher of the Barkley Marathon. Article is scant about anything other than the >60hr time. It doesn't say he would not have qualified had he come in under 60. (So the fellow who finished under 60 hours met all those other requirements to the letter? Not a single wrong turn, etc?) > Ok, so if we say 6 seconds, that's really close enough. Close enough to what? Nobody is s…
Also, no offence, but you clearly don't know enough about the race to really be talking about how it should be operated.
This race is full of obscure rules and insanely harsh conditions, it's just how it goes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not meeting any of them means you are not a finisher of the Barkley Marathon. Article is scant about anything other than the >60hr time. It doesn't say he would not have qualified had he come in under 60. (So the fellow who finished under 60 hours met all those other requirements to the letter? Not a single wrong turn, etc?) > Ok, so if we say 6 seconds, that's really close enough. Close enough to what? Nobody is s…
There's traditions around this race, and it's okay if you don't agree with them but not being part of the community that embodies these traditions means you cannot come in and redefine them. Also, no offence, but you clearly don't know enough about the race to really be talking about how it should be operated. This race is full of obscure rules and insanely harsh conditions, it's just how it goes.
You can defend the race without telling someone else that he has no right to his own opinion.