Ultra running National Rankings: Final 2015 Rankings

As 2015 winds down, I'm putting the finishing touches on the national rankings for the year.  There are a handful of races left on the schedule, but the top of the rankings should be pretty much settled.  How did we do?

Not to pat myself on the back too much, but I think we did pretty well.  At the top of the rankings at least, I feel like the system did a really good job of delineating who really had great years.  You can quibble with some of the details (and I'm sure you will); whether you think someone running 10-15 smaller races should rate as highly as someone running only three of four bigger races is, to some degree, a matter of opinion.  But if you peruse the results you'll find that both strategies paid off in 2015.  Brian Rusiecki, Kathleen Cusick, Paul Terranova, and Nicole Studer put up numerous top finishes in a variety of events; Rob Krar, Ellie Greenwood, Zach Miller, and Camille Herron rode just a few dominant performances to high rankings.  Aliza Lapierre, Dylan Bowman, Kaci Lickteig, and David Laney blended the two.  I think the fact that no single strategy dominated the rankings showed that the system is able to account for both depth and breadth of performances, which I thought was going to be one of the biggest challenges going in.

All in all I think the system performed very well.  I was fortunate to get a vote for UROY this year and spent several days last week filling out my ballot.  (It was exciting, and an honor, but very, very difficult.)  I've said all along that I wanted the rankings to be an objective supplement to the subjective voting process, and I think that goal was met.  I'm not sure how much use it is as a voting criteria--I didn't use the exact rankings when deciding my ballot--but as you can see here, the folks I thought were deserving of UROY votes were almost exclusively very highly ranked by the system.  (I'll leave it to you to decide which is the chicken and which is the egg.)  Below I've listed my UROY ballot; the number after each name in the parenthesis is that runner's final ranking (barring any final-weekend changes).

Jay's ballot: Male UROY
1. David Laney (6)
2. Brian Rusiecki (1)
3. Seth Swanson (9)
4. Dylan Bowman (3)
5. Rob Krar (2)
6. Paul Terranova (4)
7. Ian Sharman (7)
8. Alex Nichols (10)
9. Ryan Bak (8)
10. Zach Miller (11)

Jay's ballot: Female UROY
1. Magdalena Boulet (1)
2. Camille Herron (4)
3. Aliza Lapierre (8)
4. Kaci Lickteig (5)
5. Katalin Nagy (10)
6. Kathleen Cusick (2)
7. Stephanie Howe (3)
8. Nicole Studer (7)
9. Larissa Dannis (6)
10. Ellie Greenwood (9)

(If I'd had another week to submit my UROY ballot, Zach Bitter's new 100-mile American Record from this past weekend would have jumped him into my top 10.)

Another role I envisioned for the rankings was in helping athletes with attracting sponsors.  I mean, Rob and Magdalena certainly don't need the help, but I think someone with less name recognition, like, say, Daven Oskvig, might get some benefit from being able to tell a potential shoe sponsor, "You know, I ranked 32nd in the country this year."  Whether or not that's the case remains to be seen.  Maybe in a couple of years.

There are a few changes coming in 2016.  The point values have been tweaked for high-level races, making them relatively more valuable; this should help to further reward the elites who are mixing it up with the best competition.  Additionally, now that we have a full year of data to work from, the field strength multiplier will be expanded to encompass the top 50 runners for each gender.  This will reflect the quality of the fields much more accurately. I've also enlisted the help of a few well-connected folks within the ultra world to help me rate the races more accurately. They are scattered in different parts of the country, so hopefully we'll have an unbiased view of which are the most important races in our sport.

Anyway, without further ado, here are the top 50 men and women for 2015. You can check the final spreadsheet for the full rankings--all 5800 runners, men and women--here. I've added two additional tabs at the bottom, so that now you can view the list both alphabetically and numerically. So, if you want to find your ranking but don't want to scroll through 3000 names, start by finding your name on the alphabetical sheet. Check your final point score in the far right column. Then, scroll down on the numeric sheet to find that score, and bingo, you'll find your name and ranking.

I hope you enjoyed these rankings as much as I enjoyed compiling them, and I hope you'll come back for more in 2016.

As of 12/21

	Men	State	Points	Women	State	Points
1	Brian Rusiecki	MA	104.15	Magdalena Boulet	CA	171.6
2	Rob Krar	AZ	87.5	Kathleen Cusick	VA	105.5
3	Dylan Bowman	CA	80.5	Stephanie Howe	OR	95.075
4	Paul Terranova	TX	79.9	Camille Herron	OK	90
5	Alex Varner	CA	78.6	Kaci Lickteig	NE	87.275
6	David Laney	OR	72.2	Larissa Dannis	CA	82.4
7	Ian Sharman	CA	69.5	Nicole Studer	TX	79.675
8	Ryan Bak	OR	68.9	Aliza Lapierre	VT	78.6
9	Seth Swanson	MT	68.6	Ellie Greenwood	Can	78.15
10	Alex Nichols	CO	62.8	Katalin Nagy	FL	72.5
11	Zach Miller	CO	62.5	Cassie Scallon	CO	71.8
12	Bob Shebest	CA	56.375	Ashley Erba	CO	70.9
13	Justin Houck	WA	56.075	Sarah Bard	MA	64.225
14	Zach Bitter	WI	52.5	Bev Anderson-Abbs	CA	58.6
15	Jared Hazen	CO	52	Megan Kimmel	CO	55
16	Mark Hammond	UT	51.8	Amy Rusiecki	MA	55
17	Ryan Kaiser	OR	50.975	Neela D’Souza	Can	54.5
18	Jim Walmsley	AZ	50.3	Bethany Patterson	WA	52
19	Ryan Smith	CO	50.075	Hillary Allen	CO	51.375
20	Chikara Omine	CA	50	Kerrie Bruxvoort	CO	49.4
21	Jorge Maravilla	CA	49.8	Rachel Ragona	CA	49.15
22	Jorge Pacheco	CA	49.3	Traci Falbo	IN	48.1
23	Mario Martinez	CA	48.4	Jacqueline Palmer	NE	48
24	Jean Pommier	CA	47	Emily Richards	NC	46.6
25	Mario Mendoza	OR	47	Emma Roca	ESP	46.35
26	Christopher Dennucci	CA	46.7	Darcy Piceu	CO	43.175
27	Benjamin Stern	CA	46.2	Caroline Boller	CA	41.95
28	Andrew Miller	OR	46	Ashley Nordell	OR	41
29	Pete Kostelnick	NE	46	Lee Conner	OH	40.5
30	Gediminus Grinius	LTH	44	Amanda Basham	OR	39.15
31	David Herr	VT	43	Angela Shartel	CA	39
32	Daven Oskvig	NY	42.5	Amy Phillips	CA	38
33	Michael Wardian	VA	41.1	Emily Peterson	CA	37.75
34	Daniel Hamilton	TN	41	Silke Koester	CO	37.4
35	Scott Traer	MA	40	Kara Henry	CO	37
36	Ryan Ghelfi	OR	37.175	Catrin Jones	Can	36.8
37	Dominic Layfield	UT	37	Erika Lindland	CA	36.475
38	Michael Borst	WI	37	Robin Watkins	DC	36.1
39	Daniel Kraft	OR	36.025	Megan Stegemiller	VA	36
40	Nate Jacqua	OR	36	Susan Barrows	OR	35
41	Chris Vizcaino	CA	35.7	Luanne Park	CA	34.525
42	Mike Foote	MT	35	Maggie Guterl	PA	34.4
43	Ray Sanchez	CA	35	Alissa St. Laurent	Can	34
44	Sage Canaday	CO	34.5	Julie Koepke	TX	34
45	Joshua Arthur	CO	34.325	Leslie Semler	MA	33.1
46	Owen Bradley	AL	34	Marylou Corino	Can	33
47	Michael Carson	AZ	33.5	Keely Henninger	CO	32.95
48	Yassine Diboun	OR	33.5	Ashley Lister	PA	32.8
49	Jason Lantz	PA	32.85	Leslie Howlett	UT	32.5
50	Eric Senseman	AZ	32.5	Meghan Arbogast	CA	32.075

An Unsolicited Rant Regarding a Few Ounces of Beer

(Editor's note: this may be the first in a series of rants coming in the next few weeks.  I have a few things that I feel like I need to get off my chest that might make it out in blog form.  Sorry in advance.)

I ran my first beer mile of 2015 a few weeks ago at what we're I guess calling the second annual Hudson Valley Beer Mile.  I mentioned the inaugural race very briefly last year; I ran the penalty lap (as I almost always do) and finished last in a four-person field in an embarrassing 16:31.  Clearly I am a much better pizza racer than beer miler.  But something clicked for me this year.  I don't know if it's the low carb diet, the fact that I went in on a semi-full stomach, or the fact that I hadn't had a beer for several weeks prior, but I felt much, much better than I normally do during these shenanigans.  We had a solid field of eleven runners.  Dr. Mike went out hard defending his title from the previous year, but BM virgin Oestrike was right on his heels; the two would reprise the back-and-forth battle they had at the pizza race six months earlier.  I felt like I drank the first one pretty quickly for me but was in tenth place starting the first quarter.  I moved up throughout, though, spending most of the race in the mid-pack before eventually working my way up to a chunder-free third place finish in a huge PR of 8:16.  No, I'm not a good beer miler, but at least I'm no longer embarrassingly bad.

Finishing off a PR performance
Photo: Michele Halstead

Second Annual Hudson Valley Beer Mile
November 1, 2015
* = penalty lap

1. Brian Oestrike 7:17
2. Mike Halstead 7:37
3. Jason Friedman 8:16
4. Bill Shashaty 8:26
5. Ed Stoner 8:40
6. Vinny Sickles 10:18
7. NAME REDACTED 10:46*
8. Myron Baker 11:15
9. Jeff Burns 13:00*
10. Rob Piegari 13:35
11. Bill Pape 13:35

The reason I bring this up, though, is because in case you haven't noticed, the beer mile has suddenly become very trendy.  It seems like it's not just college track runners and assorted idiots doing it anymore.  James Nielsen's May 2014 world record of 4:57--the first sub-5:00 beer mile in history--was a watershed moment for the sport, which suddenly gained mainstream notice for the first time.  Much like Bannister's famed 1954 run at Iffley Road (almost 60 years to the day before Nielsen's barrier-breaker), once the world saw what was possible, a bevy of athletes charged through what was thought to be an impenetrable barrier.  By the end of 2014 we had a sanctioned world championship, complete with sponsors and on-line streaming video coverage.

The record has been lowered four times in the last 18 months, most recently two weeks ago by Canadian Lewis Kent, which I'm going to use as a jumping-off point for the discussion I want to have about legitimacy and perception.


OK, first things first: I have no doubt Lewis Kent ran a 4:51 beer mile.  I'm not accusing anyone of cheating, fabrication, or anything like that.  The record has been ratified and I have no problem with that whatsoever.  That is not the point I'm trying to make in any way, shape, or form, so let's make that clear.

I was struck when watching the video, however, that neither Kent nor Phil Parrot-Migas, who ran an impressive 5:07, emptied their beers prior to starting their laps.  Beer mile tradition holds that a competitor overturn their empty can or bottle over their head, to demonstrate that the vessel is indeed empty, before leaving the drinking zone.  Now, that isn't an official "rule".  Beermile.com, which bills itself as "the official beer mile resource" and is generally responsible for ratifying performances and codifying the rules, states: "It is strongly recommended, when attempting official records, to tip the empty beer can or bottle over your head at the end of a chug to verify an empty vessel." (italics mine) But it is certainly traditional, and I was surprised that in a well-publicized record attempt, neither of them would adhere to that tradition.  (Plus, it makes for an appealing visual, and hearkens back to the sports' underground roots.)  James Nielsen does it in his video:



So maybe it's not required, but it certainly helps, and again, while I have no doubt that the record was legitimate, it seemed unlikely to me that it would get ratified, and I said as much:

Jason Friedman I don't understand. Turning your empties over to demonstrate they are empty is one of the most basic rules of beer miling. It is not hard to remember to do. Neither of these guys did it once. No way this gets ratified.

Like · Reply · 2 · November 17 at 9:39pm

Ultra Runner Podcast Excellent point.

Like · Reply · 1 · November 17 at 10:39pm

Steve Havas They collect all the bottles and measure the amount left over to make sure it is within the legal limits

Like · Reply · November 18 at 12:35pm

Jason Friedman The legal amount left over is zero. The beer has to be finished. Pour it over your head like everyone else in the world.

Like · Reply · 1 · November 18 at 2:09pm

However, it did get ratified, and someone threw out an explanation on the URP Daily News:

Chris says:

November 18, 2015 at 6:18 am

beermile.com/rules only says that inverting the vessel over your cranium is “strongly recommended”

As the speed of chugging has increased, so too has the amount of foam left in the bottles, which wouldn’t come out. True record attempts now get a second person involved who pour any remaining foam / settled liquid into glasses, to see how much was left. I think a de facto rule has come into effect that basically says that the total amount of foam left in the bottles or cans cannot exceed 3 oz.

So here we arrive at the crux of the issue.  To me there are almost too many issues with the statement to count.  "As the speed of chugging has increased, so too has the amount of foam left in the bottles, which wouldn't come out"?  What this boils down to is: if you drink your beer fast enough, you don't have to drink all of it.  How is this acceptable?  The beer mile is a test of drinking quickly and running quickly, and most importantly of balancing the two.  You're drinking so fast that you can't get all the foam out?  I have a solution for you: drink slower.  

If someone claimed they were drinking so fast they couldn't get it all into their mouth in time, so a little bit of beer spilled onto their shirts, but if they wrung out their shirts and it was less than three ounces then that was OK, they'd be laughed at.  How is this different?  

"...a de facto rule has come into effect that basically says the total amount of foam left over in the bottles or cans cannot exceed 3 oz."  No.  No good.  You cannot have a sport where world records are being attempted, recorded, and ratified, that invokes "a de facto rule" that does not appear on the website of what is the sport's "de facto" governing body.  There are a clear list of rules on the website.  Follow them.  

If beer mile.com wants to adopt a "3 oz of foam" rule, go ahead.  But they do so at their peril.  As much as the Beer Mile is an underground event, there is clearly a non-negligible element of the sport that is striving for legitimacy and recognition.  Later this week Flotrack will host the second Beer Mile World Championships in Austin, TX.  This is an event that attracts sponsors and money.  Both Flotrack and beermile.com sell beer mile-related gear on their websites.  Lewis Kent just signed an endorsement deal with Brooks.  Don't think this has garnered any widespread recognition?  That last link--with an accompanying three-minute video--is from ESPN.com.

My point is that the beer mile is having a moment in terms of mainstream appeal that distance running rarely achieves, and that this is a very tenuous thing.  Many non-runners, and runners who are non-beer milers, are drawn to the event because of its absurdity but also because of its simplicity.  Four beers, four laps.  If you start placing qualifiers and exceptions onto that simplicity, it will not be long before the mainstream public loses patience.  "You have to drink four beers, but you can leave a little at the bottom of each one"?  The public will see that for what it is: a cop-out.  (As an aside, it's not an insignificant amount.  Three ounces is about 6% of the total volume of 48 oz. in a beer mile.)

By all means, if people want to pursue the mainstreaming of the beer mile, with all the attendant publicity and money that implies, please do so.  It's fun!  But be careful when you start to play fast and loose with the rules.  To the public, the fact that we have rules is the funniest part.  Without that, you've got nothing.

Race Report: Water Gap 50K

(All photos courtesy of Joe Azze and Mountain Peak Fitness.)

I'm tempted to say it's been a long season.  I ran my first race of 2015 on January 3, even though it was pretty low-key; the first of my two 'A' races for the year was at the end of February.  By mid-October I might be ready for a break.  But in reality, it doesn't feel like that long a season.  All of my races were crammed into the first half of the year; since the Whiteface Skyrunning weekend at the end of June, I've barely raced at all.  Maybe it'd be more accurate to think of the year as two separate seasons, with July serving as a recovery period, and this fall being the first part of a longer 2015-16 campaign that will probably stretch into next summer.  So, depending on your point of view, I either wrapped up the 2015 season or kicked off the 2016 season last weekend at the Water Gap 50K.

As a member of the Mountain Peak Fitness/Red Newt Racing team, I'm certainly encouraged to enter Red Newt events.  But even if I wasn't on the team, these races would be at the top of my list.  Ian Golden, who I've mentioned multiple times before, is a truly great race director, with an outstanding vision of what he wants his races to be, and the ability to shepherd those visions into reality.  Water Gap was the last event on the 2015 schedule for Red Newt Racing, and it promised to be something unique for a Red Newt race: fast.  Ian has a (well-deserved) reputation for courses that are not only beautiful but extremely challenging; anyone who has run Breakneck Point, Whiteface, or Virgil Crest can confirm how difficult those courses can be.  Ian further solidified that reputation this year by co-directing (with Charlie Gadol and Mike Siudy) two of the most notoriously difficult trail races in the Northeast, Manitou's Revenge and Cat's Tail Trail Marathon.  Even Cayuga, while eminently runnable, is a very difficult course that is easily 60-90 minutes slower than a "fast" 50 mile.  So when Ian declares a course to be "fast," that needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  The Water Gap course seemed to fit the bill, though: 31 miles of almost exclusively graded double-track, with only about 2000 feet of climbing.  A welcome change from what I'd been racing earlier in the year.  As always with a Red Newt event, I knew the competition would be stiff, at the very least from whatever of my ultra-fast teammates would show up that day.  But I was excited to get back into racing after a pretty long layoff.  Even though I wasn't in top racing form--probably more like 85%--I thought I could run near four hours on the course, which would be a nice stimulus for the training block leading up to January (more on that later).

I spent the night before the race camping near the finish with Elizabeth, Joe, Natalie, Lenny, and Ian; all would be volunteering on race day (along with several other teammates: Scotie, Zsuzsanna, Julian, and Amy; hopefully I didn't forget anyone).  I woke up early and grabbed breakfast in downtown Milford, PA with Joe and Mike Siudy before Joe gave us a lift to the start, 31 miles to the south.  The weather was perfect: clear and cool, in the low to mid 40s, with minimal wind.  At the start I met Phil Vondra, a frequent training partner, as well as teammates Carlo and Silas, who I expected to run away with the race.  Both had to be tired (Silas was on his third ultra-type effort in five weeks, following Virgil and Cat's Tail; while Carlo was only six days off a sterling 2:35 in Chicago) but both are strong runners who had to be considered the favorites.  Phil and I had a quick strategy session and decided to try to run 8:00/mile pace for at least the first ten miles, then reassess.  As I was basically training through, still running 75-85 mpw, and Phil was tired from a heavy week of drinking (it's an occupational hazard, apparently), a conservative approach seemed prudent.  So at least we had a plan in place that we could immediately ignore as soon as the gun went off.

Carlo and Silas went immediately to the front, joined by Justin Weiler (a strong upstate NY runner coming off of an excellent 3:44 at the Green Lakes 50K) and Tony Kharitonov (a solid masters runner from NJ).  Phil and I formed a chase pack with Jay Lemos, who was finishing up what truly was a long season that had included an impressive second place at the Eastern States 100.  We came through the first mile in 7:25 or so, obviously much faster than we had wanted, about 10 seconds behind the leaders.  We were able to let them go without any problem after that, but despite our efforts to find 8:00 pace kept turning out miles in the 7:30-7:40 range.   Conditions were perfect, and the course as very flat in the opening miles, so we maintained the pace, chatting constantly and every mile making noises about slowing down without actually doing so.

Catching Tony, just before AS1.

Just past the five-mile mark came one of the few decent-sized climbs on the course, about 3/4 of a mile long with multiple switchbacks leading up to AS1 (about 10K in).  I led our group uphill at a low intensity level.  We caught Tony at the top and the four of us ran together through the aid station.  I went through without stopping; Phil caught up within a minute, but it took Jay and Tony about a mile to rejoin us, and we continued on, running our 7:35s or so.  After a couple of rolling miles the course flattened out again and remained so for the next 12 miles or so.  Tony dropped back after the 10 mile mark and the three of us passed AS2 in the same fashion.  The miles clicked off fairly easily.  We still made overtures about slowing down, but as we neared halfway we figured we might as well keep on the pace as long as everyone felt good.  The terrain made it very easy to find a rhythm; our splits hovered around 7:30 with less than a few seconds of variation either way.  We were still chatting easily.  Jay had made a game of jumping over the three-foot-high barriers every time we crossed a park road or bridge, which kept Phil and I pretty entertained.

Through AS3 at 14 miles the pace remained steady; I ran through again without stopping while Phil and Jay stopped to refuel.  At this point I had yet to take in any nutrition other than some sips of water.  I felt a little bad not waiting for the guys at the aid stations, but at the same time, I had made the decision to go with the handheld so that I wouldn't have to stop.  Neither of them were carrying water.  We had each made our choice on either side of the tradeoff.  I couldn't feel guilty.

Our little pack, doin'' work.

My strategy was starting to pay off, though.  I kept running my 7:30s, not consciously trying to get a gap--I was having too much fun running with those guys to try to go solo at this point--but it was putting pressure on them to run a little faster to catch back up after each break.  After AS3 it took them almost a full mile to come back, having had to run well under 7:00 to do so.  These surges, however short, had to take something out of them.  After halfway (1:58) Jay had stopped leaping over the barriers, and through the 17 mile mark conversation had tapered off dramatically.  I took my first GU right around the two hour mark.  I was still feeling great.  The pace was starting to inch down a little bit, but it felt almost effortless, and we were getting into the stages of the race where getting a little more aggressive was OK.  Miles 18 and 19 were run at about 7:15 pace, and past the 19-mile mark Jay and Phil started to fall away.  I soloed on, into what had become a bit of a bothersome headwind, and took a second GU just before AS4 at 20.5 miles.  I made my only stop here, to refill my bottle, drop in a GU Brew tablet, and pee, giving up about 30 seconds before getting back out on course.


The course started getting a bit tougher.  Some rolling hills mixed with some short singletrack sections.  I started feeling some discomfort in my right patellar tendon, which has bothered me on an off for some time, though not to a significant degree; and also some tightness in the left hamstring.  I adjusted my stride, slowed to about 7:45 pace, and pushed forward.  The miles clicked by.  I passed the marathon mark at 3:18, approaching the final aid station.  On a long, flat, straight stretch approaching the checkpoint, I saw a flash of a green t-shirt leaving the aid station: Justin, in third.  That was a boost.  I had five miles to catch him and was obviously making up ground; I hadn't seen any of the top three since the opening twenty minutes or so.  I passed through AS5 feeling strong and ready to hunt.  Joe was waiting for me in the woods about half a mile later, filming me at the bottom of a technical singletrack descent.  He confirmed that Justin was just up ahead.  (Also that Silas and Carlo had about a mile lead on us at that point.)  We were in the midst of the most difficult section of the course--some steep singletrack with alot of sidehill running and thick leaf cover, obscuring the rocks and roots and making for some pretty slow going.  My pace had slowed to near 10:00/mile, but by the 27-mile mark I had caught and passed Justin.

Navigating some singletrack

About a mile later the singletrack ended and I started opening up the stride again.  I wasn't particularly concerned about getting caught--I felt pretty confident no one was coming back on my at this point--but four hours was looking possible, even likely if I could recapture my earlier rhythm.  I was able to drop down to 7:03 pace for mile 29 and 7:10 or so for mile 30, at which point I relaxed a little bit through the final finishing stretches, coming home in 3:57 for a nearly evenly split performance (1:58/1:59).

Silas and Carlo ran together the whole way, turning in an outstanding 3:44; my third-place finish made it a podium sweep for MPF/RNR, which was pretty sweet.  Justin gutted out a tough fourth, while Phil maintained a nice pace for fifth in 4:04.  All in all, a very successful day for me.  I met my goals of top five, top master, and four hours, all while training through.  The course was beautiful, the weather was perfect, the volunteers were great, and having Phil, Jay, Mike, and the whole MPF/RNR there at the end made for fantastic camaraderie.

I couldn't have asked for a better end, or beginning, to the season.  I've got some small stuff coming up--a couple of 5Ks and 10Ks--including my high school alumni race, always a highlight of my year, and I think a beer mile as well.  But I'm keeping the volume and intensity fairly high for the next few weeks, hopefully building to a large training block in December, leading into the main attraction for the next few months: Bandera 100K, the USATF championships, on January 6.  I'll be heading out with Phil and Elizabeth.  All of us will be looking to get our lottery tickets for Western States in 2017; Phil and I will be attempting our first 100Ks.  I'm planning on a big first half of 2016.  Bandera is one of three national championships I'm targeting in my first year as a master (Caumsett in March, Cayuga in May); I won't win any national titles, but some age-group medals could be possible.  And I'm toying with the idea of a couple of timed events as well, maybe a six hour, and possible even a 24-hour in July.  Could be a big year!  Stay tuned.