Let my explain using math why Jim Walmsley's 64:00 is NOT impressive

cotton shirt wrote:

for the record:

Abdelkader El Mouaziz (MAR) ran 2:06:46 but his 5km pr is 14:03.49

Oleksandr Kuzin (UKR) ran 2:07:33 and his 5km pr is 14:01.83

Yi-yong Kim (KOR) ran 2:07:49 and his 5km pr is 14:10.52

Hiroshi Miki (JPN) ran 2:08:05 and his 5km pr is 14:04.39

Yohannes Gergish (ERI) ran 2:08:14 and his 5km pr is 14:46.71

Hicham Laqouahi (MAR) ran 2:08:27 and his 5km pr is 14:00.72

Vanderlei Cordeiro da Lima (BRA) ran 2:08:31 and his 5km pr is 14:00.41

Yaroslav Mushinski (MDA) ran 2:08:32 and his 5km pr is 14:14.85

Abdi Ibrahim Abdo (BRN) ran 2:08:32 and his 5km pr is 14:29.84

Brian Sell (USA) ran 2:10:47 but his 5km pr is 14:00.10

Hahahahahaha. Yes, just look at that list of global elite marathoners who didn't run well in the 5k. Hahahahahah. Nope.

You realize that you are proving the OP's point, right?

Those are not world-beating marathoners in the way that Walmsley is a world-beating ultra-runner. Not even close.

All you have shown is some C/D-list marathoners running no-list 5k performances. You literally had to go that deep in the barrel to cherry-pick marathoners with a 5k worth less than a 64:00.

What is Kipchoge's 5k? What is Bekele's? What is Geb's?

running dirty wrote:

Walmsley's best distance is probably 50 miles. He kind of sucks over 100 miles.

You are supporting the OP's point that Walmsley's "range" from best event coming down to half marathon is not that impressive.

If 50 miles is his sweet spot, that isn't even four times the HM distance.

HM : 50mile :: 10k : marathon

I am pretty sure elite marathoners can run better quality 10ks than this elite ultra guy 's 64:00 half.

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

Two finishes at Western States (1 win where he set CR)

One finish at UTMB (5th overall)

I believe that's it as far as 100 milers.

64:00 minutes IS impressive. Given the fact that 99.999999% of the world can't do this, yeah, I'd say it's d*mn impressive.

Hell, I'd be willing to say that probably at least 97% of people posting on these boards can't run a 1:04 half.

You are being generous to LetsRunners.

Do you really think that 1 in 30 posters has a 63 half or faster??

Rupp 12:58 2:06

Ritzenheim 12:56 2:07

Derrick 13:08 2:12

Rodgers 13:42 2:09

Austin 14:12 2:12

Walmsley 2:12?

Perspective man wrote:

Of course as compared to the general population it is impressive. If a guy in your office shows up at an all comers meet and runs 10.0, it is impressive.

First, Walmsley is not "a guy in your office." He is a professional runner, at the absolute peak in his best event type.

Still, 10.0 is much, much, much better than anything Walmsley has done, or ever will do, at a legitimate distance. That is top-20 in the world any year. Walmsley wouldn't get top-20 in a Thursday tempo run in Kenya.

A 45-second 400 man breaking 10.5 is more impressive than Walmsley doing 64.

As the OP said, a 2:01-2:05 marathoner going 13-anything is as impressive as a 64. Which is literally every 2:05 guy who ever bothered to properly race a 5k.

Runnerboy1 wrote:

Even Jim has said his 64 is not impressive by any means. Listen to his interviews.

Actually, Walmsley and his fanboys went on and on about how impressive his range is in a recent long interview. I don't know if I can name the podcast here.

They also had a full-on tantrum when someone suggested that a 2:05 guy could beat him at States. (Which any of them could, if they spent just one full year training specifically for it.)

Adfg wrote:

[quote]Primo Numero Uno wrote:

No, Jim Walmsley is not the world's best ultrarunner. He is America's most talked about ultrarunner and might be in the top ten worldwide.

100% agreement!

But he is only in the top 10 worldwide in "being talked about" not as a runner.

64 at half is worth 2:13 at the marathon with JS as the coach.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

If Walmsley is the worlds best Ultra runner he is a sub-elite half marathoner. Take Eliud Kipchoge who is the worlds best Marathoner, he is a former world champ and Olympic medalist in the 5K. The world class marathoners are cabaple of world class times all the way down to 5K and some even at the 1500 which is 4% of the marathon. Although 64:00 is solid it is nowhere near the world class level.

Good post.

JW's best distance is 50 miles, only about double the best distance of a marathoner.

If anyone thinks that Walmsley is impressive for range, let me know when he does a 3k (about 6% of 50 miles) that compares to Farah's 1500 times (or even Rupp's mile), or a 10k that compares to Kipchoge/Bekele/Geb's 5k times.

64:00 = 14:00 = not even worth a finisher's medal in elite running.

ROJO start a thread on Max King's legendary college exploits please

Math:

Where his half marathon time would rank in the US and world during previous years:

2014 - 29th, 651st

2015 - 40th, 635th

2016 - 33rd, 532nd

2017 - 16th, 427th

2018 - 30th, 596th

His half marathon time would place 73rd on the world list in 2018 if he were to duplicate his time over a full marathon.

I'll give him this, though, he is still 51 seconds faster than the women's world record and 2:57 faster than Kara Goucher's US best at the Great North run in 2007 in her debut at the distance.

It's an okay US time (although 11 other Americans beat him in that race), but nothing especially note worthy.

Some of y’all need to pick up a physiology text book. He’s from altitude. The oxygen carrying capacity of blood helps blunt the need for increased cardiac output. Plus wrist watch monitors are NOT accurate lol but all that aside you’re probably right. His effort probably wasn’t maximal because he clearly stuck to the group he was in and stayed relatively even paced which if you know Jim at all, is not how he runs when he’s going to put in a whole effort.

This whole thread is just off line. OP is trying to compare apples to oranges. No one has ever said Jim is Galen or Eliud or even suggested it. It is a completely reasonable assumption that Jim could run 2:10-2:12 and that could be enough to place top 10 at the trials.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Unless a you’re a sub 64 guy, what business do you have talking about how another persons performance isn’t impressive. It’s impressive to what you can run, I know that. Prove me wrong. Love to see someone who can prove they ran sub 64 say it’s not impressive. Or better yet an exercise physiologist who will say running sub 64 is not impressive. I’ll wait...

Go back to your boring mediocre lives and stop critiquing something that you have no qualifications to critique.

I guess we can't talk about anything running related on this site then because 99% of the athletes that we discuss are faster than us. We had better not start a thread after the superbowl that critiques any player on either team because they are all better than we are. Wait, how can anyone be a coach because many coaches provide critiques to athletes that are better than they ever were.

3hr-marathoner wrote:

zzzz wrote:

Though I've already said I don't think the 1:04 was impressive, even with the limited build up (and should be 1:02+/- if it were his focus), he obviously has much larger relative upside at the marathon than most of the Americans in front of him in that race.

If this is the case, then he really should be focusing on the marathon. If he can be a top 3 American in the marathon, that's worth more than being the top ultramarathoner.

Is it though? Second and third American at trials, assuming Rupp wins, will probably still be nowhere in most major marathons. I'd guess that Walmsley's contract (reportedly/rumored here to be near quarter million per year) is a lot larger than Jared Ward's even though Ward was not only top three at trials, but 6th at the OGs. I'm sure Walmsley would get a nice bonus if he did get top three, and kinda get to double dip in income.

Talk: to say words in order to express one's thoughts, feelings, opinions,

Critique: a detailed analysis and assessment of something

To use your analogy: Talking about the super bowl means to discuss the events. Crtitiquing a super bowl player is the equivalent of a “coach quarterback” which is what essentially what y’all are doing. Bunch of coach runners here on LR.

Coaches don’t critique (good ones at least). They use and teach fundamentals of training philosophies to help the athlete refine their talent. An athlete that believes they understand the training philosophy they follow more than any other coach would then yes not have a need for a coach.

For completeness sake:

Coach: one who instructs players in the fundamentals of a sport

Any other words you want to me to dictionary for you or are you done?

Talk don’t criticize wrote:

Talk: to say words in order to express one's thoughts, feelings, opinions,

Critique: a detailed analysis and assessment of something

To use your analogy: Talking about the super bowl means to discuss the events. Crtitiquing a super bowl player is the equivalent of a “coach quarterback” which is what essentially what y’all are doing. Bunch of coach runners here on LR.

Coaches don’t critique (good ones at least). They use and teach fundamentals of training philosophies to help the athlete refine their talent. An athlete that believes they understand the training philosophy they follow more than any other coach would then yes not have a need for a coach.

For completeness sake:

Coach: one who instructs players in the fundamentals of a sport

Any other words you want to me to dictionary for you or are you done?

Edit: couch quarterbacks/runners not coach quarterbacks

zzzz is either trolling or he is one of the dumbest people on here. First off, a 'quarter million dollars'? I assume this is some sort of joke reference. Secondly, you already are giving Jim credit for a 1:02 and a 2:10-2:12 marathon type of performance. Doesn't work that way. He ran 1:04:00 in the fastest half marathon in the US with a pace group pack in good conditions. That was after 4.5 months of no ultra racing but high mileage training nonetheless and a few months specific speed workouts. The guy is 28 years old and has been running for a long time. His 1:04:00 is basically right in line with his 29:0x 10km PB. We'll see if Jim even goes after a legit road marathon/time/place. I doubt he ever will.

zzzz wrote:

3hr-marathoner wrote:

If this is the case, then he really should be focusing on the marathon. If he can be a top 3 American in the marathon, that's worth more than being the top ultramarathoner.

Is it though? Second and third American at trials, assuming Rupp wins, will probably still be nowhere in most major marathons. I'd guess that Walmsley's contract (reportedly/rumored here to be near quarter million per year) is a lot larger than Jared Ward's even though Ward was not only top three at trials, but 6th at the OGs. I'm sure Walmsley would get a nice bonus if he did get top three, and kinda get to double dip in income.

He has some of the fastest speculated times around. His fan boys have already given him credit for a 13:34 5k in trainers at practice, a 13:20 5K based upon his 13:52.87 at Stanford where he ran in an outside lane for much of the race and beat everyone at the end because he was in a slow heat. Now they are claiming his 64:00 half is good for a 2:08 full and how he is going to transform the marathon all other sorts of pie in the sky nonsense. They don't want to face the reality that he was the 12th American and 27th overall in a road race.

He ran 1:04 off ultra marathon training (he was still doing ultra marathon style training into December) and 1.5 months or so of speed workouts. He also ran 29:0x on steeple/5k training with a couple weeks of race pace training. What that proves is that he can transition quickly. And most likely if he comes down to marathon training for an extended period of time, 2:10-2:12 is not unreasonable. 2:08 is a stretch. But considering marathon is closer to his bread and butter 2:10-2:12 is doable with a longer stint of pure marathon work.

And Jim does not make 250k a year. Period. Let’s put that to rest right now. Otherwise he owes me a fancy dinner.