No Walmsley fanboy wrote:
Boo hoo boo hoo boo hoo
You're obsessed with Jim Walmsley.
No Walmsley fanboy wrote:
Boo hoo boo hoo boo hoo
You're obsessed with Jim Walmsley.
adfj;adsflj; wrote:
Comes off as a total dbag.
Typical white trail runner. Knows he won't win any real races so goes to the trails with less competition and starts to believe the ultra community on how great he is.
Does he even have the OT qualifier? He won't get top 10.
You're the typical sjw. Probably a jsjw. Heh.
zzzz wrote:
Is Max King mentally weak? Hasn't worked for him too. Michael Wardian? There have probably been many sub-2:18 marathoners in the race. You really mean "any"?
No Max isn’t. In fact you’re trolling badly to even use him as an example. Unlike the others he’s won a 100k world title, holds the American record, and placed top 10 at Comrades. He’s a better competitor than Jim/Sage/Michael, even if 100 miles is beyond his physical level. Plus he has humility and has never dodged the competition. He epitomizes the all surface no nonsense approach and gets it done when it matters.
good riddance. wrote:
No Max isn’t. In fact you’re trolling badly to even use him as an example. Unlike the others he’s won a 100k world title, holds the American record, and placed top 10 at Comrades. He’s a better competitor than Jim/Sage/Michael, even if 100 miles is beyond his physical level. Plus he has humility and has never dodged the competition. He epitomizes the all surface no nonsense approach and gets it done when it matters.
You said:
good riddance. wrote:
Any decent sub 2:18 marathoner could step up and learn to run ultras and take down his WS record. It’s not easy by any means, but a few years of experience and commitment is all it takes.
Again, if ANY decent sub-2:18 marathoner go faster than JW's 14:30, and also "not mentally weak" like Sage, and you agree that Max is not mentally weak, is well under sub-2:18, and he has years of ultra experience, how come he's only run 15:44, instead of sub-14:30 at WS100?
Prefontaine, baby, Prefontaine... when he gave the finger to the road runners..
Tired of the usual road race crowd wrote:
GBohannon wrote:
I was wondering the same thing. I would like to read an example.
Talking nervously about what races they’re going to run next before the gun even goes off, obsessing about pace and their supposed fitness while asking everyone what pace they’re running at the start line....just too much talk about running with no substance or self-confidence. You should have a plan and be ready to go for it without asking everyone in proximity “how your legs feeling this morning?” So annoying and unflattering.
When I ran mid distance in college nobody talked about that kinda bullsh*t before or after races. It was “get the job done” and then talk about life on the cool-down. You knew, before an 800, that you were gonna go out in 52-53 and then hammer until you got dizzy. Not timidly asking what pace everyone was thinking of running. You’d get destroyed and nobody would want to talk to you.
These days I tell people at the start line exactly what the plan is pace-wise and then change the subject to anything other than running. Most good runners, I’ve found, are interested in doing the same.
Don’t be the lame obsessed dudes at races who can’t stop blathering about your running. We all get it, we’re all generally doing the same stuff. You’re more than a runner.
Bohannon- you get that qualifier yet?! We waiting...
You call road runners out by answering their question? Jeez man, I don’t know, that’s pretty edgy!!!
Seriously, who cares if someone asks what pace you are going to run? It’s helpful information, as you can decide if you should go with the lead pack, hang back, or leave them in the dust.
Nobody cares that when you ran mid distance in high school nobody asked that.
Walmsley has not yet run a marathon yet.
His 100k run was a disaster. 55 minutes slower than announced.
Let's hope he is able to run a sub 2:30 Marathon.
Max and Sage also only had one try at Western States 100. Remember it took Jim 3 years to finally win and run 14:30.
zzzz wrote:
good riddance. wrote:
No Max isn’t. In fact you’re trolling badly to even use him as an example. Unlike the others he’s won a 100k world title, holds the American record, and placed top 10 at Comrades. He’s a better competitor than Jim/Sage/Michael, even if 100 miles is beyond his physical level. Plus he has humility and has never dodged the competition. He epitomizes the all surface no nonsense approach and gets it done when it matters.
You said:
good riddance. wrote:
Any decent sub 2:18 marathoner could step up and learn to run ultras and take down his WS record. It’s not easy by any means, but a few years of experience and commitment is all it takes.
Again, if ANY decent sub-2:18 marathoner go faster than JW's 14:30, and also "not mentally weak" like Sage, and you agree that Max is not mentally weak, is well under sub-2:18, and he has years of ultra experience, how come he's only run 15:44, instead of sub-14:30 at WS100?
greatt wrote:
distance running needs a jim walmsley, so lets appreciate it
Yes. We need an anti-hero with a big mouth. Someone many of us love to hate. That's what most people watch sports for ... to root against the bad guys we hate.
Walmsley has a 2:28 in training on Strava from last year before WSER. You can see it here at strava.com
No Marathon yet wrote:
Walmsley has not yet run a marathon yet.
His 100k run was a disaster. 55 minutes slower than announced.
Let's hope he is able to run a sub 2:30 Marathon.
Hounddogharrier wrote:
Mizuno fanboy wrote:
Why does Jim Walmsley want to "give the middle finger to the marathon community"? What's wrong with this guy?
Guy has bravado. By next year, the O Ts are going to be about him. Hate him or love him, he is generating buzz that is sorely missed in distance running. Go Jim.
That’s adorable.
OnceBitten wrote:
Max and Sage also only had one try at Western States 100. Remember it took Jim 3 years to finally win and run 14:30.
Yes, but neither of them thinks they can run 14:30. If Sage comes on this thread and says so, everyone would say he's delusional. You also think any sub-2:18 guy (or gal, I suppose) can run 14:30?
He ran the first 50 miles of the 100k in 4:50 so he must have run a sub 2:30 marathon in there somewhere, right?
he already did wrote:
He ran the first 50 miles of the 100k in 4:50 so he must have run a sub 2:30 marathon in there somewhere, right?
If I recall right his Strava says a 2:27 marathon split.
You recall incorrectly. He split 2:29:45 according to Strava for the first net downhill 26.2 That is a far cry from being able to run a 2:11:30 in one go. The 50-mile record he broke was set by a 2:17 mary runner.
Correct..... wrote:
he already did wrote:
He ran the first 50 miles of the 100k in 4:50 so he must have run a sub 2:30 marathon in there somewhere, right?
If I recall right his Strava says a 2:27 marathon split.
Rew wrote:
You recall incorrectly. He split 2:29:45 according to Strava for the first net downhill 26.2
That is a far cry from being able to run a 2:11:30 in one go. The 50-mile record he broke was set by a 2:17 mary runner.
Correct..... wrote:
If I recall right his Strava says a 2:27 marathon split.
Just checked his Strava, it says 2:27:49.
That's because you're an idiot and you don't know the difference between a 'strava estimated effort' and the reality of actual splits
BergLaufer wrote:
Rew wrote:
You recall incorrectly. He split 2:29:45 according to Strava for the first net downhill 26.2
That is a far cry from being able to run a 2:11:30 in one go. The 50-mile record he broke was set by a 2:17 mary runner.
Just checked his Strava, it says 2:27:49.
Official race splits: 39.3 km in 2:20:25 And 46.9 km in 2:46:45 That means he had to go through the marathon split in about 2:28 or so. https://track.rtrt.me/e/CRRM-HOKA100K-2019#/leaderboard/top-men-100k-route_1/FINISH-B
Rew wrote:
That's because you're an idiot and you don't know the difference between a 'strava estimated effort' and the reality of actual splits
BergLaufer wrote:
Just checked his Strava, it says 2:27:49.
Some simple maths for you: Do you really think he ran the 2.9km distance from the 39.3km split to the Marathon mark (42.2km) in 7.5 minutes? That would be under 3:00/km pace. He was running closer to 3:30/km pace at that time obviously. He came through the marathon mark in about 2:30:00. You can simply see it on his Strava when his GPS reading is at 26.2 miles it is about 2:29:45. You could have also calculated this if you aren't totally incompetent with numbers. It appears you are incompetent with numbers and reading basic data. I don't really care if he split 2:28 or 2:30 for reference. It doesn't mean he can run a 2:11:30. He could probably run a 2:14 maybe.
BergLaufer wrote:
Official race splits:
39.3 km in 2:20:25
And 46.9 km in 2:46:45
That means he had to go through the marathon split in about 2:28 or so.
https://track.rtrt.me/e/CRRM-HOKA100K-2019#/leaderboard/top-men-100k-route_1/FINISH-BRew wrote:
That's because you're an idiot and you don't know the difference between a 'strava estimated effort' and the reality of actual splits
Rew wrote:
That's because you're an idiot and you don't know the difference between a 'strava estimated effort' and the reality of actual splits
BergLaufer wrote:
Just checked his Strava, it says 2:27:49.
Since you guys are arguing about how fast he's run a marathon distance unofficially and were even including training in the discussion, it doesn't make sense to only talk about start/0 mile to 26.2 mile. The Strava estimated best effort would be taking the fastest marathon from the GPS track, and that's 2:27:49. So what if the time would be a few seconds slower on an official course? A quick look at the splits, and that marathon best effort was roughly from around mile 9 to mile 35, which also removes half the downhill.