ck3237 wrote:
You forgot Greg Meyer.
No I didn't. Meyer never ran sub 2:09.
ck3237 wrote:
You forgot Greg Meyer.
No I didn't. Meyer never ran sub 2:09.
Top tier marathoner might be able to better the 50K world record by a few minutes. There is no doubt that the marathon WR is better than the 50K world record. However, most of the 38 sec/mile difference in the WR pace is a real slow down due to longer distance, despite it is only 5 miles different. You can see this by comparing 50K and marathon pace of runners that did both events at high level, it is typically over 25 sec/mile difference. The current 50K world record pace converts to a 2:06-2:07 marathon, it is pretty good.
hype train overload wrote:
ck3237 wrote:
You forgot Greg Meyer.
No I didn't. Meyer never ran sub 2:09.
Yuki Kawauchi -
13:58 (5k)
29:02 (10k)
1:02:18 (half)
2:08:14 (marathon)
Sounds like the male version of Gwen Jorgensen to me, and we know how that’s going.
50K vs marathon wrote:
Top tier marathoner might be able to better the 50K world record by a few minutes. There is no doubt that the marathon WR is better than the 50K world record. However, most of the 38 sec/mile difference in the WR pace is a real slow down due to longer distance, despite it is only 5 miles different. You can see this by comparing 50K and marathon pace of runners that did both events at high level, it is typically over 25 sec/mile difference. The current 50K world record pace converts to a 2:06-2:07 marathon, it is pretty good.
Blah blah blah, in theory everything is amazing. Like when all the “experts” thought Lance Armstrong could run the marathon in 2:03-2:04 based on his VO2 max conversion and we know how that went when he tried. Please, don’t delude yourselves.
doctorj wrote:
50K vs marathon wrote:
Top tier marathoner might be able to better the 50K world record by a few minutes. There is no doubt that the marathon WR is better than the 50K world record. However, most of the 38 sec/mile difference in the WR pace is a real slow down due to longer distance, despite it is only 5 miles different. You can see this by comparing 50K and marathon pace of runners that did both events at high level, it is typically over 25 sec/mile difference. The current 50K world record pace converts to a 2:06-2:07 marathon, it is pretty good.
Blah blah blah, in theory everything is amazing. Like when all the “experts” thought Lance Armstrong could run the marathon in 2:03-2:04 based on his VO2 max conversion and we know how that went when he tried. Please, don’t delude yourselves.
Sounds like a classic "straw man" argument.
doctorj wrote:
50K vs marathon wrote:
Top tier marathoner might be able to better the 50K world record by a few minutes. There is no doubt that the marathon WR is better than the 50K world record. However, most of the 38 sec/mile difference in the WR pace is a real slow down due to longer distance, despite it is only 5 miles different. You can see this by comparing 50K and marathon pace of runners that did both events at high level, it is typically over 25 sec/mile difference. The current 50K world record pace converts to a 2:06-2:07 marathon, it is pretty good.
Blah blah blah, in theory everything is amazing. Like when all the “experts” thought Lance Armstrong could run the marathon in 2:03-2:04 based on his VO2 max conversion and we know how that went when he tried. Please, don’t delude yourselves.
Source? Never heard someone make that claim.
Ssdddddd wrote:
round and round wrote:
agreed.
low 63 guys are usually around 2:15, perhaps 2:13:30 at CIM last year.
I'd be surprised if he gets under 2:18
For the people whose best distance is the marathon, they run a 2:13 off a 64. Most people best distance isn’t the marathon so they run slower 2:15+. And it isn’t really clear why certain people don’t do well at longer distances. You think a guy like Ritz should have been a marathon stud. He wasn’t. Same thing for Tadese. What we can say is that the best marathoners don’t run 211:30 off 64 min HM. You need to be down around 63(or equivalent 5/10k type performances). 60s is a lot of time in a HM.
You can talk about him sucking up attention but it isn’t like we have some really deep field. Throwing his name in with all the other 214+ guys is reasonable.
he's never run a marathon though, so he's not a "2:14" guy.
We don't know if it's reasonable to objectively say his name can be thrown in, it's your opinion and that's all.
It was reasonable to think Tadesse could have been thrown into the mix of names running at least 2:06-2:08 but he never got under 2:08...
You'd assume Bernard Lagat would have been a 2:14 guy too on his debut but he wasn't (2:17:20 hard bonk). This is despite being able to run a 1:02 HM and 27:49 10,000m......and being one of the world's all-time great mid-distance runners.
Let's be objective. Walmsley has never run a marathon so all we're doing is speculating which is different.
Sounds like he will DNS the trials.
When does he line up against a lot of elite level runners in a big race? Houston was one and also the UTMB perchance. His last ultra finish was WS100 in June before the 1:04 half in Jan. I see he had a steady aerobic base and some very good trainings before this 1:04:00
Thanks HRE wrote:
HRE wrote:
Beardsley's 10,000 PB was in the low to id 28:40s, maybe 28:43.
Thank you HRE, couldn't find anything when I tried googling it. Do you know the park range for his 1500-5000 PBs?
The 10,000 is the only one I know though I have a very vague idea of something 3:50 for the 1500. But that idea is the epitome of vagueness. He has to be one of these guys whose shorter distance times are not what he could have run had he raced at those distances more seriously.
Ssdddddd wrote:
round and round wrote:
agreed.
low 63 guys are usually around 2:15, perhaps 2:13:30 at CIM last year.
I'd be surprised if he gets under 2:18
For the people whose best distance is the marathon, they run a 2:13 off a 64. Most people best distance isn’t the marathon so they run slower 2:15+. And it isn’t really clear why certain people don’t do well at longer distances. You think a guy like Ritz should have been a marathon stud. He wasn’t. Same thing for Tadese. What we can say is that the best marathoners don’t run 211:30 off 64 min HM. You need to be down around 63(or equivalent 5/10k type performances). 60s is a lot of time in a HM.
You can talk about him sucking up attention but it isn’t like we have some really deep field. Throwing his name in with all the other 214+ guys is reasonable.
It is just not true that 64 guys who best distance are the marathon run 2:13. Maybe a couple of guys who don't ever do a fast have 64 min and 2:13 bests. But if you go down the list of runners whose PR is 2:13 very few have a PR of 64 or slower. Plenty of these are more marathon inclined. You can throw out whatever conversion calculator figures you want but in the real world, this is just not the case.
Assuming 64 flat and 2:13:30. Your HM pace for a full would be just 2:45 slower than you're flat out HM pace. While this may be more accurate for a 58min guy the further away you get from that 60min target the bigger that time differential gets. You can point out an outlier like Kipchoge and say he's only 2 min and change slower per half when he goes to the full. But that is not an equal comparison.
And it is not fair to assume Walmsly will be at the extreme end of the conversion chart and assume he will be an outlier whose HM/full correlation will be way better than others. I've known a lot of guys who were going to be a 9:0X steepler, or a 13:XX 5ker, or a 2:1X marathoner. Most of those guys never got there. It's great to have an ambitious target you're shooting for but until you hit you are what you've done.
With proper training Walmsley would run faster than 64. He can probably go sub 2:10 if devotes to the marathon full time.
He has the speed and the right mentality (fast from the gun).
All this speculation and he will probably duck the comp and be a DNS at the trials. He beat a 50-mile record set by a 2:17 marathoner by a matter of a few seconds and lost the 100km race to a 2:18 marathoner. At best maybe he has a 2:14 in him, but that would be on a cool and flat course like Houston
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
Ssdddddd wrote:
For the people whose best distance is the marathon, they run a 2:13 off a 64. Most people best distance isn’t the marathon so they run slower 2:15+. And it isn’t really clear why certain people don’t do well at longer distances. You think a guy like Ritz should have been a marathon stud. He wasn’t. Same thing for Tadese. What we can say is that the best marathoners don’t run 211:30 off 64 min HM. You need to be down around 63(or equivalent 5/10k type performances). 60s is a lot of time in a HM.
You can talk about him sucking up attention but it isn’t like we have some really deep field. Throwing his name in with all the other 214+ guys is reasonable.
It is just not true that 64 guys who best distance are the marathon run 2:13. Maybe a couple of guys who don't ever do a fast have 64 min and 2:13 bests. But if you go down the list of runners whose PR is 2:13 very few have a PR of 64 or slower. Plenty of these are more marathon inclined. You can throw out whatever conversion calculator figures you want but in the real world, this is just not the case.
Assuming 64 flat and 2:13:30. Your HM pace for a full would be just 2:45 slower than you're flat out HM pace. While this may be more accurate for a 58min guy the further away you get from that 60min target the bigger that time differential gets. You can point out an outlier like Kipchoge and say he's only 2 min and change slower per half when he goes to the full. But that is not an equal comparison.
And it is not fair to assume Walmsly will be at the extreme end of the conversion chart and assume he will be an outlier whose HM/full correlation will be way better than others. I've known a lot of guys who were going to be a 9:0X steepler, or a 13:XX 5ker, or a 2:1X marathoner. Most of those guys never got there. It's great to have an ambitious target you're shooting for but until you hit you are what you've done.
Bad assumption wrote:
With proper training Walmsley would run faster than 64. He can probably go sub 2:10 if devotes to the marathon full time.
He has the speed and the right mentality (fast from the gun).
So you are saying that all other runners are slow from the gun?
Walmsley did proper training for the Half. 1:04 was his result in Houston. That's all what he has. It's pretty quick for most of us but not enough to run a 2:10 Marathon. Walmsley is 29. He is not getting faster anymore. Especially since he is hopping from 100 milers to HM back to 100k eeeh correction 50 miles and now again to Marathon.
Does that make sense? Probably not. But that is what Walmsley does.
Carbon X factor wrote:
I personally think that he has a shot at the standard during the trials, but it's a big long shot, mostly because of probable weather. The problem that I see is with his running style. His ego won't let him just run even splits and outlast everyone. He'll push the pace too early trying to put his stamp on the race, blow up, and cruise it in. All of this makes his entry in the trials interesting because we don't know exactly what he'll do until he does it.
His running style is ideal for running fast from just a few hours up to 15 hours in hot weather. He basically just ran 2 x 2:30 marathons back to back and in hot weather. I don't see him blowing up. It's like a marathon runner blowing up in a 5k. A bigger question is can he actually run that 2:11 pace. His 64 min half says, maybe.
Source??? wrote:
doctorj wrote:
Blah blah blah, in theory everything is amazing. Like when all the “experts” thought Lance Armstrong could run the marathon in 2:03-2:04 based on his VO2 max conversion and we know how that went when he tried. Please, don’t delude yourselves.
Source? Never heard someone make that claim.
Yes there was. I suppose you know how to google it if you can get your head out of the toilet.
doctorj wrote:
Source??? wrote:
Source? Never heard someone make that claim.
Yes there was. I suppose you know how to google it if you can get your head out of the toilet.
I googled and didn't find anything. Links?
Two things to point out: 1) Jim just ran both a 1:04 half and the 5:48 pace for 50 miles. This has never been done before in. What he could or might do is unpredictable given his diverse abilities. 2) Let’s say he runs 2:10, 2:11, 2:13, or 2:15. These are all the same. Any of those times put you approximately 2-3 miles behind the best in the world at the finish line. A guy who runs 2:15 is about as fast as a guy who runs 2:10. Neither are competitive internationally. More than a hundred men have run faster than 2:10 thus far in 2019 already. Zero Americans. 2:10 is closer to the best women in the world than it is to the best men. My point is that we should be pretending like it matters who runs 2:11:30.
Goucher Needles wrote:
Two things to point out: 1) Jim just ran both a 1:04 half and the 5:48 pace for 50 miles. This has never been done before in. What he could or might do is unpredictable given his diverse abilities. 2) Let’s say he runs 2:10, 2:11, 2:13, or 2:15. These are all the same. Any of those times put you approximately 2-3 miles behind the best in the world at the finish line. A guy who runs 2:15 is about as fast as a guy who runs 2:10. Neither are competitive internationally. More than a hundred men have run faster than 2:10 thus far in 2019 already. Zero Americans. 2:10 is closer to the best women in the world than it is to the best men. My point is that we should be pretending like it matters who runs 2:11:30.
Zero Americans have ran faster than 2:10 in 2019 huh.
UUUUMMMM who is Jarod Word
Goucher Needles wrote:
More than a hundred men have run faster than 2:10 thus far in 2019 already. Zero Americans.
Do you even follow the sport, dummy?