I quiet like the fact that this has happened. It allows Jimbo to fly under the radar a little longer before smacking you punks in the face with a monster performance. A quick glance at his training will tell you all you need to know. There are sub 2:12 guys not coming close to what Jim does. And I'm talking quality never mind the quantity.
getting walmer wrote:
Shunpo wrote:
Well he was wrong according to usatf
David Katz is wrong? What's he wrong about? What's the correct usatf way to measure a course?
He's wrong about nothing. The OP on the other hand...
Isn't a 1:03 half marathon equivalent to a 2:10 marathon? What time do you think will be needed to get on the Olympic team?
Story on Walmsley Oly trials bid from local AZ newspaper. back to back 175 mpw
Hold on wrote:
Isn't a 1:03 half marathon equivalent to a 2:10 marathon? What time do you think will be needed to get on the Olympic team?
I don't know but I've seen a lot of people on here say he couldn't break 2:15. Which is obviously ridiculous and I hope they're not serious when they say it.
"I’d say I’m not in contention for the top three,” he said. “The goal, more or less, is to be competitive and try to hold my own. … At the end of the day, I still have ultrarunning. I still have my day job.”
“But you never know,” he added. “I bring something to this race, a toolbox, others don’t. The race could turn out like, ‘Well, I’m the only one who brought this wrench. I can do that.’ You never know."
I love how times are thrown around on this site.
The anti-Walmsley group seems to think we'll have the top three all in under 2:10, and another dozen or so finishing before 2:12. The entire field will be in by 2:15, they indicate.
And no way is the big-miles guy who can turn a 1:03 going to be anywhere in the mix. Okay, got it.
"I’d say I’m not in contention for the top three,” he said. “The goal, more or less, is to be competitive and try to hold my own. … At the end of the day, I still have ultrarunning. I still have my day job.”
In other words, he doesn't need it to make his career. His literally a hobby jogger having fun with it. There is zero pressure on him to make the team. Likely he won't make it, but it's a good position to be in with zero pressure or expectations.
Once again we are labelled as a hateful group in a news article.
The Jack Daniel's calculator says the 1:03 is a 2:11:49 equivalent. Now Walmsey would have to actually run a 2:11, but I think someone will make the team running around 2:10-2:11.
From the article:
"Online haters, of which there are legion on websites such as Letsrun.com, are not shy in their scornful dismissal of the attempt as not just quixotic but an affront to the so-called purity of the marathon by this ultrarunning outsider."
Hold on wrote:
The Jack Daniel's calculator says the 1:03 is a 2:11:49 equivalent. Now Walmsey would have to actually run a 2:11, but I think someone will make the team running around 2:10-2:11.
Why do people say this course is short?
Even so, during high mileage and before he is fully in shape, this equates to almost 2 min faster after tapering and timing his training cycle.
61:mid maps to sub-2:10, and he can handle the hills well.
Darkhorse. Still a candidate.
Shunpo wrote:
Likely because some of the folks in the race can run 1:03 twice in a row
1 person can in a fast, paced race at his peak fitness.
Not 3 people, reliably, in a trials race.
The Humana Rock 'n' Roll Arizona half marathon course came up a bit short Sunday, but not the effort by the top elite runners.
A course certification error left the course 286.5 meters short for some half marathoners, including the elites. So the winning times will not count as records although both initially appeared to be under the previous bests.
The incorrect marking was between miles 9 and 10, where a turnaround should have been slightly further west on McDowell Road.
"The marking and position of the turnaround relative to a landmark was misinterpreted," race director Paul Huddle said. "It's a very frustrating mistake We completely own it."
[quote][b]
runnersthigh wrote:
Hold on wrote:
The Jack Daniel's calculator says the 1:03 is a 2:11:49 equivalent. Now Walmsey would have to actually run a 2:11, but I think someone will make the team running around 2:10-2:11.
Why do people say this course is short?
Even so, during high mileage and before he is fully in shape, this equates to almost 2 min faster after tapering and timing his training cycle.
61:mid maps to sub-2:10, and he can handle the hills well.
Darkhorse. Still a candidate.
Because the officials said the course was short. He ran 63:xx.
That means there's 50+ guys in the US who are faster. He won't be top 3 and top 10 would be a superb day for him.
Shunpo wrote:
Jim is king of the trails is because he was a talented D1 distance runner and if others decided to they’d dominate as well. Not everyone can run 100s but guys like Cody Reed, Hayden Hawks, Matt Daniels, are prime examples.
there's not much depth in ultra running. and almost none of the top distance runners do it.
that said, i don't see walmsley as a "born ultra runner", his 5'000 and 10'000 PB's are solid. about as solid as his half marathon pb i dare to say.
he (and others too) simply decided to go the ultra route, because of the reasons above. there's probably no way he could make a living of the distances up to 42k. but it works in ultra.
2:10 in full marathon was position #300 world wide in 2019.
no one's gonna tell me none of them would beat walms in a 50mile race.
We are all human and make mistakes but I try and learn from others everyday. That's one of the reasons I read these boards. Please help me understand what I wrote is inaccurate according to USATF.
On the nose.