On the other side of the coin, I remember Said Aouita breaking Moorcroft's 13:00.41 5000 meter WR by 0.01 in 1985
Running the 5000 under 13 minutes seemed to be real mental barrier in the 1980s, probably took several years longer than it really should have.
People will talk about what went wrong for Jim to miss by only 11 seconds, maybe early pacing, or weather, or his training, or pooping.
The truth is that is was only 11 seconds because of who Jim is.
It probably should have been 2 mins, or never even attempted. Jim held it when he should have slowed down and dropped off. He straight up was no longer capable of running that pace but forced it to be that close. Something we all experience at times, the best races feel easy, but most races we dig down so deep just to hang on.
11 seconds because he's a badass.
Vaporfly 4% would have him finish in 5:54
Standard Setter wrote:
Well, KMB, let's not forget that Walmsley also raised him arms to signal the destruction of the American Record from 6:27 to 6:09. I'm sure there are mathematicians that can run the numbers on the percentage improvement and extrapolate that relative to the what it would be if someone did what he did to the 1500m or the Marathon.
Legendary performance. #2 All-Time
http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m100km.htm
It was great watching him prove that an ultramarathoner can be tough as hell, disciplined, and successful all in the same race, and off a highly ambitious pace from the gun. Despite missing the WR, his splits show that he had a less significant fade than most elite marathoners do even in their better efforts, which is crazy given the energetics involved.
I would think his shoulders must be killing him (even without any collisions) after every race; he basically uses them together like a third leg, even before the other two inevitably start to fail. He just heaves himself up the road when he ought to have been reduced to a small pile of rebar.
What I can't get is how the women's WR is 6:33. It makes no sense that a woman could have ever come within 6 percent of Kazami or Walmsley under truly legal conditions.
Once again, mathematicians, is the Women's Marathon Record within 6% of the Men's Marathon Record?
KMB wrote:
Standard Setter wrote:
Well, KMB, let's not forget that Walmsley also raised him arms to signal the destruction of the American Record from 6:27 to 6:09. I'm sure there are mathematicians that can run the numbers on the percentage improvement and extrapolate that relative to the what it would be if someone did what he did to the 1500m or the Marathon.
Legendary performance. #2 All-Time
http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m100km.htmIt was great watching him prove that an ultramarathoner can be tough as hell, disciplined, and successful all in the same race, and off a highly ambitious pace from the gun. Despite missing the WR, his splits show that he had a less significant fade than most elite marathoners do even in their better efforts, which is crazy given the energetics involved.
I would think his shoulders must be killing him (even without any collisions) after every race; he basically uses them together like a third leg, even before the other two inevitably start to fail. He just heaves himself up the road when he ought to have been reduced to a small pile of rebar.
What I can't get is how the women's WR is 6:33. It makes no sense that a woman could have ever come within 6 percent of Kazami or Walmsley under truly legal conditions.
So if Brigid Kosgei runs a 100km how would she do? she is faster than Jim over the marathon and always looks like she could run another one. Women’s bodies become more suited the longer the race goes on. The problem is generally the women who run these events are slow. If you look up the Hoka woman’s times Carla who led the race has a best of 2:51 you can’t convert this into a fast 100k time.
Standard Setter wrote:
Once again, mathematicians, is the Women's Marathon Record within 6% of the Men's Marathon Record?
KMB wrote:
What I can't get is how the women's WR is 6:33. It makes no sense that a woman could have ever come within 6 percent of Kazami or Walmsley under truly legal conditions.
From 6:27:43 to 6:09:25 is a 4.7% improvement. Lopping 4.7% off of other American Records yields absurd numbers like 3:16 for 1500m and 1:59 for the marathon.
As for the 6% difference between the men’s and women’s records - absolutely stunning. 2:14:04 is over 10% off from 2:01:39. A 6% difference would put the women’s mark just under 2:09.
I just watched this and even knowing the result, it was crushing to see it play out, all the looks at his watch, that long stretch at the finish. I actually would not have cared much if he had broken the record because I have no frame of reference for a 6+ hr run. But missing it by so little makes me see what a truly valiant effort it was (and how hellish it must have been). Well done, Jim!
Great effort to run 50km.
He could have missed it by 12 seconds, so 11 isn't so bad.
Ii listened to the podcast. I think the American Record was the real goal and wr was icing. Otherwise the pacing would be spot on.
Well, there’s always next weekend
Correction..... He missed the record by 100km, not 11 seconds.
Great effort!
"Go Run One"
KMB wrote:
Both Jones and Walmsley pure animals..
Jones and Walmsley aren't even the same species. Let Walmsley's performance stand on its own merit. No need to gratuitously insult Jones by denigrating him to an ultra-runners level.
MathCoach wrote:
Standard Setter wrote:
Once again, mathematicians, is the Women's Marathon Record within 6% of the Men's Marathon Record?
From 6:27:43 to 6:09:25 is a 4.7% improvement. Lopping 4.7% off of other American Records yields absurd numbers like 3:16 for 1500m and 1:59 for the marathon.
As for the 6% difference between the men’s and women’s records - absolutely stunning. 2:14:04 is over 10% off from 2:01:39. A 6% difference would put the women’s mark just under 2:09.
Unfortunately, running doesn't work like that.
"Go Run One"