Ruth Chepngetich vs. Jim Walmsley

This is super dumb. Walmsley went out too hard and still ran 2:15:05 on a super tough course. If he ran on a faster course and paced well, there's no question he could run a lot faster, probably something like 2:11:xx. He's not a top 10 US dude, but he'd clearly beat her at a marathon.

birdbeard wrote:

MatthewXCountry wrote:

Please link to his official results with 1:02:14. I can't find that anywhere.

He ran it at the Arizona RnR marathon. I guess the course was short.

Two factors in Jim's favor:

(1) he was training through his 1:02 and his 1:04;

(2) he would probably be a decent bit quicker in in a VF or Adios Pro than he is in his Hokas

That course was a little less than a minute short for someone at Walmsley's speed, so he was realistically a 1:03:0x half runner that day. Still puts him ahead of Ruth by a minute.

With no specific training Walmsley would lose to the women's world record holder at every distance up to the marathon.

Give him 3 months to train and he beats them at every distance down to 1500. Could Jim run 3:50 now for 1500? I'm thinking no.

Don't care about chip n gnitch. That uber doped nothing.

If Walmsley is running though I will watch however.

birdbeard wrote:

MatthewXCountry wrote:

Please link to his official results with 1:02:14. I can't find that anywhere.

He ran it at the Arizona RnR marathon. I guess the course was short.

Two factors in Jim's favor:

(1) he was training through his 1:02 and his 1:04;

(2) he would probably be a decent bit quicker in in a VF or Adios Pro than he is in his Hokas

If Jim could run sub 1:02 he wouldn't be throwing away money being an ultra guy. He ran 2:15 on a course that he and everyone else thought favored him and he never factored in the race like he said he would. He never led at any point in the race and he barely ran faster than the leaders on the uphill sections while also losing ground on the downhills. At the marathon and down distances he is not a world class caliber athlete. When you are 6+ minutes outside of the half WR you are not anyone worth mentioning. Period.

now__ wrote:

With no specific training Walmsley would lose to the women's world record holder at every distance up to the marathon.

Give him 3 months to train and he beats them at every distance down to 1500. Could Jim run 3:50 now for 1500? I'm thinking no.

Thanks bro. I'm not running a sub 3:50 with 3 months of training.

Maybe if it was downhill in the canyon!

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

If Jim could run sub 1:02 he wouldn't be throwing away money being an ultra guy. He ran 2:15 on a course that he and everyone else thought favored him and he never factored in the race like he said he would. He never led at any point in the race and he barely ran faster than the leaders on the uphill sections while also losing ground on the downhills. At the marathon and down distances he is not a world class caliber athlete. When you are 6+ minutes outside of the half WR you are not anyone worth mentioning. Period.

I'm throwing away money? Money isn't everything. My sponsors take good care of me. I enjoy what I do and get to lead a pretty awesome life and one that I enjoy. I'm pretty sure I could run a sub 1:02 if I trained specifically for it for a period of time.

You''re right though..I did only run a 2:15 at the trials. 26.2 miles on the road is no joke. I stepped out of my comfort zone...still ran a pretty good time. Was I disappointed it wasn't faster? Of course. You always think you can go faster and almost always play the "what if" game after the fact. I even did it when I went 14:09 at Western States for the CR.

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

birdbeard wrote:

He ran it at the Arizona RnR marathon. I guess the course was short.

Two factors in Jim's favor:

(1) he was training through his 1:02 and his 1:04;

(2) he would probably be a decent bit quicker in in a VF or Adios Pro than he is in his Hokas

If Jim could run sub 1:02 he wouldn't be throwing away money being an ultra guy. He ran 2:15 on a course that he and everyone else thought favored him and he never factored in the race like he said he would. He never led at any point in the race and he barely ran faster than the leaders on the uphill sections while also losing ground on the downhills. At the marathon and down distances he is not a world class caliber athlete. When you are 6+ minutes outside of the half WR you are not anyone worth mentioning. Period.

Throwing away money? I guarantee you Jim Walsmey makes more than most of the current sub 2:10 American marathoners. Most hobby joggers have a clue about who he is compared to the last American to break 2:09 for the marathon. That is what matters to sponsors.

There's no way to quantify how many products a particular athlete makes solely off of name recognition and I can guarantee you 99% of consumers buying running products have no idea who Walmsley is. Pretty much only people that cruise Letsrun know of him.

Just for an example, most of the people I have come across that picked up running after college have never heard of Mo Farah. He's by far the most famous distance runner of the 2010s. And that's coupled with the fact that I live in a major metropolitan city with a large population of runners. If you think Jim makes a dent in running sales you're either pretty far off the mark or you're Jim Walmsley himself.

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

There's no way to quantify how many products a particular athlete makes solely off of name recognition and I can guarantee you 99% of consumers buying running products have no idea who Walmsley is. Pretty much only people that cruise Letsrun know of him.

Most ultrarunners don't use letsrun and they're the folks who know him best. We know Walmsley is a 1:03 low guy based on RnR, and it's probably a safe bet he could run something like 2:11-2:12 on a course like Chicago if he paced well. But, that's going to make him almost exactly zero money. Guaranteed he's making more as the flagship runner for Hoka, which is still primarily a ultrarunning-focused company, than he would even if he were able to run a bit faster at 13.1 / 26.2.