62 year old runs 16:25 or did he?

$150 for winning a 2 man race? I need to get older.

I say Haile Unlikely. I bet the chip tells the tale, and/or the other guys whips his ass at the next race.

How freaking tough is it to check the chip times? Seems like it would be less time than writing the article.

Sometimes I wonder why I run in college and don't just run for the gross money they give out at crappy races.

Lol runs 12 minute pace a few times a week. Ask him to run one mile at 16:25 pace and give him the money if he comes even within 10 seconds of that pace. Doubt he can.

No, he didn't.

Here's a list of the top runners in the world at that

age...

http://www.mastersathletics.net/5000-metres-Men-Masters-Athletics-Worl.282.0.html

The talented Mr. Alfonso Ramirez would have been heard

of years ago if he could run sub 17:00 for 5km.

No one in America at that age can run that fast and

there has yet to be any man in the world at that age

to run sub 17:00 in 2007.

Comparables or equivalency charts say a 16:25 5km means you are capable of racing a 4:52 mile on the track or with such fitness can possibly run a sub 2:41 marathon.

Please remember to post the results from the Bensenville Park District's Blue Hawaiian 5K on Aug. 11. It'll really be curious to see if Ramirez can even break 20 minutes.

The link to the story from the OP fails to mention that the winning time at this 5k? was 13:26. That's only a 4:19 per mile pace.

For the women, winning time was 15:06, 4:51 per mile pace although the race timers claim that time is a 5:18 per mile pace, NOT!

Interview the lead men and women and ask them what they did in their last 5km and you can roughly estimate that the course was at least 2 minutes short, maybe 3.

What? There are plenty of 12 year olds who can run 15:01.

Math Whiz wrote:

No, he didn't.

Here's a list of the top runners in the world at that

age...

http://www.mastersathletics.net/5000-metres-Men-Masters-Athletics-Worl.282.0.html

The talented Mr. Alfonso Ramirez would have been heard

of years ago if he could run sub 17:00 for 5km.

i was just starting to look that up when i saw your post.

is it possible the course was short? that could account for the fast time.

if not, i find it a little hard to believe.

if it helps the title of the Race is "not quite a 5k", so i doubt it is a 5k

he actually ran sub 16. the course was measured to be long by 200 meters.

booble wrote:

if it helps the title of the Race is "not quite a 5k", so i doubt it is a 5k

i did not see the title before i posted. i did look at the reults and suspect, like another poster, that the race was 2-3 minutes short. even so, that means his time would be about 19-20:15 which is still fast for a 62 year old man.

frankly, i would be suspicious too if i were the 2nd place finisher.

the story says the winner runs his training runs at 12 minute miles 12 minute miles to come in and run a 19-20 minute 5k? At the age of 62?

a google search of him does not reveal any other 5k results that i can find. that makes me wonder as well. it seems a little odd that he comes out of the woodwork to win some money under these circs.

it gives me pause, but whether he is the 5k william jurena, i dont know.

That masters list is obviously only taking into account track races. Theres plenty of vet 50s and 55s running 17.30 odd 5ks near me who are not on that list

figuring from the paces they give for the male and female overall times, the organizers of this 'not quite a 5k' appear to believe the course is 4585-4586 meters in length.

This distance also correlates with what one would expect the race winner, a multiple time D1 xc nationalss qualifier with PRs in the range of 14:00 and 29-29:10, to run in a low key summer race. His time converts to a 14:39 5k continuing at that same pace, making his effort worth probably 14:50ish.

This would mean, if you extrapolate the pace out to a full 5k, that this Ramirez guy would have run 17:55. Throw in a 20-30 second fudge factor for slowing down with the extra distance, and you're still under 18:30 had it been an actual 5k.

The article mentioned that he likely only ran 2 of 3 loops. If you figure that to be the case, his pace would put him at the full race distance in 24:37, or 26:52 5k pace, or 8:39/mile.

So which makes perfect sense?

-a 62 year old guy who no one's ever heard of that routinely runs approximately 12 minute pace for a morning jog suddenly racing a 'not quite a 5k' race at 5:58 pace

or

- a 62 year old guy who runs 12 minute miles for a morning jog running 8:39 pace for just over 3 kilometers and then quitting the race early, whether it was because he was confused, cheating, or simply trying to quit early, not realizing his time would be recorded (and has since decided to lie about it)

The math works out about perfectly for him having run just 2 of 3 laps.

I eagerly await to hear of the chip review and/or this Aug. 11th race.

I he's being doped by Lance Armstrong and his krew then I believe it. Otherwise ask for confirmation.

From the article:

"According to official race results, Ramirez averaged a little more than five minutes per mile - eclipsing the pace of former Olympic runner Jim Spivey, 47, and 38-year-old Bloomingdale resident Jerry Vondruska, who recently completed the Badwater 135 Ultramarathon."

He ran 2 laps is my guess. Intentional or not, I won't guess.

He may even think he did the whole race.

I saw the finish line, I finished!

What? 2 Laps? 3 Laps?

You don't expect to me to have to count laps, do you?

"I apologize to anyone I may have inconvenienced, but I now realize that I may not have run the last lap," Ramirez said this afternoon. "I had no intent of misleading anyone or cheating Mr. (Robert) Williams. I just thought I had run the race."

He ran two laps of a 3 lap race, that puts him around a 22-23 5K (if he could hold his pace for the last lap)

How does someone miscount laps when there is only 3?