Jim Walmsley/Western States has gotten more posts than all USA threads combined. Brojos remain silent.

comedyrelief wrote:

Kipchoge: Walmsley

Mile -3:50 4:04

3000 - 7:27 8:03

5000 - 12:46 13:52 (yes he is a 13:52 runner, it is consistent with his other performances at that distance)

10000 - 26:49 29:08

marathon - 2:03 maybe 2:12?

These guys should not be in the same conversation. You are completely delusional if you think Kipchoge or 300 other Kenyans and Ethiopians are not capable of doing what these ultra guys are doing. The main ingredient for running hills is being skinny, and the East Africans have that in spades. Walmsley and Jornet are outstanding in their little competitive bubble, but the pool of talent is so small. Don't insult the East Africans by saying some nobody (relative to their times across every other distance) can beat them, it makes you sound like a racist. You sound like some rich white golf player.

East Africans being successful in ultras, I will believe it when I see it. They don't even have made an impact at the Comrades Marathon.

Again you show your lack of understanding of the sport. We don't care if you didn't run your first marathon until you were 42 and suffered with cramps. Jim showed very little of special greatness and talent in cross country at the NCAA level. Steeple and 5km yes, but so did Max King and he is not going under 15 hours at Western States anytime soon. At least Max has shown he can be a consistent 2:14 marathoner. And comparing Jim to Nick Arciniaga? I see no comparison. Arciniaga doesn't run ultras and it appears he did not debut with a sub 2:16 marathon despite eventually running 2:11. A quick Google search reveals Arciniaga didn't break 14:20 for 5km in college. He is a grinder and a more stamina based runner. Until Jim runs a certified road marathon or half with good competition everything you have projected is based off of total speculation. It is doubtful this will happen in the near future. Walmsley's body of work needs to be looked at in these kinds of projections and at least we have UltraSignUp for that. From 2014 to 2015 he was a somewhat mediocre top ultra runner finishing off the podium and not running near course record times. It wasn't until 2016 that he suddenly "caught fire"https://ultrasignup.com/results_participant.aspx?fname=Jim&lname=Walmsley

So a 13:52 is now worth a 13:30 and a 28:00? That is awesome. Was the 29:08 he ran two weeks later really a 27:30? If that is the case we all need to revise our PRs and most of us are really world class. They time races for a reason. And sorry to break it to you, but 3 inches is really 3", not 10".

treadmill wrote:

The real irony here is that Jim fan boys like you think Kipchoge and all the actual sub 2:08 marathon runners don't have what it takes to smash a record at Western States/100-miles because they don't have the stamina/endurance - whereas you reason that Jim smashes the record at Western States is because he is the fastest 5km track runner in the field and has a special ultra long distance gift. If you are going to extrapolate up in distance at least use actual marathon performances that are 1/4 of the race distance and times to make these wild guesses. Why on earth would a fast 3km/5km track time correlate better to a potential Western States 100 compared to a road marathon time?

Let me try again to explain this, because for some reason it isn't getting through. Literally no one who is defending Walmsley thinks there are no 2:08 marathoners who could beat him. We're saying that a 2:08 marathon by itself is not sufficient to prove that a person could beat Walmsley. We're also not saying Walmsley could automatically drop down to marathons and start destroying every body.

I'm glad someone brought up the MMA/boxing analogy earlier because it's actually a great analogue. Back when UFC started in the 90's it was the niche event that was dominated by your BJJ guys like Royce Gracie that had a skill set that no one else knew how to deal with, even if they were bigger/stronger/faster etc. These were like the pure mountain/trail guys that were so dominant in early ultras. Meanwhile, the fans of the "pure" combative sports like boxing and wrestling dismissed MMA as a sideshow of amateurs.

Then Chuck Liddell came along and showed what was possible when someone that could actually throw a punch figured out enough of the grappling stuff to just start destroying folks. I don't if you guys are old enough to remember the Iceman in his prime, but it was captivating. He was so entertaining, even to people who hadn't been MMA fans. He sort of showed what was possible in the sport with someone with the strength and speed of a boxer. Now imagine how dumb it would be if someone just scoffed at Liddell and said, "I not only refuse to be entertained by this, but I choose to spend my time openly mocking people who are entertained by this, because I think that Chuck Liddell is not as talented as a boxer, and if a true boxer (or wrestler) got into MMA, they would kill him."

As it turns out, that's exactly what happened. Liddell rocketed UFC into the mainstream and attracted a whole new breed of fighter: guys that are absolute physical beasts who also have the grappling skills that made the BJJ so successful in the early years. Now are there guys who are still boxing who could dominate MMA if they decided to change over? Almost definitely. Could every single guy who is a top tier boxer also be successful at MMA? Absolutely not. It's a different but similar sport.

That's what Walmsley is. He's the Chuck Liddell of ultra running. He's showing what's possible when you take someone with the raw physical talent and let them figure out the extra stuff that made the previous generation so successful. He's incredible to watch right now, and he seems to just be on another level than everyone else. Rather than diminish his achievements and harp on his mediocre college marks, why would you not be rooting for him and hoping he attracts all of those "real runners" into the sport who can start showing what is possible?

treadmill wrote:

love the speculation that Walms could "run a 2:11-2:12 marathon." He hasn't done anything to demonstrate that and it is unlikely will not run a competitive road event at a major marathon or half.

Was he tested after Western States even?

First you keep saying he's not any good, and then you ask if he's tested, apparently because he's so good.

Make up your mind.

And here's a news flash for you, psuedoscientific worthless drugs do NOT make great runners.

All the drug and testing BS is simply that, nothing but BS, and is destructive to athletics.

The probability of the WS course being rupp-certified is approximately 0.0.

comedyrelief wrote:

So a 13:52 is now worth a 13:30 and a 28:00? That is awesome. Was the 29:08 he ran two weeks later really a 27:30? If that is the case we all need to revise our PRs and most of us are really world class. They time races for a reason. And sorry to break it to you, but 3 inches is really 3", not 10".

Not all 13:52s are worth 13:30 - very few are. That particular 13:52 though is worth 13:30 for the reasons I've noted. I wasn't the first guy to say that either. Someone else said 13:30 first after Ackley shared the link to the video in the Walmsley marathon speculation thread, just based on watching the video and going off running intuition and logic. My first thought/intuition was it was surely worth 13:3x. Then I took the additional step of using some calculations to putting more solid numbers to it. And it turned out to be worth about 13:30.

Look at it as scouting talent. Only the simplest mind would be blind to everything but finish times. That is a hobby jogger mindset, not a track fan mindset. When the NBA and NFL scout talent, it's not just the numbers a player puts up, it's how they do it and who they do it with.

A 13:30 is worth a 28:05. The races are similar enough that he surely could have gone 28:low. That he didn't is a matter of opportunity and circumstances. Like I pointed out earlier, once went 21 1500 races of 3:40s and 3:50s between sub-3:40s. He has a PR of 3:30. That's racing. Only hobby joggers think you should be within a handful of seconds of your max potential in every race.

*Centrowitz* got accidentally cut from a sentence there.

Geez, could talking about Jim's track 5k get anymore boring than this? Can we have him back and appreciate his running over trails in big mile weeks. Starting to regret giving him to letsrun..

The ultra running community

I started to write out a response to this but then I realized your post is so dumb that no response is needed as it speaks for itself.

Don't speak. You sound like a moran.

Here is where Jim ran 29:08, but that converts to a 28 flat in your mind right? What do your special needs calculations convert it to?

https://www.flotrack.org/events/5006299-2012-mt-sac-relays/videos?limit=42&playing=5380149

what are you smoking wrote:

Here is where Jim ran 29:08, but that converts to a 28 flat in your mind right? What do your special needs calculations convert it to?

https://www.flotrack.org/events/5006299-2012-mt-sac-relays/videos?limit=42&playing=5380149

Damn, you speak and you sound like a moran. Where did I convert a 29:08 to a 28:00? Pointing out slow performances doesn't mean anything when ascertaining talent. Centrowitz can run 1500m races in the 3:50s, 11-12% slower than his PR. It means nothing. That's the way some races go in terms of pacing/tactics, and runner is not in top shape, or a combination. Runners are not in top shape MOST OF TIME.

zzzz wrote:

what are you smoking wrote:

Here is where Jim ran 29:08, but that converts to a 28 flat in your mind right? What do your special needs calculations convert it to?

https://www.flotrack.org/events/5006299-2012-mt-sac-relays/videos?limit=42&playing=5380149

Damn, you speak and you sound like a moran. Where did I convert a 29:08 to a 28:00? Pointing out slow performances doesn't mean anything when ascertaining talent. Centrowitz can run 1500m races in the 3:50s, 11-12% slower than his PR. It means nothing. That's the way some races go in terms of pacing/tactics, and runner is not in top shape, or a combination. Runners are not in top shape MOST OF TIME.

Keep talking your only helping my point.

Um no. Regardless how he ran 13:52, that 13:52 and 13:30 are worlds apart. Once you get under 14 you can spend your entire career just trying to improve by a few seconds and once you do it is a huge accomplishment. 13:45 and 13:52 are very different times, 13:52 and 13:30 don't belong in the same conversation. That is a 7 second per mile improvement, that is a huge gap at that level.

What's your point? Do you even watch track meets?

another runner wrote:

Um no. Regardless how he ran 13:52, that 13:52 and 13:30 are worlds apart. Once you get under 14 you can spend your entire career just trying to improve by a few seconds and once you do it is a huge accomplishment. 13:45 and 13:52 are very different times, 13:52 and 13:30 don't belong in the same conversation. That is a 7 second per mile improvement, that is a huge gap at that level.

Of course a 13:52 is worlds apart from a 13:30. I've been a track fan since the '80s, I know. I'm not talking about improvement. Needing improvement to get to 13:30 from 13:52 would be a guy tops out at 13:52 in a race that is even paced and run in lane one because it's strung out. That's not the case in Walmsley's race. What others and I see is a 13:30 ability runner in that race that very day, not needing improvement to get to 13:30. Just being in the right (fastest) heat would have done it that night. Like the other morans, you totally ignore the absolutely free 9 seconds from running in lane two for half the race, even if you don't understand how pacing works.

Have you ever run under 14 minutes?

zzzz wrote:

That suggests that the 13:52 was really worth a 13:39.