Who are some of the unknowns that might place relatively high at TNF 50? Guys who don't have the track credentials, or don't have the ultra credentials, but you think will be top 10?
Should I do an all-time time machine 50M trail race at the end of the year?
seems plausible wrote:
That's his level. 14:32 is pretty consistent with the 31+ 10K that he ran a while back.
Wasn't that 31+ 10K also the week before Western States 100? You can't tell me that was a max effort run.
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
seems plausible wrote:
That's his level. 14:32 is pretty consistent with the 31+ 10K that he ran a while back.
Wasn't that 31+ 10K also the week before Western States 100? You can't tell me that was a max effort run.
Once again the excuses continue. Guys like Rupp ran the Olympic 10000 final (much faster than 31 minutes) within a few days the Olympic marathon.
yeah. wrote:
Seems fast but it is only worth about 14:54 on a flat course.
Then you have to remember that he was at 8000 ft, so then again the flat
course at a lower elevation is worth about 14:32 at sea level.
All that aside I think he will have a pretty good run at TNF 50, there is
only so much that can go wrong for him in 6 hours (outside of getting lost).
Elden is over 9200' and the road is gravel.
Moby Dick wrote:
I'm not buying it. (1) It's based on GPS. Never accurate. (2) Even worse, anyone have a Fenix 3 or newer? Garmin, Suunto, etc, have enabled what's called "3D Speed and Distance." Means for every foot you run down, you get a foot of "distance" in addition to the distance you run. He didn't run a full distance 5k in 13:34 is all I'm saying. So, not only did he run that 13:34 downhill, but it's not 3.1 miles.
Agreed, this seems fishy. Even if it converts to 14:32, I can't imagine it was on straight, smooth road. So it probably converts to about 14:20 on a track at sea level. I imagine Walmsley can do that. But this wasn't a time trial. He was 8 miles into his run and had just run UP the mountain that he ran down so fast. And most importantly, he was running hard for more than 5k. His 9th mile was 5:03 (and the first tenth was uphill), and his 13th mile was 4:44. I imagine his stretch of running at this pace was more like 4.5 miles. Seems like a lot. Do we know he didn't stop his watch? Could this have been intervals?
automorphic wrote:
Moby Dick wrote:
I'm not buying it. (1) It's based on GPS. Never accurate. (2) Even worse, anyone have a Fenix 3 or newer? Garmin, Suunto, etc, have enabled what's called "3D Speed and Distance." Means for every foot you run down, you get a foot of "distance" in addition to the distance you run. He didn't run a full distance 5k in 13:34 is all I'm saying. So, not only did he run that 13:34 downhill, but it's not 3.1 miles.
Agreed, this seems fishy. Even if it converts to 14:32, I can't imagine it was on straight, smooth road. So it probably converts to about 14:20 on a track at sea level. I imagine Walmsley can do that. But this wasn't a time trial. He was 8 miles into his run and had just run UP the mountain that he ran down so fast. And most importantly, he was running hard for more than 5k. His 9th mile was 5:03 (and the first tenth was uphill), and his 13th mile was 4:44. I imagine his stretch of running at this pace was more like 4.5 miles. Seems like a lot. Do we know he didn't stop his watch? Could this have been intervals?
I don’t know about the 13:34, but the downhill 5.4 mile segment on Strava shows he did run that at 4:44/mi pace. He ran a bit quicker downhill at the Kendall Mountain Run last year, which is above 10,000 feet. I believe he ran the downhill at 4:36/mi pace. So, I don’t think it’s all that fishy, and definitely within his abilities.
There is nothing fishy going on.
It's just downhill and it's Strava data which means it's generated by GPS information.
That is not accurate on any level.
Walmsley ran that 31:31 in 100+ conditions in Phoenix! He is definitely a 28 mid on the track and a 2:11 marathoner if he were to concentrate on shorter races. What an immense talent! Overated? Get real!
Vinnyemelda wrote:
Walmsley ran that 31:31 in 100+ conditions in Phoenix! He is definitely a 28 mid on the track and a 2:11 marathoner if he were to concentrate on shorter races. What an immense talent! Overated? Get real!
5/10. Not bad, not bad! That is what his idiotic supporters sound like.
Based upon the practices leading up to his last race, he was supposed to destroy his last race and it was a dud.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=8948649&thread=8948355#8948649
You all are sittin' here talkin' bout practice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGDBR2L5kzI
One has to wonder if it is his he or his agent that starts these threads to hype up this fringe sport.
seems plausible wrote:
Vinnyemelda wrote:
Walmsley ran that 31:31 in 100+ conditions in Phoenix! He is definitely a 28 mid on the track and a 2:11 marathoner if he were to concentrate on shorter races. What an immense talent! Overated? Get real!
5/10. Not bad, not bad! That is what his idiotic supporters sound like.
Exactly. His fanboys have no clue.
Walmsley is totally overrated. Yes he is faster than most but that's all.
At the end only results matter not "could have, should have's".
Vinnyemelda wrote:
Walmsley ran that 31:31 in 100+ conditions in Phoenix! He is definitely a 28 mid on the track and a 2:11 marathoner if he were to concentrate on shorter races. What an immense talent! Overated? Get real!
I love how he gets road racer's panties in a bunch, it's amazing. He's looney enough to redline at Western States, for...100 miles..
He won't redline for an OTQ? Get serious..
uncle buncle wrote:
yeah. wrote:
Seems fast but it is only worth about 14:54 on a flat course.
Then you have to remember that he was at 8000 ft, so then again the flat
course at a lower elevation is worth about 14:32 at sea level.
All that aside I think he will have a pretty good run at TNF 50, there is
only so much that can go wrong for him in 6 hours (outside of getting lost).
Elden is over 9200' and the road is gravel.
Maybe you need to actually look at the file. He starts his 5k section on Lookout Rd at 8222 ft and drops down to 7384. This is not a trail with a ton of switch backs during this segment nor is it 9200 ft. This is a wide dirt road.
yeah. wrote:
Maybe you need to actually look at the file. He starts his 5k section on Lookout Rd at 8222 ft and drops down to 7384. This is not a trail with a ton of switch backs during this segment nor is it 9200 ft. This is a wide dirt road.
That's 830ft of elevation loss over 5k.
Not exactly a certified course.
Not a Walmsley fanboy wrote:
Exactly. His fanboys have no clue.
Walmsley is totally overrated. Yes he is faster than most but that's all.
At the end only results matter not "could have, should have's".
Is he “overrated”? Seems like he gets more hate than love. And isn’t he “rated” as just a top ultrarunner? And isn’t he a top ultra runner? People predict him to win some ultras that he has not won, is that unusual? Name a race where everyone only predicts the correct winner? He has won races. He has lost. He has dnf’d. He’s faster than your typical ultra runner, slower than an elite marathon runner. That’s about it. He can win the TNF 50 and if you had to bet a lot of your own money on that race it would be wise to consider puttting it on him, especially considering the distance.
Reality checker wrote:
There is nothing fishy going on.
It's just downhill and it's Strava data which means it's generated by GPS information.
That is not accurate on any level.
GPS data will sometimes be crazy. I once went for a jog in a rainstorm and it was really cloudy and while I was only jogging at a 8 minute pace it recorded some of my mile splits as sub 6 minute pace.
Looking at the track, gps actually looks pretty good for the 5k section. It is just that he is dropping 838 ft on a wide dirt road. As noted above, probably worth 14:32 on the flats and at sea level. Seems inline with what he might be able to do.
yeah. wrote:
Looking at the track, gps actually looks pretty good for the 5k section. It is just that he is dropping 838 ft on a wide dirt road. As noted above, probably worth 14:32 on the flats and at sea level. Seems inline with what he might be able to do.
I see what you're saying, but at the same time, looking at the incline...He did do that after just climbing like 2,200 feet in about 3 miles....So on fresh legs and on flat/sea level....who knows.
STRAVA RACERS ARE NOT RUPP-CERTIFIED
The guys 5k PR is from 2012 and is 13:52.87. If you think he is capable of faster than that when he has done no specific training for track racing, you are delusional.