Way to go out on a limb with a bold prediction.
seasoned ranker wrote:
He won't make the Olympic Team, though.
Way to go out on a limb with a bold prediction.
seasoned ranker wrote:
He won't make the Olympic Team, though.
You guys dont get it wrote:
Walmsley isn't even a real ultra runner. Dude only has done a few 100's. He only picks races he can win easy or where he stands to profit. He's not doing it for the love of the mountains or to run beyond his limits. He'll never win UTMB, he'll never run races like Tor or multi day races or do any long routes such as Nolan's. He is in it purely for his ego and is scared of real ultra's which is why he chokes at places like UTMB. Most real ultra runners don't even like Walmsley, his fans are all the recent bandwagon fat ultra hobby joggers that can't even imagine running a single 6min mile. Just go look at the comments from his fans where they are like '6min pace on that terrain, I can't even! OMG!' Their fat asses never can barely muster a 8min pace tempo.
Real ultra runners know Kilian is the truth. You don't see Kilian saying he's going to try to qualify for the olympics because he doesn't give a sh*t. He loves what he does and doesn't have a fragile ego. When he dropped from UTMB this year he was like 'oh well' and moved on, he didn't wallow in pity like a little b*tch and then decide he needs to prove himself to a bunch of nobodies online. He doesn't choose races purely on how much he stands to gain monetarily. He's a true ultra runner because he loves to challenge himself in toughest terrain available.
It must be horrible going through life so bitter, jealous and angry. Bless you.
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
dsafrt wrote:
Walms is not affected by weather.
Post of the day stuff right here!
I can't stop laughing at this.
R2R2R Grand canyon FKT on a very cold day.
Western states win and course record on a very hot day.
Jim Walmsley has proven he can run fast in temps between 25 and 105 degrees F.
Hotlanta:2020: 1) Rupp 2) Walms 3) Meb wrote:
Has he come out and said what his goal is for the race? (I don't follow any social media crap - GET OFF MY LAWN, DAMN KIDS - so I apologize if he's posted and I missed it)
Only to qualify. I haven't seen anywhere that he has a certain time as a goal other than sub 1:04.
The weather looks damn near perfect... wind between 5-10, temps around 35.
nbskis wrote:
The weather looks damn near perfect... wind between 5-10, temps around 35.
On what planet is 35° and windy perfect? Or were you being facetious?
forecast calls for 7mph wind. i think if you stood out in 7mph you would not call it windy. 35 is a little colder than perfect but not much. everything considered, it is a forecast that should be encouraging to most runners. walmsley has been training in a colder location. i think 35 will be comfortable for him and the cold will not inhibit his performance much
the race starts at 7:00 and sunrise is at 7:17 and the forecast does not predict clouds. so the sun will balance out the cold air anyway
Why are they starting so early? This is not August, right?
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Chevron Houston Marathon & Aramco Houston Half Marathon
Start at Congress & San Jacinto
6:50 a.m. Marathon & Half Marathon Wheelchair Start
7:01 a.m. Marathon & Half Marathon Start
RunFest presented by Michelob Ultra
Charity & Running Club Village
Discovery Green, Jones Lawn
5:00 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.
Runner 223 wrote:
Why are they starting so early? This is not August, right?
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Chevron Houston Marathon & Aramco Houston Half Marathon
7:01 a.m. Marathon & Half Marathon Start
.
Jim has a breakfast reservation at 8:02.
malmo wrote:
nbskis wrote:
The weather looks damn near perfect... wind between 5-10, temps around 35.
On what planet is 35° and windy perfect? Or were you being facetious?
5-10 mph is not windy, 5 you wouldn't notice and 10 is a light-gentle breeze. 35 degrees is just slightly below perfect running temps for fast runners. It feels cold but physiologically produces the best results. No one can use weather as an excuse tomorrow if they run subpar.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037407http://gyre.umeoce.maine.edu/data/gomoos/buoy/php/variable_description.php?variable=wind_2_speednbskis wrote:
malmo wrote:
On what planet is 35° and windy perfect? Or were you being facetious?
5-10 mph is not windy, 5 you wouldn't notice and 10 is a light-gentle breeze. 35 degrees is just slightly below perfect running temps for fast runners. It feels cold but physiologically produces the best results. No one can use weather as an excuse tomorrow if they run subpar.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037407http://gyre.umeoce.maine.edu/data/gomoos/buoy/php/variable_description.php?variable=wind_2_speed
Yes, nearly ideal conditions tomorrow.
nbskis wrote:
5-10 mph is not windy, 5 you wouldn't notice and 10 is a light-gentle breeze. 35 degrees is just slightly below perfect running temps for fast runners. It feels cold but physiologically produces the best results. No one can use weather as an excuse tomorrow if they run subpar.
You people are living on another planet (and that's not necessarily an insult). You WANT the conditions to be ideal tomorrow because a ton of fast runners are on the line in four different races and great weather would produce great results (and wouldn't we all like to see that).
But ask yourself this (and I'm not saying it's a perfect question, only a useful one):
If you heard the predicted weather for the Berlin Marathon on race eve was 35 Fahrenheit with 5 to 10-mph winds -- and believe me, I've seen worse -- would you be calling that close to ideal?
I ran my PR (not on par with what we're talking about here) in nearly identical conditions in Boston in November. I was quite comfortable in shorts, singlet and gloves once moving. Yes, I want it to to be fast, but empirically these conditions should produce. Sure, it could be 5 degrees warmer and dead flat wind and those would be perfect conditions, but we're not talking about more than a few seconds over the course of the race due to conditions.
nbskis wrote:
... we're not talking about more than a few seconds over the course of the race due to conditions.
You think you have this that well pegged? I'm not faulting you for suggesting the conditions are at least decent (hell, this'll be cake compared to Boston last spring) but I'm pretty sure declaring that the conditions will cost the runners "a few seconds over the course of the race," or roughly 3.6 seconds in a race lasting about 3600 seconds, amounts to saying the weather will cost the athletes about 1/10th of 1 percent compared to perfection (NOTE: My math isn't the best). While I'm certainly no astrophysicist, this is a lot like saying "The universe is exactly 13.9 billion years old, give or take a century" when no one can possibly be sure of such a thing.
(I may have misunderstood you -- perhaps you meant "a few seconds PER MILE," which is probably accurate. But it doesn't read that way [at least not to me {and God knows I suck at reading}].)
(Pardon my apologetic asides) wrote:
nbskis wrote:
... we're not talking about more than a few seconds over the course of the race due to conditions.
You think you have this that well pegged? I'm not faulting you for suggesting the conditions are at least decent (hell, this'll be cake compared to Boston last spring) but I'm pretty sure declaring that the conditions will cost the runners "a few seconds over the course of the race," or roughly 3.6 seconds in a race lasting about 3600 seconds, amounts to saying the weather will cost the athletes about 1/10th of 1 percent compared to perfection (NOTE: My math isn't the best). While I'm certainly no astrophysicist, this is a lot like saying "The universe is exactly 13.9 billion years old, give or take a century" when no one can possibly be sure of such a thing.
(I may have misunderstood you -- perhaps you meant "a few seconds PER MILE," which is probably accurate. But it doesn't read that way [at least not to me {and God knows I suck at reading}].)
My only point, and this is a stupid argument that I'm done having after this post, is that weather is not a factor that should be used as an excuse for runners tomorrow, assuming the forecast holds as currently predicted. It's a pancake flat course with an abundance of fast runners - nearly identical conditions to CIM in many ways. The weather is looking better than NYC or Boston on most years, probably better than Chicago on average as well. I'm not going to try to extrapolate the difference between perfect conditions in a lab and the weather tomorrow in terms of effect on pace, but it's about as close to nil as you're gonna get.
(Pardon my apologetic asides) wrote:
nbskis wrote:
... we're not talking about more than a few seconds over the course of the race due to conditions.
You think you have this that well pegged? I'm not faulting you for suggesting the conditions are at least decent (hell, this'll be cake compared to Boston last spring) but I'm pretty sure declaring that the conditions will cost the runners "a few seconds over the course of the race," or roughly 3.6 seconds in a race lasting about 3600 seconds, amounts to saying the weather will cost the athletes about 1/10th of 1 percent compared to perfection (NOTE: My math isn't the best). While I'm certainly no astrophysicist, this is a lot like saying "The universe is exactly 13.9 billion years old, give or take a century" when no one can possibly be sure of such a thing.
(I may have misunderstood you -- perhaps you meant "a few seconds PER MILE," which is probably accurate. But it doesn't read that way [at least not to me {and God knows I suck at reading}].)
You're kind of a shlt person aren't you?
My calculations put the time lost due to weather at 4.734 seconds. While the temperature won't actually inhibit the speed of the runners, the energy needed to blow snot rockets because of the bronchial response to the cold dry air will surely expend energy that could be used to fuel the runners muscles.
nbskis wrote:
malmo wrote:
On what planet is 35° and windy perfect? Or were you being facetious?
5-10 mph is not windy, 5 you wouldn't notice and 10 is a light-gentle breeze. 35 degrees is just slightly below perfect running temps for fast runners. It feels cold but physiologically produces the best results. No one can use weather as an excuse tomorrow if they run subpar.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037407http://gyre.umeoce.maine.edu/data/gomoos/buoy/php/variable_description.php?variable=wind_2_speed
The data in that study says optimal temperature for marathons is 10c, which is 50f (about what I would have guessed).
35f is not slightly colder it's a lot colder. Seriously, have you ever been a competitive marathoner?
Weather
Houston, TX
Sunday 6:00 AM
Clear
Clear
34
°C | °F
Precipitation: 0%
Humidity: 69%
Wind: 11 mph
We are ready to watch the things to unfold.
http://www.chevronhoustonmarathon.com/race-weekend/spectator-info/
Temps are at 2 degrees Celsius.
Optimal is between 7-10 Celsius.
Stop using Fahrenheit. It’s odd.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Clayton Murphy is giving some great insight into his training.
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC