Coconino forest wrote:
50 D1 runners that could do that workout? I was thinking more like 150, at least.
Anyway, just a workout, let’s see what he can run.
40 guys broke 30 minutes at xc nationals. I would say those guys would have a chance at 104 half.
The difference is that NONE of them have the Western States 100 mile course record.
Workouts don't mean anything without the training context in which they are done?
Here's one -- 3 x 1 mile @ 4:48, 4:43, 4:42, 5 min jog between.
What kind of fitness does this indicate?
Quite Goes the Crowd wrote:
Wonder what all the Jim haters will say now that Jim easily ran under 1:04:00, especially late in a workout with little rest between reps.
Let’s hear it....
1:04 isn't remotely world class. A dozen men can beat that time by more than a mile! Many hundreds can beat it by lesser amounts. Probably a few dozen ncaa kids that can beat it off of 10k training.
At least, I'm guessing those will be the things they'll say.
So out of tens of millions of runners and billions of people, you bring up less than 1,000 people who can run that time...yet dont consider it world class??? Seriously?
Even after an athlete runs a race, we still don't know their fitness. Maybe they had a bad taper or poor pacing or whatever. What a runner is capable of is always a guessing game.
When you are looking at workouts, you don't know how fatigued they were going in and you don't know how difficult the effort was. But what is done in a workout at least sets a vague minimum.
Walmsley's workouts aren't really proving he can run sub 1:04 the way a 1:01 runner's workouts would. But they aren't proving he can't. Seems like most people think he needs to benefit a lot from tapering, but it is unknown how much he will benefit. His fans praise his ability to recover quickly but are simultaneously banking on the fact that he's not well recovered for his workouts.
Your example workout, I'm not familiar with taking more rest than the duration of a rep for something as long as mile repeats. So I wouldn't normally bother commenting. Sub 4:30 mile I guess.
Not A Therapist.. wrote:
So out of tens of millions of runners and billions of people, you bring up less than 1,000 people who can run that time...yet dont consider it world class??? Seriously?
Fewer than...
But yes, I consider "world class" to be a time that has an outside chance of making a world's team. That kind of seems like the obvious definition, IMO: possibly making it to the level of world competition.
I would instead consider his time to be national class. I find it impressive, but that doesn't matter, it is running, the times are exactly what they are, no more, no less.
1:04 would have been world class 40 years ago, but competition has improved since then.
Tl;dr: world class = chance of making a team to compete on the world stage. Barely qualifying for a national level race doesn't cut it.
Of course it is speculation wrote:
Even after an athlete runs a race, we still don't know their fitness. Maybe they had a bad taper or poor pacing or whatever. What a runner is capable of is always a guessing game.
When you are looking at workouts, you don't know how fatigued they were going in and you don't know how difficult the effort was. But what is done in a workout at least sets a vague minimum.
Walmsley's workouts aren't really proving he can run sub 1:04 the way a 1:01 runner's workouts would. But they aren't proving he can't. Seems like most people think he needs to benefit a lot from tapering, but it is unknown how much he will benefit. His fans praise his ability to recover quickly but are simultaneously banking on the fact that he's not well recovered for his workouts.
Your example workout, I'm not familiar with taking more rest than the duration of a rep for something as long as mile repeats. So I wouldn't normally bother commenting. Sub 4:30 mile I guess.
2:09:55.
20 days and 13 hours.
Can't wait until Walmsley gets shown his place.
Not a Walmsley fanboy wrote:
blah blah whine whine
It's the Walmsley fanboy fanboy again.
Not a Walmsley fanboy wrote:
20 days and 13 hours.
Can't wait until Walmsley gets shown his place.
/
First?
Walms is as sly as a fox ?. Could he go sub 1:02 ? Definitely ! Will he? No. Guy wants to slide into the OTs under the radar ; not on anyone’s chart , then take off and make folks catch him . It’s a master plan . Rupp will chase him but NYC marathon was a glimpse of what will happen in Atlanta ....Ward, Derrick , Biwott and Fauble all running together in 2:12 pace . If Walms stays away he goes to Tokyo ,
Master plan? Yeah, right until he started bragging about it in interviews and social media.
Didn't Walmsley say he would try for a sub 1:03 half to see if it was worth his time to invest in the training to try to make the Team?
No, he has this fantasy of making his marathon debut at the OTs, in which he goes out hard but nobody follows because they underestimate him for being an ultrarunner, and he surprises everyone and beats them.
He's explained this several times in podcasts and interviews. He was probably beating off during some of them, too.
That's why he chose to qualify with a half. As he said, he could easily run under 63'.
We'll see how he does at OTs, if he qualifies. Plenty of ultra guys and gals have run OTs before him, so I'm not sure what the big deal is.
Not a Walmsley fanboy wrote:
20 days and 13 hours.
Can't wait until Walmsley gets shown his place.
You're counting down and "can't wait" until something doesn't happen? What's your obsession with Walmsley? You're creepy dude.
Range on the range is useless without fuel..... wrote:
40 guys broke 30 minutes at xc nationals. I would say those guys would have a chance at 104 half.
The difference is that NONE of them have the Western States 100 mile course record.
That’s because nobody cares about ultra race walking. If ultras had the level of competition of women’s field hockey, then maybe more people would care. There is not enough competition for it to be considered anything but a fringe sport for hermits.
joedirt wrote:
Range on the range is useless without fuel..... wrote:
40 guys broke 30 minutes at xc nationals. I would say those guys would have a chance at 104 half.
The difference is that NONE of them have the Western States 100 mile course record.
That’s because nobody cares about ultra race walking. If ultras had the level of competition of women’s field hockey, then maybe more people would care. There is not enough competition for it to be considered anything but a fringe sport for hermits.
If you didn't care about ultra race walking, you wouldn't be posting on page 6 of this thread.
Mizuno fanboy wrote:
No, he has this fantasy of making his marathon debut at the OTs, in which he goes out hard but nobody follows because they underestimate him for being an ultrarunner, and he surprises everyone and beats them.
I'm predicting a 2:01 at the Trials!
workout wally wrote:
Of course it is speculation wrote:
Even after an athlete runs a race, we still don't know their fitness. Maybe they had a bad taper or poor pacing or whatever. What a runner is capable of is always a guessing game.
When you are looking at workouts, you don't know how fatigued they were going in and you don't know how difficult the effort was. But what is done in a workout at least sets a vague minimum.
Walmsley's workouts aren't really proving he can run sub 1:04 the way a 1:01 runner's workouts would. But they aren't proving he can't. Seems like most people think he needs to benefit a lot from tapering, but it is unknown how much he will benefit. His fans praise his ability to recover quickly but are simultaneously banking on the fact that he's not well recovered for his workouts.
Your example workout, I'm not familiar with taking more rest than the duration of a rep for something as long as mile repeats. So I wouldn't normally bother commenting. Sub 4:30 mile I guess.
2:09:55.
So it was just cruising some easy miles with full recovery during taper for a marathon to keep sharp?
I don't get why you're so pessimistic about joining in the discussion to put together as many pieces of the puzzle in order to guess what a guy will run. I don't understand why you come to this thread just to tell us we're not omniscient. If you're not into it, don't participate. We know we can't actually predict what someone will run.
At least with Walmsley we actually do have quite a bit of context. A lot more than you gave, where you didn't tell me current PR's or how far out from the race the workout was or even what event it was. But what's funny about Walmsley's situation is that it IS weird. While we can put together quite a lot of context, he's still approaching the race in a unique way. So it's fun to hear how people think it'll turn out.
If it's not fun or interesting to you because we don't have the full picture, you have to understand that informing everyone else that we don't have the full picture isn't going to deter us. It's fun anyway. Or it's especially fun because of that.
dunes runner wrote:
I'm predicting a 2:01 at the Trials!
For the Half Marathon? Maybe.
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these