Walmsley runs 1:04:00. Does that make it?

Still qualified.

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

Takinadump wrote:

Lmaoooo 1:04 exact? What happened to Jim winning the race? You know the last mile he was balls to the wall for sure to make sure he made it and the last K or so was only 4:48 pace so he very clearly didn't have a full tank left in him. This was not a troll 1:04 he wouldn't risk it like that. The ultra lovers on this board are ridiculous. Now we have to suffer through months of these idiots saying that Jim will make the Olympic team when he clearly has no shot of even being within 5 minutes of the winner.

Feel fee to post your half PR and your 100 mile trail PR.

I agree with the first guy. The 1:04 was all he had and he has zero chance at the Olympic team. And it will be annoying listening to people talk about a very slow runner.

Me half PR is 63:05 and 100 mile PR is 14:00:48 That is 14 hours and 48 seconds. Both of which smoke your boy.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

I agree with the first guy. The 1:04 was all he had and he has zero chance at the Olympic team. And it will be annoying listening to people talk about a very slow runner.

Me half PR is 63:05 and 100 mile PR is 14:00:48 That is 14 hours and 48 seconds. Both of which smoke your boy.

I am in agreement with this. Jim Walmsley is a fast runner but not the fastest runner who ever did an ultramarathon.

Nice HM PR. 100 miles is probably from a 24 hour split on roads which is impossible to compare with trail races.

My PRs: HM 1:28 and 100 miles 16:40ies something as a split as well.

Better Than Wamsley wrote:

I beat Wamsley but no one knows me, I'm like a ghost sneaking around in the walls

What was your time at UTMB?

fasterrrrr wrote:

it's nearly 92% AG

What is AG?

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

Jim's LetsRun post-race interview below:

On a positive note, I gave the 65th positive.

abrevia wrote:

What is AG?

Aging guy

What was even more impressive is that I calculated Jim's split 30:20 plus 1:40 (.555K @ 15:07 5k pace) and it came out exactly 32:00. That means he EXACTLY even split a race he EXACTLY hit the Olympic qualifying time.

Ok, the haters on here are hilarious. No runner anywhere exemplifies go big or go home more than this guy.

His sträva shows 5,000 miles in the last year and nearly, wait for it, 1 million vertical feet.

And then he drops a 1:04 just for sport.

If you need to be a hater, hate Tom Brady. Walmsley is just an extraordinary talent doing really cool ****.

Walmsley Runs Faster Than You wrote:

Ok, the haters on here are hilarious. No runner anywhere exemplifies go big or go home more than this guy.

His sträva shows 5,000 miles in the last year and nearly, wait for it, 1 million vertical feet.

And then he drops a 1:04 just for sport.

If you need to be a hater, hate Tom Brady. Walmsley is just an extraordinary talent doing really cool ****.

Yup, the haters here are hilarious and ridiculous. I like to think the running world is probably a bell curve when it comes to their opinions of Jim Walmsley and this performance. It looks something like this:

-5% of people who follow running -- "Jim Walmsley is the greatest runner of our generation, and he could challenge Kipchoge if he put all his energy into road marathons. All Hail Walmsley!"

-90% of people who follow running -- "Jim Walmsley is clearly an extraordinary talent with incredible range. It's cool to see someone go all in on something. Good for him. Looking forward to watching what he does over the next couple years."

-5% of people who follow running -- "Jim Walmsley is slow. He has no chance of making the team, so why are we talking about him? Are you impressed by someone who can run 8:30 miles all day? Are you impressed by someone whose half marathon PR couldn't even break the top 25 on Sunday? Dude is a hobby jogging chump."

Unfortunately, those top and bottom 5%s are incredibly loud and obnoxious, and the middle 90% doesn't care enough to chime in.

Of course, if we're being honest with ourselves, 99% of people would probably ask, "Who is Jim Walmsley?" But of those who know who he is, I think the above is probably pretty close to accurate.

just that bad wrote:

Takinadump wrote:

Now we have to suffer through months of these idiots saying that Jim will make the Olympic team when he clearly has no shot of even being within 5 minutes of the winner.

In the trials, he wouldn't be within 5:00 of the winner.

Not really a problem. Rupp runs a 2:08, and Walms runs a 2:13. Probably good for 2nd the way things are looking.

azeze wrote:

litterbug wrote:

yes, the b standard is 1:04:00, so if he ran 1:04:00, he makes it. the haters will melt.

He ran 1:04:00:32, that's slower than 1:04:00, so he won't make it sadly.

320 milliseconds too slow, can you imagine?

which is 32 centiseconds too slow.

or 3.2 deciseconds

or .32 seconds for the real world

Looks like the USATF website may have backed off on paying for the B standard.

I could be mistaken but the site now says:

"Athletes are not eligible to receive funding to the U.S. Olympic Team Trials – Marathon unless athlete has met Olympic Trials “A” Standard"

Maybe the CIM fiasco has opened the door to too many hobbyists.

azeze wrote:

litterbug wrote:

yes, the b standard is 1:04:00, so if he ran 1:04:00, he makes it. the haters will melt.

He ran 1:04:00:32, that's slower than 1:04:00, so he won't make it sadly.

320 milliseconds too slow, can you imagine?

If the standard was 1:04:00, then he made it.

If the standard was 1:04:00.00, then he missed it.

If he pays his own way wrote:

Looks like the USATF website may have backed off on paying for the B standard.

I could be mistaken but the site now says:

"Athletes are not eligible to receive funding to the U.S. Olympic Team Trials – Marathon unless athlete has met Olympic Trials “A” Standard"

Maybe the CIM fiasco has opened the door to too many hobbyists.

I was wondering about that, how they could pay hotels and airfare for 500 barely qualifying runners.

I am sure Hoka will pay for Walmsley, if he was fast enough.

maths wrote:

azeze wrote:

He ran 1:04:00:32, that's slower than 1:04:00, so he won't make it sadly.

320 milliseconds too slow, can you imagine?

If the standard was 1:04:00, then he made it.

If the standard was 1:04:00.00, then he missed it.

This has been covered: IAAF rules state that times are always rounded up to the nearest significant figure. So a 1:04:00.32 should be officially 1:04:01. This is IAAF rule 165.23c. My assumption was the results as stated on the houston marathon website after results with the rounding rules already correctly implemented.

However, mistakes have happened in the past. For example, Gatlin was declared the world record holder in the 100m in 2006, and they didnt realize the time was rounded until 5 days later, when they declared him tied for the 100m wr instead.

But where did it show him running that extra .32 seconds? Link?

sbeefyk2 wrote:

Me half PR is 63:05 and 100 mile PR is 14:00:48 That is 14 hours and 48 seconds. Both of which smoke your boy.

Liar.

Looks like they let in four (4) women at 2:45:00 and one was over the standard. Jim is in. And heard it unlocked a nice $10k bonus in his contract for making the Trials. Not a big sum of money, but not bad at all.

I actually feel bad for the Hispanic kid that ran 1:04:01 chip time. Guijarro.

http://www.usatf.org/Events---Calendar/2020/U-S--Olympic-Team-Trials---Marathon/QualifyingStandards/Eligible-List/Women-Marathon.aspx

Clearly this guy wanted to continue the discussion/arguments about him on this forum by running 64:00 exactly. Now we have discussions about IAAF rounding rules etc.

Ultimate troll