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

yuui wrote:

Looks like the .32 second did indeed cost him the OTQ.

He is not on the official list:

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

Pretty sure that list is from December. It hasn't been updated with Houston names yet.

Drainthefecesswamp wrote:

maths wrote:

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?

Thanks for correcting me. I guess I didn't see the IAAF rules.

Not sure where the .32 came from, just quoting azeze.

"According to race organizers, Walmsley was one of 47 athletes to reach the standard in Houston."

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a25980327/jim-walmsley-olympic-marathon-qualified-houston-half-marathon/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowTWRW

yuui wrote:

Looks like the .32 second did indeed cost him the OTQ.

He is not on the official list:

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

Eligible List

As of 12/12/2018

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

I've been chuckling all the way through this off-and-on debate of the extra 0.32 seconds — the initial comment that started it was an obvious troll. There was no extra 0.32 secs. The person who said that was just yanking everybody's chain to see where it would go, and sure enough it got legs.

Either Walmsley ran exactly 1:04:00.00, which is probabilistically most unlikely, or far more likely (with 99/100ths probability) he ran 1:03:59.xx and it was rounded up. Official road results are always *after* rounding up to the next whole second.

J Walms said in the interview after the race he saw 1:03:59 when he crossed the finish.

Im sorry, someone who runs around Jim's level is calling Jim slow? Youre either a lying troll or jealous of his popularity. Id love to see proof of your accomplishments.

Those aren't Tracers, right? Does anybody know what shoes was he wearing?

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bs5xJquBjzr/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_medium=loading

Mizuno fanboy wrote:

Those aren't Tracers, right? Does anybody know what shoes was he wearing?

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bs5xJquBjzr/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_medium=loading

Hoka Stephanie Bruce 2.75%

They look to be the new Evo Carbon Rocket

ronald mexico, esq wrote:

Mizuno fanboy wrote:

Those aren't Tracers, right? Does anybody know what shoes was he wearing?

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bs5xJquBjzr/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_medium=loading

Hoka Stephanie Bruce 2.75%

Stuff like this is why I still come here.

Cococowboynino........ wrote:

J Walms said in the interview after the race he saw 1:03:59 when he crossed the finish.

Video of finish makes it look like he crossed at 1:03:59 right before it switched to 1:04:00. I feel sorry for the guy that finished right after Jim.

It helps, if you can read:

Eligible List

As of 12/12/2018

+1 on feeling pain for the guy 2 seconds back. You can see everyone celebrating right before him too and he comes up a second or two short.

Truth! He's exactly like Centro and Rupp.

Ackley wrote:

Cococowboynino........ wrote:

J Walms said in the interview after the race he saw 1:03:59 when he crossed the finish.

Video of finish makes it look like he crossed at 1:03:59 right before it switched to 1:04:00. I feel sorry for the guy that finished right after Jim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv2I5EM-tuM&t=6m4s

I have hand timed it 3 times, the lowest time I got was 1:04:22, the highest 1:04:38.

opph wrote:

Ackley wrote:

Video of finish makes it look like he crossed at 1:03:59 right before it switched to 1:04:00. I feel sorry for the guy that finished right after Jim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv2I5EM-tuM&t=6m4s

I have hand timed it 3 times, the lowest time I got was 1:04:22, the highest 1:04:38.

That should be: I have hand timed it 3 times, the lowest time I got was 1:04:00.22, the highest 1:04:00.38.

Ackley wrote:

I feel sorry for the guy that finished right after Jim.

It's only a 13 mile half. He can recover, train, and run another one in a couple of weeks.

I've briefly scanned this thread and don't see anyone correcting this so I'll try (perhaps Dave Katz, if you're reading, can you confirm or correct me please?). My understanding of road times is that they are *automatically* rounded up. Thus, he can only run 1:04 if he ran exactly 1:04:00.00, otherwise it would round to 1:04:01. Someone may have already addressed this but I believe this to be correct, so Jim should be in as far as the trials are concerned. well done by him and hope he enjoys running the trials, where he should be quite happy to be in the top twenty. Still a great athlete and impressed he even tries stepping this far outside his comfort zone.

Centi 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?

which is 32 centiseconds too slow.

or 3.2 deciseconds

or .32 seconds for the real world