Best ULTRA runner would beat every American distance runner at an ULTRA (beside Rupp)

I love that the OP tries to make it sound line 1:04 is equivalent to 3:38.

Drainthefecesswamp wrote:

I love that the OP tries to make it sound line 1:04 is equivalent to 3:38.

Right? Like those events have the same field size limitations.

gallon ripp wrote:

why won't it let me post emoticons :')

It will. ???

I'm a fan of Walmsley and agree that road guys would not necessarily beat ultra guys at ultras. However, the half marathon is not 1/8th of Walmsley's specialty distance. His best distances have been in the 50k-100k range.

I think the OP is right. But that says more about America than it does the Ultra vs. Marathon thing. Would love to see him against 2:07-2:09 guys. I think we all agree many 2:01-2:06 guys would beat him if trained properly.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

I think the OP is right. But that says more about America than it does the Ultra vs. Marathon thing. Would love to see him against 2:07-2:09 guys. I think we all agree many 2:01-2:06 guys would beat him if trained properly.

Kimetto/Kipsang/Kipchoge are already running 130+ mile weeks, they would destroy him by country miles

The reality of it and you know it as well a b level Kenyan would crush Walmsey on any kind of run with the exception of a western state type ultra event.

B level , Im talking 2:10-2:12 type of guy. I think though with some specific training you could get an African athlete to excel at the ultra distance. At this point they do not understand its significance or why anybody would attempt to race those distances.

Conversely why doesn't Jim step down and race x-country, lots of tough European races he could test his self against world class talent. How would he fare at world cross? ( he was a good collegiate x-country runner)

Why doesn't he show his marathon best on his website?

64:00 is not that fast a time. I'd estimate that half of the 30 Americans that have run faster than him at the half marathon in the past year could safely beat him in a 50 mile run if they trained for it for a couple months. I'd estimate 95% of the 72 people in the world that broke 2:08 in the marathon last year would destroy him in an ultra race without a whole lot of extra training. It's not like his weekly mileage is that much more than marathon runners train.

These arguments are all foolish. If you think a marathon runner would tear up any trail race 50 miles or over you are so freaking full of crap. Just as you can't predict the success of someone who specializes in the 100 translating into a 400m runner. Running 50 miles isn't just about speed. It is about planning, heart, pacing, hydration, nutrition, etc. Just because a marathoner could learn these things doesn't mean they would excel at them, the same way 1500m runners can't all succeed at 10k. Also, seriously, enough with the classification of ultra running as a second tear sport. Just because you don't want to do it or can't doesn't take away from its validity, especially to those over 30 who have little success competing in shorter faster events.

Yes, the sub 2:05 guys are probably good at their best, regardless. "If trained properly" just meaning an adjustment here or there to get them used to the distance, fueling etc. Not that they have to make drastic changes.

pretty sure the OP is this Fanboy

https://twitter.com/Mfel1

I bet he has a chest tattoo of Walmsley and that Anton guy

I'm amazed that you can criticize someone else's logic, call yourself a "former math guy," and then come up with this sort of analogy.

rojo wrote:

As a former math guy, the odds of that just don't work for me. Walmsley is like the equivalent of the best runner in a single state - say Michigan. What are the odds that he's also the best runner in the US if he shows up at nationals. Not very good.

As someone who has actually done Western States and Comrades (albeit not very well) I could tell you some differences between the two races. One being it depends on the year at Comrades (net uphill or downhill). And the net downhill at Western is very noticeable...

The fact of the matter is that "ultra running" worldwide has extreme diversity. UTMB is a lot different than IAAF World 100km on the roads, and Comrades is a lot different than a Les Templiers or the Mont Blanc 80km. Trails v Road v Mountains. Technical trails in Europe can be a totally different ballgame..especially against at guy like Kilian.

And road marathon and track PRs for sure correlate very well to success...generally....but it depends on the ultra race with the strength of that correlation. Sometimes the 2:12 guy gets beat by the 2:18 guy. So faster flat road/track "speed" and a higher Vo2max is not always better. I think it can be a liability. When top runners at UTMB toe the starting line, we still know that a 2:25-2:30 marathon runner (i.e. a Francois d'Haen or Xavier Thevenard) can be a favorite to win and they are going to be super tough. But sure a 2:18 marathoner and 2-time Olympic Trials qualifier like Tim Tollefson could also win....just like a 2:06 guy could every well win I think. At Comrades sometimes the 2:15 guy wins over the 2:08 guy. There have also been a lot of PED test positives there too though....but I digress. Don't even get me started on the "up record.'

Jim is a very fast and talented runner....and has been since high school. I think he ran like a sub 4:05 mile (or so) in college and for sure ran sub 14:00 for 5km (13:50s low?). So it is not too much of a surprise that he could run a 1:04:00 half. Heck, even my slow butt got down to 1:04:32 and I only ran 14:29 for 5km in college. I think maybe it helped that he didn't do all of UTMB this year and that TNF50 in San Fran was cancelled. So he had a good base/training block as well with no ultra racing for the second half of the year for the "transition" and was able to change gears with some speed workouts in the last few months.

The first time I raced or even heard about Jim was at Speedgoat in 2014. Patrick Smyth was in the race also and I was a bit worried because I looked up some of their track PRs and Pat is like a 1:02 guy. But back then they could only handle the first 4-5 miles climbing at my pace up the mountain....both had very rough races (Pat Dnfed and Jim was around 6 hours I think) and I ended up setting the course record that day....a record that Jim smashed in 2017. I was really proud of that record and I honestly thought nobody could get close to 5hrs flat on that course.

But I think what we have to look at here with top level racing in "ultras" are the limiting factors and what matters. In my experience it comes down to "Variable Running Economy." Efficiency going up and down hills, efficiency in the heat/cold, and efficiency at 5:00 to 9:00 per mile pace for long periods of time. When you are trying to run downhill fast in the canyons the Western States or the Grand Canyon or even the downhilll paved hills at Comrades the limiting factor is often how well your quad muscles can hold up. You run too fast too early on the downhills (esp if you haven't trained for it) and you blow your quads out (much like sprinting out the first 5km at Boston too fast although more extreme). If one is super strong muscularly (a tough feat!), then the next limiting factor to worry about is simply hydration/glycogen fueling. So to not get dehydrated, to not bonk and to eat enough so you have energy (but not stomach distress). Take in a enough fuel and not worry about skeletal muscular failure and efficiency doesn't even matter that much then because you are operating at such a marginal fraction of Vo2max/LT (but you'd have to take in like 300-500kcal per hour) to burn it hot with carbs to keep cooking low 14-hr pace at Western or 5:30-5:20 at Comrades etc. But the big one is having super strong legs/muscles that can go downhill thousands of feet quickly and then transition to climbing uphill. Take care of those limiting factors and you're golden and unstoppable.

No one is saying that 1:04 half marathon isn't impressive. It is. We acknowledge!

But, I think it's funny you're comparing the 1500m with the 10k. Why not compare David Rudisha's WR 800m time with the 100m dash olympic standard? Or Hichem el G's mile WR with the 200m?

These comparisons don't translate and so why should a comparison of a 100 mile race to 13.1 mile race as well?

Also, something to consider: Maybe Jim Walmsley is better at 13.1 miles than he is at 100 miles, and just maybe the Ultra competition is weak relative to more traditional road race distances? He was pretty good in college track......

I understand that the pace of a 100 mile trail race even at the elite level seems attainable for any "solid" runner, but thats just not the case. Running fast on trails is a different skill set. If you don't agree, you don't run trails. Bringing up success on manicured xc courses run on grass is not a comparison to running fast on technical, rooted, and rutted out trails. Kind of like arguing the world's strongest man should be the best at crossfit because all of their lifting pr's are heavier. Only sounds smart to people who know just enough about the sport to get themselves into trouble.

joedirt wrote:

Hi !! Joecockroach. Glad you could come out of the woodwork for another ultra bashing. Your bias and ignorance is showing a little more today though.

What some of you are not understanding is the amount of TIME it takes to train specifically for a certain type of race especially one that involves a lot of hills and technical running. Nobody including Jim Walmsley is saying the faster road runners couldn't beat the slower runners, we are saying it takes a dedicated time of training to adapt the body to handle the different type of running. You can take the top 50 guys in America and run Houston half and then take them and run a mountain half that could have a few thousand feet of elevation gain and loss and you will have a far different result.

You take runners and transition them not only from roads to trails but from 26 miles to 100 miles and the difficulty becomes exponential.

Can the 204 and 205 guys beat walmsely in the canyon. My answer would be yes, but they would have to specifically train at least a year to have a chance.

Included within the following linked article is an old elevation chart for some Ultras. That little squiggly line in the lower left corner is the Boston Marathon, with it's Heartbreak Hill. Then take a look at Western and Leadville. Hardrock isn't included in this version, but it's above Leadville.

https://www.irunfar.com/2014/03/your-ultra-training-bag-of-tricks-dont-let-downhills-be-your-downfall.html

Kinda underscores the points made by Mr. Canaday, and that you just might not be able to take a road marathoner and pop them into a mountain ultra. Note the great input above doesn't even mention altitude issues.

There appears to be more and more threads about this and I enjoy seeing the traditional road running community continuing to deny the idea of a "revolution" of sorts happening, or one could argue, has been happening the last 6-8 years.

I always think back to my relative track running experience, just because one can run a fast 2/400, doesn't correlate to them being a fast miler. Sure they have solid leg speed and strength, but as the distance increases, more variables will influence their pace and overall capacity.

I'd like to believe a lot of posters still talk down about ultras because the stereotype a few decades ago, hell even up to the early to mid 2000s looked drastically different vs modern day ultra running. I think it's fair to say, you may even get more guys right out of college that because of sponsorships and the varying terrain to train on and explore, more may transition over to ultras, continuing to change the face of sport. Whether it's Jim, You, Max, Hayden Hawks, or others with track backgrounds, in the next decade, I'd bet more of this will be seen as the norm.

You just can't compare a race like Western States to the London or Chicago Marathon, I mean, come on, it's a nonsense argument.

First, it was a tremendous achievement to run 1:04 as an ultramarathoner without much specific training for the half.

Second, you would have to have a good deal of practice trail-running with massive ups and downs (altitude wouldn't be a problem for the best Ethiopian and Kenyan runners), especially with technical trails before one of the top marathoners would be ready to completely smoke all the world's ultramarathoners at, say, Western States.

Third, as good as 1:04 is, that's about 9.77% slower than the world best of around 58:21 (can't remember exactly the new record), which is equivalent to a 3:46 1500m, that much slower than a 3:26. A 3:34 is about as much better than a 3:38 than 1:04 is to 1:05, so the 1500m standard is much, much harder.