Let my explain using math why Jim Walmsley's 64:00 is NOT impressive

I understand this is a troll post, but;

If walmsley’s 100 mile skill was on a flat road Courses I’d agree. But Western States has a crazy amount of elevation gain. Climbing in the mountains is a lot different than flat road running. I think that’s why it’s so impressive he went from the Western states CR to the half in such a short amount of time.

Its basically almost an entirely different sport.

I’m not an ultra fanboy. I rarely follow any of it. But I think Jim doing what he’s doing is pretty cool and I look forward to watching the trials.

According to his website, his college PBs are:

Mile: 4:04

5K: 13:52

10K: 29:08

3K Steeple: 8:41

Expect great things, I predict he'll go 2:08 in the marathon.

https://www.walmsleyruns.com/results

What's is Jimmy 5k pr wrote:

According to his website, his college PBs are:

Mile: 4:04

5K: 13:52

10K: 29:08

3K Steeple: 8:41

Expect great things, I predict he'll go 2:08 in the marathon.

Off of a 29 and a 64??

I was recently reading a thread in another forum where a guy was explaining why he behaved in a particular way. his explanation was, "I'm an introvert." then he said. "for many introverts, that is the only explanation that is required. but for many extroverts no explanation would be sufficient."

I think that's where we are with this Jim Walmsley thing. many folk think that for an Ultra guy to run 64:00 is impressive, and for them, 64:00 half-marathon is the only explanation that is required. but for those who are not impressed there is no combination of words and numbers that will ever convince them otherwise.

the OP's post is a very good example of this. he claims in the thread title that he will, "explain using math why Jim Walmsley's 64:00 is NOT impressive," but he doesn't do that. he uses math to show why 5k is to marathon what half-marathon is to 100 miles, but there is no maths in "13:57 lolololol. Wow, do you think any elite marathoners can run 13:57?"

he's entitled to his opinion, I get that. but please don't kid yourself it is anything other than an opinion.

and, for the record:

Abdelkader El Mouaziz (MAR) ran 2:06:46 but his 5km pr is 14:03.49

Oleksandr Kuzin (UKR) ran 2:07:33 and his 5km pr is 14:01.83

Yi-yong Kim (KOR) ran 2:07:49 and his 5km pr is 14:10.52

Hiroshi Miki (JPN) ran 2:08:05 and his 5km pr is 14:04.39

Yohannes Gergish (ERI) ran 2:08:14 and his 5km pr is 14:46.71

Hicham Laqouahi (MAR) ran 2:08:27 and his 5km pr is 14:00.72

Vanderlei Cordeiro da Lima (BRA) ran 2:08:31 and his 5km pr is 14:00.41

Yaroslav Mushinski (MDA) ran 2:08:32 and his 5km pr is 14:14.85

Abdi Ibrahim Abdo (BRN) ran 2:08:32 and his 5km pr is 14:29.84

Brian Sell (USA) ran 2:10:47 but his 5km pr is 14:00.10

cheers.

1:04 is not that impressive because it's not that fast for a pro.

I'm a fan, but not a fanboy. 64:00 was not impressive, but it got the job done. I'm sure he could go quite a bit faster if he trained longer for it, but he doesn't need to and his priorities are elsewhere.

The critics should lay off, and be happy that he's doing ultra. All the talk of what 2:05 marathoners would do misses the point that Walmsley actually already proves a lot of the critics' frequent contention that distance running talent is distance running talent. He is arguably the most talented US runner in terms of raw running talent to dedicate his prime mid-20s years to ultras, and he ends up being the one to put up the most impressive performances in the races that matter in the US. Yes, he has more raw talent than Hawks, King (less focused, inspired Sage Canaday's any surface-any distance, also started ultras past his prime). Canadian Krar did middle distance in college with performances similar to Walmsley (faster mile PR), but got into ultras in his 30s.

As noted in past threads, Walmsley was a Footlocker finalist. I think only Frericks among ultra runners was also a Footlocker finalist. He was also won Mt. SAC supersweeps in high school (over D. Estrada), one of the most important high school races. His 13:52 PR run in college understates his real ability/fitness in that race by a large margin. He won that race going away (12:55 5000 pace over the last 1000) over guys that are top US pros today after running most of the race in lane two. He was at least 13:35 capable that day in the right race. People will say PRs are PRs, but if you're talent scouting/rating you'd rate that race as 13:35. That's better than Hawks 28:high in college, better than Krar's college 4:01. King's steeple PR is better, but that was run post college, with further development, so not quite apples to apples when trying to assess talent.

Who else might compare in the ultra world in terms of raw talent? Joe Gray arguablely, except he tops out at 50Ks, and rarely at that, so not the races that are talked about in ultra world.

Alt the hate is fun to watch, but it does give the impression that all americans are spiteful (who could have calculated that!)

Keep up the good hate!

The great thing about running is that it is as objective as it gets. You are what you are. Walmsley is a 1:04 guy. In other words not that good. That is equivalent to a 2:15 on a good day. I would be willing to bet $1000 that he doesn't finish top 10 in the trials.

well actually wrote:

The great thing about running is that it is as objective as it gets. You are what you are. Walmsley is a 1:04 guy. In other words not that good. That is equivalent to a 2:15 on a good day. I would be willing to bet $1000 that he doesn't finish top 10 in the trials.

I'd take that bet.

well actually wrote:

The great thing about running is that it is as objective as it gets. You are what you are. Walmsley is a 1:04 guy. In other words not that good. That is equivalent to a 2:15 on a good day. I would be willing to bet $1000 that he doesn't finish top 10 in the trials.

He very very well could finish top 10 in trials.

If he really closed the 5K in 2:35, his optimized time is more like 13:45, not 13:35 (thanks to the statsgangsta app). You can give him 10 sec for “running in lane 2”, but that’s generous unless it was a real outlier for what’s typical in a competitive 5K. Maybe you could also give him 10 sec for winning (meaning he did not have to run to his max) but that seems generous too- unless there are other distance PRs suggesting he was ever in 13:35-level fitness.

Excellent runner and ultra results, and mission accomplished on his 64:00- which is right in line with his track PR’s.

I did use statsgangsta though with the actual, harder accerelating splits than my 12:55 pace simplification, and gave him 9 seconds for lane 2, if I recall correctly what I did in a previous thread. The race video is out there. He really was way out in lane 2 just about the whole race until he destroyed the field.

2:14 or 2:15 at the Trials and decent shot at top 10; 2:13 on a faster course

Pretty good and on par with the average letsrunner (the median ability level here is a 13:50 5K and a several million dollar stock portfolio by age 35)

Why on Earth did you post this garbage? I’ve never understood this mentality. Many years back, Rupp ran an indoor 800 and I remember so many people seemingly offended that he would do such a thing on this board. My question - weren’t you interested in how fast Jim might run over the 1/2? Would it be better for you if he hadn’t bothered? He may not be the fastest guy, but don’t you find it interesting at all to see where his capabilities are over the shorter distances?

I predict that he will run 2:12 and finish 9th. He is more predictable than most of the other runners due to his ultra history. Some of the other top guys could go 2:08 but they could also go 2:15 on a bad day. I don’t think he will get dragged out at 2:07 pace where many other guys could. He will almost certainly pick some guys off around 20 miles. Bottom line is that there are too many guys who are more talented than him.

rupp-certified saladbar, or shaken bravey syndrome? wrote:

So don't get excited that a distance runner comes down to a shorter event and runs SLOW. Of course they can run some so-so time in an "off" distance. Are we supposed to be impressed if David Rudisha ran 12.0? Whatever.

Good grief! Why are you so obsessed with this guy?

If David Rudisha qualified for the Olympic trials in the 100m and middle-distance fans said "hey, cool, one of our gang ran a decent sprint", would y'all start 20 threads on how much David Rudisha sucks?

Get over it already. Your Walmsley obsession is creepy.

9ufjrygyg wrote:

2:14 or 2:15 at the Trials and decent shot at top 10; 2:13 on a faster course

Pretty good and on par with the average letsrunner (the median ability level here is a 13:50 5K and a several million dollar stock portfolio by age 35, and a racist Klan member)

Fixed that for you.

rupp-certified saladbar, or shaken bravey syndrome? wrote:

OK, let's look at this claim scientifically, by using math and equivalency tables.

13 miles is obviously about 13% of Walmsley's best distance, the 100-miler. So what would an elite marathoner have to do to be more "impressive" than Walmsley? Run a distance about 13% of THEIR specialty, in a more impressive time than his 64:00 half marathon.

Walmsley's best distance is probably 50 miles. He kind of sucks over 100 miles. How many other 100 milers did he finish besides his record WS 100? Two. three?

I don’t understand. I am a liberal but my sense is that most people here are conservatives. Yet, the Klan was made up of southern democrats so this site is really dominated by anti Klan people.