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

Get off strava wrote:

Unless a you’re a sub 64 guy, what business do you have talking about how another persons performance isn’t impressive. It’s impressive to what you can run, I know that.

Dumbest post of the whole thread, right there.^

How many people will qualify for the OT? There were over 150 in 2016.

I am not great golfer, but I can comfortably say that I am not impressed by the performance of the 150th-best golfer in America. Even if he also wins long-drive competitions. (Which is basically the equivalent of ultra racing, as a freakshow of has-been/never-was types, with the shallow fields to match.)

Yeah you’re right. What was I thinking? A TON of miles is all you need to be good at marathoning plus like 6 workouts at goal pace. I mean that’s what all the marathoners do when they gear up for their races. 30 mile long runs and huge vert is the base of all marathon training. That’s why everyone sets up their fast half just like... oh wait no one does that. I’m willing to bet a lot of his inability to change gears came from not running workouts that simulated that. Everything he ran leading up to Houston was steady state or even pacing. So you get what you train. An even paced race. The last mile was evidence that he could change gears but didn’t wanna risk it until he needed to because he hadn’t trained with gear changes.

You clearly have never trained for a half on a high level. There’s varying approaches depending on what your goals are. Not to mention if you plan on training through the way he is. There’s no margin for overdoing it. You run too fast and your next two weeks are shot. The fact that he’s planning on racing an ultra this short after means his recovery was quick. All evidence that he wasn’t MAXED OUT.

still not impressed wrote:

Get off strava wrote:

Unless a you’re a sub 64 guy, what business do you have talking about how another persons performance isn’t impressive. It’s impressive to what you can run, I know that.

Dumbest post of the whole thread, right there.^

How many people will qualify for the OT? There were over 150 in 2016.

I am not great golfer, but I can comfortably say that I am not impressed by the performance of the 150th-best golfer in America. Even if he also wins long-drive competitions. (Which is basically the equivalent of ultra racing, as a freakshow of has-been/never-was types, with the shallow fields to match.)

Oh wow here comes more maths from the mathematicians.. First of all, you’re ignoring that 64 half is immensely harder than running 2:19. If you honestly think Jim finishes 150th at the trials barring some sort of injury or fall, you have no business discussing the marathon trials.

Also you’re disrespecting a whole genre of sport and the athletes that compete in said sport. I promise you, the 150th best golfer in the US could play one handed and beat the f out of you on the course. But sure you’re not “impressed”. Maybe you’re just butthurt

Wow. Someone is really really defensive here today. Looks like a nerve has been touched.

And really "A couple of running buddies with small shoe contracts simply could not afford to dope. "

Wow, never heard that argument before. Sounds good, besides the fact that it is bullsh*t. It has been shown doping is neither hard nor expensive, many many examples over the years.

Hmmmmm.

Might want to put down the beers before your next post, pal.

rupp-certified saladbar, or shaken bravey syndrome? wrote:Are we supposed to be impressed if David Rudisha ran 12.0? Whatever.

Late to the party and this was probably addressed, but are you talking about a 12.0 100m?

The Olympic trials qualifying standard for the 100m is 10.16. I would be super amazed and impressed if David Rudisha ran a 10.16 100m.

12.0 won't win high school races and so David Rudisha would not impress me with that.

doesn't sound like they even have to micro dope. They don't test in many ultras.

Not a cowboy wrote:

Aaaah please wrote:

Ahhh...it sounds like the Cococino Cowboys have some knowledge in micro doping. That is very interesting.

Lol not a coconino anything. And that’s not knowledge just common sense. A couple of running buddies with small shoe contracts simply could not afford to dope. Too much money has to be spent to fund operations and to keep everyone quiet. Hoka would go out of business.

But yeah your theory on someone explaining how they are micro doping on LR seems sound too. Very logical. Are you a detective? You have a gift.

People using meth shouldn’t try to explain anything.

Not a cowboy wrote:

Lol not a coconino anything. And that’s not knowledge just common sense. A couple of running buddies with small shoe contracts simply could not afford to dope. Too much money has to be spent to fund operations and to keep everyone quiet. Hoka would go out of business.

But yeah your theory on someone explaining how they are micro doping on LR seems sound too. Very logical. Are you a detective? You have a gift.

Are we not all little detectives at LR?

Doping and micro doping are not the same thing. Here I'll dumb it down to your level. Doping - very cheap, easy to get caught if tested. Micro-doping - very expensive, hard to get caught even if tested. You get what "you" pay for. I could not tell you if Jim is doping or not as I have no idea whether or not he's ever been tested but I presume he probably has at some point. BUT I can tell you for a fact he is not micro-doping because the money is not there to support it.

Not defensive. Just despise people with illogical arguments and bold baseless accusations. "All others bring data"

Titration wrote:

doesn't sound like they even have to micro dope. They don't test in many ultras.

Sound logic. They don't test at your local 10k. So you must dope too.

Has he been tested at an ultra race?

Thisx100 wrote:

Has he been tested at an ultra race?

Yes, at Winschoten 100k, UMTB and Diagonale de fous. Whenever there is International competition, he folds.

So wherever there is testing he folds?

Walk it in baby wrote:

Thisx100 wrote:

Has he been tested at an ultra race?

Yes, at Winschoten 100k, UMTB and Diagonale de fous. Whenever there is International competition, he folds.

Yep, just like a good folding chair.

FactorofFluff wrote:

So wherever there is testing he folds?

Walk it in baby wrote:

Yes, at Winschoten 100k, UMTB and Diagonale de fous. Whenever there is International competition, he folds.

That’s just evidence he’s not the best ultra runner in the world which everyone should know. Not evidence that he’s doping.

Proven nothing wrote:

That’s just evidence he’s not the best ultra runner in the world which everyone should know. Not evidence that he’s doping.

I don't think anybody is accusing Walmsley of doping.

Hi, Eric.

Don't pretend he only did "like 6 workouts at goal pace." He posts on Strava, obviously, and had much more than that at HM pace.

Sorry, running huge miles for months in the hills and then sharpening with race-specific work for two months is actually pretty great prep. If you think he's suddenly going to run an actual legitimate elite time off of more focused training, you're wrong.

Apparently a 1:03/2:10 type ceiling is all it takes to be the best ultra runner on the planner lol? Bring 20 guys from Kenya with 2:03-2:07 credentials to Arizona, coach them for the conditions of States, get them used to racing trail ultras, and one of them will win on their second time out, if not their first. Hell, bring 10 of them and you will get a winner. Ultra is basically another triathlon: one more shallow-field endurance sport where money and being in a niche athletic culture lets you hide from the true talent out there.

Preparation H for you wrote:

still not impressed wrote:

Dumbest post of the whole thread, right there.^

How many people will qualify for the OT? There were over 150 in 2016.

I am not great golfer, but I can comfortably say that I am not impressed by the performance of the 150th-best golfer in America. Even if he also wins long-drive competitions. (Which is basically the equivalent of ultra racing, as a freakshow of has-been/never-was types, with the shallow fields to match.)

Oh wow here comes more maths from the mathematicians.. First of all, you’re ignoring that 64 half is immensely harder than running 2:19. If you honestly think Jim finishes 150th at the trials barring some sort of injury or fall, you have no business discussing the marathon trials.

Zzzzzzz.

Let me know when Jim ends a year top 50 in the country in a real event.

Ultra-running = long-drive golfing competitions.

What would be "impressive" as a marathon result for an ultrajogger?