Jim Walmsly is crazy! Targeting a sub 2:11:30?!

From the LetsRun interview:

"And Walmsley Wants to Do Olympic Trials Only If He Can Run 2:11:30 There

Speaking of doing only one big road race a year, Jim acknowledged one of the biggest road races in the US is the Olympic Marathon Trials. He said that today’s performance made his decision on whether he would run the Olympic Marathon Trials even more difficult. LetsRun.com assumed Jim was going to debut in the marathon at the Olympic Trials. The hilly course in Atlanta would be a course very well suited to Jim. However, the current way USATF says it will pick its Olympic team means that only a runner who has run under 2:11:30 on a marathon course will go to the Olympics. That would mean Jim has to run under 2:11:30 on the tough course in Atlanta. Jim indicated he would only do the Trials if he thought he could do that.

The bold Walmsley said, “In my crazy ideas I want to solo, well maybe not solo, but run under 2:11:30 at the Trials. I’m not going to take a crack at the marathon before that… I don’t like half-assing things… "

Sounds like an excuse to skip the Trials. "Jim indicated he would only do the Trials if he thought he could run under that [2:11:30] (on the tough course in Atlanta)." Keep in mind he beat the 50-mile record of a 2:17 marathoner in Fordyce. The American record at 50-miles of 4:51 was held by a 2:19+ marathoner in Ritchie. Hideaki Yamauchi who won the 100km race is a 2:18 marathoner.

YURTlivin wrote:

Keep in mind he beat the 50-mile record of a 2:17 marathoner in Fordyce. The American record at 50-miles of 4:51 was held by a 2:19+ marathoner in Ritchie. Hideaki Yamauchi who won the 100km race is a 2:18 marathoner.

The American Record of 4:51 was held by Barney Klecker, a 2:15 marathoner. Also, many of the great ultra distance guys never specifically prepared for and raced a marathon in their competitive prime, so the data on what what type of “marathoner” they truly are/were is spurious.

YURTlivin wrote:

From the LetsRun interview:

"...The bold Walmsley said, “In my crazy ideas I want to solo, well maybe not solo, but run under 2:11:30 at the Trials. I’m not going to take a crack at the marathon before that… I don’t like half-assing things… "

Sounds like an excuse to skip the Trials. "Jim indicated he would only do the Trials if he thought he could run under that [2:11:30] (on the tough course in Atlanta)." Keep in mind he beat the 50-mile record of a 2:17 marathoner in Fordyce. The American record at 50-miles of 4:51 was held by a 2:19+ marathoner in Ritchie. Hideaki Yamauchi who won the 100km race is a 2:18 marathoner.

Walmsley does everything half assed. That's why he almost got lapped by Hideaki Yamauchi.

Good for him. The more the merrier. I have no idea if he can do it, but you never know.

No idea why anyone would hate on his goal of this. Do we want fewer, fast men doing the marathon for some reason? Bring it on, is how I see it. I hope he blows it out of the water.. that would be great for everyone.

64 min half + ultra training means he probably gets BETTER as the race goes longer.

Expect low 2:11 maybe 2:10:30 and looking relaxed

Harambe wrote:

64 min half + ultra training means he probably gets BETTER as the race goes longer.

Expect low 2:11 maybe 2:10:30 and looking relaxed

Thank you. Simply sticking his 1:04 in a conversion calculator (when he arguably could have done better than that if he wasnt simply running to that time) ignores the fact that he is better over longer distances. That would be like saying a 29 minute 10k guy that runs a 1500 in 3:50 early in the season is only capable of a 14:15 5k. Sure, that’s what certain calculators may tell you but obviously he’s better over longer distances so you’d expect him to have a better 5k.

At the end, it's just a calculation. There is no guarantee that you run a certain Marathon time with a certain HM time. It's just a good educated guess. It's also very unlikely that you hit your very best Marathon in the first try.

So unless it actually happens, Walmsley has no valid Marathon time yet. He might or might not run a 2:13. It's just raw speculation.

Why do you guys assume Walmsley is better the longer the race?

Ultras aren't very deep, his most competitive race was that 64' half.

Ultrarunning is full of soft records. How many World-class ultrarunners have raced Western States in the past decade? Soft record.

50 miles? Soft record.

R2R2R? Soft record.

Go race Comrades, Jim. At least that's a competitive race. And, fwiw, I think Jim can win Comrades.

Mizuno fanboy wrote:

50 miles? Soft record.

Don't care how soft it is, running 5:48 mile pace for 50 F***ing miles is just a incredible feat.

Given the weak american marathon field why not to try? 50 milers are his bread and butter, 42km is not that far.

Its not like ultra training and marathon training are all that different, and it's not like the marathon is all that competitive a distance in the US. A person can only run so many quality miles in a week and still be effective. Injury would be of greater concern than ability to be competitive. He's got as much of a shot as Trent Briney had in the Olympic Trials.

Mizuno fanboy wrote:

Why do you guys assume Walmsley is better the longer the race?

Ultras aren't very deep, his most competitive race was that 64' half.

Ultrarunning is full of soft records. How many World-class ultrarunners have raced Western States in the past decade? Soft record.

50 miles? Soft record.

R2R2R? Soft record.

Go race Comrades, Jim. At least that's a competitive race. And, fwiw, I think Jim can win Comrades.

You are mixing up ultra race records with trail races. I can't think of any ultrarunning record which is soft. 100k, 24 hours, 48 hours, 6 day and 1000 miles are really hard records.

A trail race like Western States will never have a solid competition due to the limited racers and the selective process for that. Also the trail conditions and the weather make a huge difference. So even WS100 in different years are very difficult to compare to each other.

Walmsley just got beaten by the 2x World 100k Champion by 25 minutes. Like it or not, that is a fact.

5k WR is 4:03 pace

*double the distance*

10k WR is 4:13 pace

*double the distance*

Half Marathon WR (taking out Kiptum) is 4:27 pace

*double the distance*

Marathon WR is 4:38 pace

*double the distance*

50 mile WR is 5:48 pace

Don't tell me that it's a strong record.

not in line wrote:

5k WR is 4:03 pace

*double the distance*

10k WR is 4:13 pace

*double the distance*

Half Marathon WR (taking out Kiptum) is 4:27 pace

*double the distance*

Marathon WR is 4:38 pace

*double the distance*

50 mile WR is 5:48 pace

Don't tell me that it's a strong record.

Running for twelve and a half minutes and twenty six minutes or running for under a hour and just over two hours is a bit different on the body than running for 50 miles.

Besides, the few ultras Kenyans have done. They go home DEVASTATED.

Just cut it out ... wrote:

not in line wrote:

5k WR is 4:03 pace

*double the distance*

10k WR is 4:13 pace

*double the distance*

Half Marathon WR (taking out Kiptum) is 4:27 pace

*double the distance*

Marathon WR is 4:38 pace

*double the distance*

50 mile WR is 5:48 pace

Don't tell me that it's a strong record.

Running for twelve and a half minutes and twenty six minutes or running for under a hour and just over two hours is a bit different on the body than running for 50 miles.

Besides, the few ultras Kenyans have done. They go home DEVASTATED.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9376574

I'm all ears for you to elaborate scientifically on why the difference between a half and a full (11 seconds per mile decline) is vastly different than the difference between a full and a 50 miler (70 seconds per mile decline).

Is he really better over longer distances? His 5km PB is 13:52. That predicts a 1:03:30 half mary. But he only ran 1:04. It also predicts a 28:50 for 10km (he only ran 29:08 that same year). A 4:50 for 50-miles is technically a weaker performance. It is something 2:17 and 2:19 marathoners have already done decades ago. How many guys run a 1:04:00 half and never come close to even sniffing a 2:11?

Mnn wrote:

Harambe wrote:

64 min half + ultra training means he probably gets BETTER as the race goes longer.

Expect low 2:11 maybe 2:10:30 and looking relaxed

Thank you. Simply sticking his 1:04 in a conversion calculator (when he arguably could have done better than that if he wasnt simply running to that time) ignores the fact that he is better over longer distances. That would be like saying a 29 minute 10k guy that runs a 1500 in 3:50 early in the season is only capable of a 14:15 5k. Sure, that’s what certain calculators may tell you but obviously he’s better over longer distances so you’d expect him to have a better 5k.

not in line wrote:

Just cut it out ... wrote:

Running for twelve and a half minutes and twenty six minutes or running for under a hour and just over two hours is a bit different on the body than running for 50 miles.

Besides, the few ultras Kenyans have done. They go home DEVASTATED.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9376574

I'm all ears for you to elaborate scientifically on why the difference between a half and a full (11 seconds per mile decline) is vastly different than the difference between a full and a 50 miler (70 seconds per mile decline).

Cause it is 50 miles.

hype train overload wrote:

Khalid Khannouchi

Galen Rupp

Ryan Hall

Dathan Ritzenhein

Meb Keflezghi

Bob Kempainen

Alberto Salazar

Dick Beardsley

Abdi Abdirahman

Jim Walmsley???

One of these things is not like the others.

Dick Beardsley didn't have blazing short distance PRs. And if you include the rest of the world, you can find a few other guys around his level who ran 2:08-2:09.

That said, I think it's unlikely that he'll run better than 2:12 because he isn't sponsored as a road guy. Does he really want to take the next couple years to focus on running 2:09, when he's already a top ultra guy? I don't know how much he's making, but it doesn't seem like the value is there on trying to become a second tier marathoner.

Ho Hum wrote:

That said, I think it's unlikely that he'll run better than 2:12 because he isn't sponsored as a road guy. Does he really want to take the next couple years to focus on running 2:09, when he's already a top ultra guy? I don't know how much he's making, but it doesn't seem like the value is there on trying to become a second tier marathoner.

Jim will not run a 2:12 and he can train all he wants and will not get to 2:09. Just because he is the World Champion in announcing lofty goals does not mean he actually will achieve that. Jim is 29 years old. He is not getting younger.