Why Jim Walmsley will make the olympics for USA

I have nothing against Walmsley and think he can run a good marathon if he trains for it. There are just other runners who have been training specifically for the marathon for a lot longer and who probably have more talent at that distance than him.

My guess is it will be Rupp, Faubs, and Ward. I know that's nothing terribly insightful, but they're the obvious choice for a reason. Maybe if Faubs or Ward have a bad day, someone else on the fringe makes it (Stinson?) but that seems unlikely.

I’d say the trials could be a complete crapshoot. Everyone is assuming that Rupp will be healthy I guess? If he’s healthy he’s probably a shoe in, but after that there’s probably 15 guys that could run in the 2:10 - 12 range.

Having said that I’d say Walmsley’s chances are about 1:100. There are just too many guys training full time at the marathon that are already ahead of him. Perhaps if he dropped everything and started training with the NAZ elite crew, but that ain’t gonna happen. His only hope is that it’s brutal conditions and the front runners totally blowup in front of him.

chadb114 wrote:

I’d say the trials could be a complete crapshoot. Everyone is assuming that Rupp will be healthy I guess? If he’s healthy he’s probably a shoe in, but after that there’s probably 15 guys that could run in the 2:10 - 12 range.

Having said that I’d say Walmsley’s chances are about 1:100. There are just too many guys training full time at the marathon that are already ahead of him. Perhaps if he dropped everything and started training with the NAZ elite crew, but that ain’t gonna happen. His only hope is that it’s brutal conditions and the front runners totally blowup in front of him.

Will be a great morning for the sport of running. Excited to see what kind of build up Walmsley can put together. Is it likely he places top 3? Probably not. The course will be interesting because of the hills though, if anything like some other posters have stated, if he goes top 10, or sub 2:14, you can chalk that up as a great run, especially his range being an ultra specialist.

He is in the race, so he has a chance. That being said, his 1/2 marathon time ranks 22nd in the US this year. Sage Canaday is probably the closest comparison one can draw as he has a similar 1/2 marathon PR (1:04:32) and a similar Ultra background. His legal marathon PR is 2:18:24, which was run about 1 year after his 1/2 marathon PR, so a similar time frame. The idea that he would suddenly find himself ahead of 20 people that have run faster than him in addition to Rupp and probably a couple others who have not run this year is quite a lot to overcome, especially since most of his training is geared towards hilly ultra stuff (with that type of training it is also a wonder if he will even make it to the starting line as ultra running is hard on the body). Not saying it is impossible, but there are a whole lot of others that warrant more attention than him. Heck, Trent Briney almost pulled it off.

It is interesting wrote:

It’s interesting he’s never run a thon and has a 1:04 half pr.

With his huge endurance how close to half pace can he hold?

I would assume it’s closer than most.

I call 2:12

Lagat ran a 1:02 half marathon and then ran 2:17 in his debut.

He's not a marathoner, but in a different class than Walmsley as a runner....

Steve VG (regular guy from Boston) has a better chance of making the Olympic team.

round and round wrote:

It is interesting wrote:

It’s interesting he’s never run a thon and has a 1:04 half pr.

With his huge endurance how close to half pace can he hold?

I would assume it’s closer than most.

I call 2:12

Lagat ran a 1:02 half marathon and then ran 2:17 in his debut.

He's not a marathoner, but in a different class than Walmsley as a runner....

Different is the key word there. Walmsley put sub minimal specific training into the 1:04:00. Until a road runner, who only runs roads, can demonstrate what Jim has on the trails...until we see it...we haven't seen it..

His 5:51 @ Lake Sonoma last year is one of the more underrated efforts in this past decade, if not ever..yup..I said it

Really? The guy basically runs back to back 2:26 marathons about a month ago. He beats the likes of Max King, Sage, who have ran 2:41-2:16. I too was very skeptical to what his abilities were until the 64 half and world record 50 miler in the same year. Hell, he could win the trials. Georgia is hilly, will require a lot of strength in those late miles, I say Jim makes a go at it and succeeds.

different class is right wrote:

round and round wrote:

Lagat ran a 1:02 half marathon and then ran 2:17 in his debut.

He's not a marathoner, but in a different class than Walmsley as a runner....

Different is the key word there. Walmsley put sub minimal specific training into the 1:04:00. Until a road runner, who only runs roads, can demonstrate what Jim has on the trails...until we see it...we haven't seen it..

His 5:51 @ Lake Sonoma last year is one of the more underrated efforts in this past decade, if not ever..yup..I said it

Maybe in the ultra-running world, not the running world in general though. Yeah right.

Alex Varner ran 6:09 and Lake Sonoma in 2015 and is only a 29:40's 10k guy.

I'm pretty sure Sage will beat him.

It is interesting wrote:

It’s interesting he’s never run a thon and has a 1:04 half pr.

With his huge endurance how close to half pace can he hold?

I would assume it’s closer than most.

I call 2:12

I'm with you. 2:12-2:13 seems reasonable if the conditions are decent. I'd be very surprised if he makes the team, but definitely has a way outside shot. It makes watching the race more exciting.

He's not going to be top 3. He ran 64 flat, there are a lot of guys that can do that. People say he did that off of ultra training. I'm pretty sure that ultra training means a lot of mileage. Is that right? SO he's got a huge base. Then he spent something like 6 weeks or more doing faster stuff to get ready for sub 5 miles. Doing a ton of base in doing ultra's and then doing 6 weeks of some faster stuff is exactly what half marathon and marathon training is, so that's not an excuse for only running 64 flat. Realistically he's going to run 2:13 or so on a flat marathon course, since Atlanta will be a little tougher he's probably going to be more like 2:14 shape. Neither is good enough for the 2:11:30 olympic time, and neither time will put you in the top 3. Realistically he might be able to hit 10th on a good day, wouldn't be surprised if he was 20th or even drops out once he realizes he's not going to place as high as people are whispering into his ear.

Saying he's like this girl that ran under 32 minutes in the 10k that made olympic teams for marathon. 32 minutes for women is equivalent of a guy running 27:45 for a 10k. Jim was a 29 flat guy when he actually trained for that, would probably be even slower than that now since he doesn't do any fast stuff. He'd never be a 27:45 guy. That's why he won't make the olympic team. He can run far, but he can't run fast. I still think if you take the top 3 people from the olympic marathon trials (which won't be him) those three guys could probably beat him in a 30-40 miles race. Not sure where the break point will be, but I'm also pretty sure that none of them care to run that far anyways.

Walmsley is like Wardian and while both are very likable I don't see these guys competing top 3 for marathon trials ever. What I will say is that right now without many standouts it's hard to get excited about the trials unless you are a diehard fanboy of the marathon, so I'm all for grasping at straws to create hype, even if it means starting a Walmsley fan club.

I think Walmsley finishes around 10th, shrugs it off, and then goes to bed at night knowing he makes more in sponsorship than half a dozen dedicated track runners who finished in front of him.

guy who assumes a lot wrote:

different class is right wrote:

Different is the key word there. Walmsley put sub minimal specific training into the 1:04:00. Until a road runner, who only runs roads, can demonstrate what Jim has on the trails...until we see it...we haven't seen it..

His 5:51 @ Lake Sonoma last year is one of the more underrated efforts in this past decade, if not ever..yup..I said it

Maybe in the ultra-running world, not the running world in general though. Yeah right.

Alex Varner ran 6:09 and Lake Sonoma in 2015 and is only a 29:40's 10k guy.

That's still 18 minutes behind 1st place. Max King, one of the most versatile runners of our time, a 2:14 marathoner and a steepler..hasn't come close to a 5:51 or Varner's 6:09..comparing what Varner or Walmsley did in the 10k on a track, is essentially another lifetime ago in the running world..

My point is that, Lake Sonoma has 10,000 ft of climb across 50 trail miles. Everybody is up in arms about ATL's course having 1,000 ft of climb for the trials, let's just say that course had 5,000 ft of climb across 26.2 miles, how much does that change the entire race? Everything we know about potential top 3 goes out the window..

Trying to compare 10k track times to what a major marathon runner can do on the trails, is irrelevant past a point. It's an apples to oranges argument.

The running efficiency and strength that a sub 2:10 guy has is other worldly, but those times are ran on traditionally pancake flat surfaces.

There are low 28 guys in the last decade, that never panned out in the marathon..it's no guarantee..

Chris Solinsky, 26:59 10k, sub 13 5k..never made it in the marathon either..not everything is linear in this sport

From what he said in the podcast with Wejo, he won't even run the trials if he doesn't feel like he can run 2:11:30.

Will be interesting to see at what point he makes this call. 6 weeks ahead? 8 weeks? Further?

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

From what he said in the podcast with Wejo, he won't even run the trials if he doesn't feel like he can run 2:11:30.

Will be interesting to see at what point he makes this call. 6 weeks ahead? 8 weeks? Further?

That was a great podcast.

+ I saw his Strava long run a year or two ago where he ran 50k on the road in Flagstaff, with a 2:20~2:22 marathon in the middle. On a Saturday morning, solo. Pretty insane if you ask me.

- He did mention in that podcast that he struggles with the long, road racing type training cycles.. hitting the track every week, structured stuff on the road, etc.

The dude is clearly talented, but I don't think anyone will have a real idea (even Jim) until 6-8 weeks into a regular marathon training program. If he even does it that way. Check back mid-November and see how it's going.

assumes with facts wrote:

guy who assumes a lot wrote:

Different is the key word there. Walmsley put sub minimal specific training into the 1:04:00. Until a road runner, who only runs roads, can demonstrate what Jim has on the trails...until we see it...we haven't seen it..

His 5:51 @ Lake Sonoma last year is one of the more underrated efforts in this past decade, if not ever..yup..I said it

... Max King, one of the most versatile runners of our time, a 2:14 marathoner and a steepler..hasn't come close to a 5:51 or Varner's 6:09..comparing what Varner or Walmsley did in the 10k on a track, is essentially another lifetime ago in the running world..

....

Ahem . Max King has a 2:13 pr (minutes matter) and placed 5th at the Oly trials in the steeple.

Although Max has been an amazing ultra runner, Walms has been even better. Improve just a littttle on Max's times/places noted, and, well, that's an Oly birth.

Your evidence is no evidence. If he races sub-28:20 10000m this summer, I'll consider your 2:11:30 Marathon forecast.