Walmsley to run Rock 'N' Roll Arizona half this Saturday

could be,- I think something might be wonky with Jim's HR data through his watch or something with strava though. for awhile his "easy" runs were always being tagged as "historic relative effort" with scores in the 200-300s meanwhile this was just given a score of 70ish

This race was Sage Canaday golden opportunity to finally get the so long wait 3 time OTQ, he could easily get a low 1:03...

If you compare the HR data from this to his 30 mile training run in camp verde it’s pretty interesting. Assuming they are both somewhat correct then it’s possible this race was a marathon pace training run. Knowing Jim’s super aggressive background I would imagine he sends the Trials marathon at this race pace and holds on for dear life. Glory or DNF put that in the bank.

By DNF I mean blow up. I’m sure he will cross the finish line. I hope the guy pulls it off.

Nice workout wrote:

Check out his Strava data... 152bpm average HR, not even close to threshold. Was this a MP workout? If so he has 2:07 potential on a similar course (!?)

I recall on the WS100 course his HR is average in the 160's so yeah, this was not a max effort for him.

If you look at the elevation profile on Strava, he actually slowed down at the end of the race which was downhill.

Kvothe wrote:

Have to believe the 210-212 range is possible for Walmsley with a 10215 result. Of course atanta will be hilly.

2:06 FTW!

Nice workout wrote:

Check out his Strava data... 152bpm average HR, not even close to threshold. Was this a MP workout? If so he has 2:07 potential on a similar course (!?)

It's pointless to look at wrist-based hr monitoring, not accurate at all

YMMV wrote:

walmsley is a factor wrote:

And add the fact that RnR Arizona is not flat. There’s a long uphill through mi 9. Walmsley is a big factor going into trials.

And Shrader seems like he will be too.

Trials are going to be fun!

Looks like a net gain of ~200', maybe 300+ overall?

No. There is no net gain. About 200 feet of up, same down.

Wildhorse wrote:

Wildhorse wrote:

Didn't Droddy run a 61' half or something? What's he done in the marathon?

I didn't mean to compare Walmsley and Droddy as athletes, just point out that the marathon equivalent of your half-marathon PR isn't a given. Especially not the first time you run a full.

It’s not like Walmsley has never raced 26.2 miles before... he’s the best ultrarunner of the last 10 years with multiple wins at western states and tons of 50k, 50m, and 100k finishes.

runnER/DR wrote:

YMMV wrote:

Looks like a net gain of ~200', maybe 300+ overall?

No. There is no net gain. About 200 feet of up, same down.

Sorry, I meant a net gain until mile 10.

Hoka One One Napali (discontinued) wrote:

It’s not like Walmsley has never raced 26.2 miles before... he’s the best ultrarunner of the last 10 years with multiple wins at western states and tons of 50k, 50m, and 100k finishes.

What?

He barely finished his own Hoka 100k last year when he was beaten by the World Champion over 100k from Japan.

Walmsley is good but the best he is not.

bkrunner wrote:

I just took my own advice and looked at a strava file from a few years ago compared to Jim's file this morning. Check out Cole Watson's file from 2016:

https://www.strava.com/activities/472691184/overview

Zoom in on the turnaround for the out-and-back. Compared to Jim's file, it looks like the "correct" out-and-back point is roughly 100 yards past where this year's course turned. Based on that, I'd say this course was 12.9-13.0, but not 13.1.

I took a closer look at Watson's 2016 gps track compared to Walmsley's track and pinpointed the turnaround difference in the tracks on Google Earth looking at the vegetation visible. Looks like turnaround was about 137 meters off, so 274 meters (0.170 mile) short, assuming that the 2016 race was accurate (which might not be a great assumption). At 4:50 pace, that's 49 seconds.

Short by .257 miles.

He ran another 7 miles for a cool down.

These comments crack me up. As if Galen Rupp could finish western states within 3 hours of Jim with the same amount of specificity. Meanwhile, Rupp could beat Jim by maybe 6 minutes in a thon.

In a flat thon like Chicago , he would go 2:08 with easy .

No Walmsley fanboy wrote:

Hoka One One Napali (discontinued) wrote:

It’s not like Walmsley has never raced 26.2 miles before... he’s the best ultrarunner of the last 10 years with multiple wins at western states and tons of 50k, 50m, and 100k finishes.

What?

He barely finished his own Hoka 100k last year when he was beaten by the World Champion over 100k from Japan.

Walmsley is good but the best he is not.

Don't know how many times it has to be pointed out that Walmsley realized halfway through the Hoka 50mi/100k race that, despite how the event had been promo'ed, it would have been impossible to take down both records in the same race. Too much disparity in distance between them.

So he went all-out for the 50mi record and was fully spent. Then took time to recover walking for some time afterward, then jogged in the extra 12 miles to 100K at slow pace only because a finish at that distance was required for the the "en route" 50mi world best to officially stand. He did not care about time/place at 100K, just the 50mi.

runnER/DR wrote:

YMMV wrote:

Looks like a net gain of ~200', maybe 300+ overall?

No. There is no net gain. About 200 feet of up, same down.

If you look at splits in Strava last 3 miles are all downhill. Yet, Jim did not accelerate, and actually was slowing down a bit. This leads to 2 possible conclusions: 1) he was totally cooked, and couldn't hold it, which is a bad sign for full marathon; 2) he deliberately kept it under control to save quads, which means his HM time can be further improved.

this hurts the narrative they have going, you shouldn't have explained something this simple