Jim Walmsley gets big feature in New York Times Magazine (and a RW and SI feature on same day)

Irony is, with shorter ultras becoming so popular (24 hours is the standard) it’s inevitable that there will be more crossover.

No Walmsley fanboy wrote:

No Walmsley fanboy wrote:

Well the Japanese runner ran a 6:20ish in "less than ideal" conditions. That is one of the fastest times ever. The 50 mile world best is a non contested distance and never was a contested distance.

Jim has talent but he is not as good as his fan crowd wants him to be.

I wasn't able to pull up the data earlier. Hideaki Yamauchi's run under "less than ideal" conditions produced the best result of 2019 and the 14th best ever over 100k. Please stay with the hard cold facts. Thank you.

http://statistik.d-u-v.org/getintbestlist.php?dist=100km&year=2019&gender=M

Listen...you continue to mislead people on here. Walmsley's primary goal in that event was to set the 50-mile record. That might be a meaningless goal for you but it meant something to Hoka who was organizing the event. They specifically measured out the 50 mile distance (certified) and had a timing checkpoint there to ensure it was kosher. His secondary goal was to run a 100K record as well. But when the day turned up warmer then desired he knew just the 50 was going to happen so he ran the 50 hard. At the 50-mile mark he was well ahead of Hideaki. He stopped and rested for many minutes after hitting the 50 mile record...took pictures...etc. Of course a still moving Hideaki went by in this time. Walmsley was clearly toast but had to trot out the rest of the run, because the rules on setting the record specify that there has to be a timing checkpoint at the distance AND you have to finish the race. It is okay to bash Walmsley but be truthful when you do it. If his primary goal were to win that race he likely would have run more in control for the 100K and competed with Hideaki. But he NEEDED to break that 50-mile record to ensure a successful event for Hoka.

Thanks for the reply. When I ran several years ago, I found the McMillan calculator as the 'go-to' calculator source, and I preferred it above all others. I was impressed with its 'predictor' capability. However, (sadly) it seems one has to register now to use it*, so I used the first 'free' calculator I could find, here:

*I would appreciate access to the McMillan if there is a link.

That is good to know, because I want to see Walmsley do well at the trials.

Mcmillanrunning.com

Thanks. When I failed to get it work earlier, I thought I needed to first register an email address.

oonunoomus wrote:

"The typical elite marathoner can log as little as 70 miles per week; 150-mile weeks sit at the far end of the spectrum. "

Does anyone here know of any runner training for the trials, male or female, who is averaging 70 miles per week?

I know of one who qualified on 60, in his first marathon.

No Walmsley fanboy wrote:

hardpass wrote:

Underrated ask...as a hobbyjogger, I can at least imagine training to keep a 8:30 pace for 50-100 miles...but a 5:00 pace or better for 26.2 miles? That's absurd.

Ha, ha deluded runners on both sides.

What is your 100 mile PR hardpass?

Try to control your sarcasm.

It's not funny.

It's rude and disrespectful to others.

Be stronger than sarcasm.

Here's how this is going to play out.

The lead group will run 2:12 pace up to about 35k.

I think Walmsley will be there, but he will not be able to go from running 5:02 to 4:45 (or even faster) which is exactly how the race will play out when Rupp makes his move from 7k out.

If Walmsley plays at being his own worst enemy again, and tries to lead or push earlier in the race, then he won't even be there at 35k to miss the move.

I am not a hater though, I would love to see the team be Rupp, Walmsley, and Lagat, but I don't think either Jim or Bernard will have the ability to shift gears that late in the race. Lagat because of age, Walmsley because of a lack of specific training.