Jim Walmsley Olympic Marathon Trials Prediction Thread

It doesn't matter who you are, you are still an idiot for thinking that 23 guys will break 2:14.

This is all correct, except for the idea the 25 or so guys in shape for 2:10-12 will all show up with a great race on race day, particularly in an all-or-nothing championship race without pacers. Probably less than half will.

No, this is stupid, if not outright lying. "I'm one of the Americans who has beaten Walmsley in his half marathon races he's done."

Walmsley has run two half-marathon races (plural), so who is this delusional runner that has beaten him in both?

If Jim had run a few marathons, and already run a 2:12, and a 63/4 half tune-up, and done the workouts he's been doing, everyone would be going crazy about how he's going to go 2:09 at the Trials.

But since it's Jim, and he's an ultra guy, he's just going to give up when the "real" runners start running fast with a few miles to go.

Well, okay then.

I hope Jim tries to pull a "Joanie" (you can't catch what you can't see) OR crash and burn spectacularly trying to do so. Good luck Jim... carpe diem!

Ward made the team in 2016 with 2:13:00. If Walmsley runs 2:13 he finishes in the top ten for sure.

Walmsley to tempo a 2:12:38 for second place, looking relaxed.

Exactly.

wha??? wrote:

Walmsley has run two half-marathon races (plural), so who is this delusional runner that has beaten him in both?

You know how you can figure this out?

See who beat Walmsley in Houston and then compare names to who beat Walmsley in Phoenix.

I think a really good day for Jim is top-20 or 25 if he paces himself right. He's a 1:03 guy with great endurance. If it goes out fast & he goes with it, I don't think he'll hang on but I'd be ecstatic to get proven wrong. I hope Jim does well enough so people stop scoffing at him & other trail runners.

NERunner053 wrote:

I think a really good day for Jim is top-20 or 25 if he paces himself right. He's a 1:03 guy with great endurance. If it goes out fast & he goes with it, I don't think he'll hang on but I'd be ecstatic to get proven wrong. I hope Jim does well enough so people stop scoffing at him & other trail runners.

Jim's going to run a 2:22?

Walmsely for 3rd, based on JK assessment of uphills and downhills.

Average prediction so far is 2:12:38. I'm going to go for the under on that and even go so far as to say that there's a >50% chance that Walmsley blows the doors off the field and comes in under 2:07.

He just ran a 1:03 half and is clearly riding a massive improvement trajectory as he continues to build specific fitness for this event, not to mention the fact that the guy is an aerobic BEAST and has a nation of mountain and desert people cheering him on. I for one am looking forward to the Ginger Runner podcast where Jim will reveal all the details behind his training that garnered his dominant victory.

6th place. 2:12 high - 2:13 low.

There are only a handful who raced both, beat him in both and are actually the type that post on this board...you can narrow that pool down pretty quickly. Obviously, less than 10 on the first two parts by default.

Good Guesser wrote:

NotGonnaHappen wrote:

2:13 will not be 23rd place. That would mean 23 people ran 2:13 or faster. Not gonna happen.

Return to this thread when you're wrong. And 2:13:58 for 23rd place just means 23 people run fater than 2:13:58, not faster than 2:13.

... let's say 2:13:58 is like 2:11:58 on Chicago... There were a dozen guys that did that this year. Then you add Korir and Rupp and Ward and Fauble and Abdi and many others that weren't at Chicago that could've done that as well.

It's only 50 foot elevation per mile, these guys have been purposely seeking out hills, look at their strava, they're still running pretty much the same paces in workouts as normal, just a few seconds slower. Five seconds per mile pace change is a lot for this caliber of runner.

Who are "these guys" you are talking about so that we can look at their strava?

2:10:50 5th

2:13 low for 5th.

My thinking is, if Walmsley can run a projected 2:13 on a flat course, he won't be much faster than a 2:15 in Atlanta. If he goes out to hard in the first half it might be just a 2:18-20 or even a DNF after a strong first half.

That is probably what will happen. Jim goes out with the experts for a 66 in the first half and then he gets left in the dust a couple miles later, then he decides to drop out so the Walmsley fanboys can say, he could have won, but it just was not his day.

That seems the most likely scenario.

Walmsley thinks he’s in 2:10 shape. He thought he was in 64 shape at Houston and ran 64 flat. I think he is going to pace a 2:10, and come the final 8k he’s going to dig deep and push it a little harder. I’m calling a 2:09.48 for 2nd place behind Rupp.