FFF wrote:
I am 1000 percent certain that I stand a better chance of someone/a normal person knowing about Walmsley, than of Fauble. Following the Trials race, I bet that remains true.
A "normal" person has no idea who either guy is. Out of all the trial participants, a normal person may know something about Lagat and Rupp, and he might be vaguely familiar with Ward. That's about it. Well, maybe Abdi, too. But people have short memory.
oh no, not another walmsley thread.
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
A "normal" person has no idea who either guy is. Out of all the trial participants, a normal person may know something about Lagat and Rupp, and he might be vaguely familiar with Ward. That's about it. Well, maybe Abdi, too. But people have short memory.
No. "Normal" people have no idea who those people are either. Sorry, bud.
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
FFF wrote:
I am 1000 percent certain that I stand a better chance of someone/a normal person knowing about Walmsley, than of Fauble. Following the Trials race, I bet that remains true.
A "normal" person has no idea who either guy is. Out of all the trial participants, a normal person may know something about Lagat and Rupp, and he might be vaguely familiar with Ward. That's about it. Well, maybe Abdi, too. But people have short memory.
Does that mean distance runners are Abby Normal?
I watched the entire video, the running itself wasn't the main point and it didn't inspire me in any way to want to run. I did enjoy the video, I feel bad for the guy and it was interesting hearing about how he turned his life around from the dark place he was in (and how he used running to help him do that). But, please explain how you feel this answered "fun to watch" questions? It really didn't. It also don't see how this illustrates the OP's point that Walmsely is somehow the "entertainer" running needed. He certainly didn't come off that way. Fragile and needy, yes. Driven by his past demons to succeed would be the best description. But how do other runners emulate that? Do I need to get a DUI and go to a dark place, take a wrong turn, is that the inspirational way to improve as a runner?
Anyway, again, I liked the video and it made me like Jim, he seems like a really good guy. But I don't get any take away from it that makes me think he will single handily "save the sport of running". Do you have a terrible past and so you found inspiration from this video to start to run again? Is that why you posted it?
I can’t wait until Tyreek hill makes an Olympic team. Maybe that’ll put running on the map.
Yeahdsfsdfdsfs wrote:
Then comes along confident Walmsley, whom is an entertainer, that is not afraid to put himself out there.
Your failure to know when to use the subject pronoun “who” rather than the object pronoun “whom” makes your entire argument invalid.
what now wrote:
Who is Matt?
+1
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
A "normal" person has no idea who either guy is. Out of all the trial participants, a normal person may know something about Lagat and Rupp, and he might be vaguely familiar with Ward. That's about it. Well, maybe Abdi, too. But people have short memory.
Does that mean distance runners are Abby Normal?
If you look at the number of Google search hits for "Jim Walmsley" vs. "Scott Fauble", its 15.5 to 1 (1,060,00, vs. 68,400). So, it's fair to say that the average American is a lot more likely to have heard of Walmsley than Fauble. There are way more stories in non-running media about Walmsley. That is in part because there is a huge cross-over appeal to the outdoors world, and in part because he has brought some real talent to the US ultra world (not just a big fish in a small pond). That he sometimes has had big failures had created an even more interesting story about him. That first Western States failure basically took him from an unknown to a story that also broke into the non-running media.
*it's
There this website called youtube, you may have heard of it. You go can there and type in things/people in the search bar. Its pretty revolutionary.
Yeahdsfsdfdsfs wrote:
I'm a fan of this sport. You are a fan of boring athletes that are dive bombing this sport into empty stadiums and no TV contracts.
How many stadiums has this jogger you speak of filled? How many TV contracts has he created?
walmsley bro wrote:
There this website called youtube, you may have heard of it. You go can there and type in things/people in the search bar. Its pretty revolutionary.
Did your answer seem clever to you? Your saying then that how Jim Walmsley is going to save running is because everyone is going to go on YouTube and do a search for "Jim Walmsley", find videos of him running and then fall in love with running? You don't see any problem with that? Idiot.
I find it absurd someone with that little media effort has people praising him.
Professional athletes LITERALLY have the job of paid entertainers. They should spend MOST of their time on marketing. The NY Jets do not make money from winning games. They make money from selling their brand and media.
I do not understand how athletes like Ritz have professional contracts and go dark for a year at a time. He should have a 2-hour livestream every day of his training on Nike's website or something.
rmess wrote:
Yeahdsfsdfdsfs wrote:
I'm a fan of this sport. You are a fan of boring athletes that are dive bombing this sport into empty stadiums and no TV contracts.
How many stadiums has this jogger you speak of filled? How many TV contracts has he created?
Are we talking about Fauble? The answer is zero.
Track is dying, yep wrote:
rmess wrote:
How many stadiums has this jogger you speak of filled? How many TV contracts has he created?
Are we talking about Fauble? The answer is zero.
Maybe you should re-read the OP.
zzzz wrote:
If you look at the number of Google search hits for "Jim Walmsley" vs. "Scott Fauble", its 15.5 to 1 (1,060,00, vs. 68,400). So, it's fair to say that the average American is a lot more likely to have heard of Walmsley than Fauble. There are way more stories in non-running media about Walmsley. That is in part because there is a huge cross-over appeal to the outdoors world, and in part because he has brought some real talent to the US ultra world (not just a big fish in a small pond). That he sometimes has had big failures had created an even more interesting story about him. That first Western States failure basically took him from an unknown to a story that also broke into the non-running media.
Not sure, if this logic is right.
Maybe nobody searches for Scott Fauble because they already now that is a great runner. So maybe it's fair to say that more people google Walmsley because they don't know him.
No Walmsley fanboy wrote:
zzzz wrote:
If you look at the number of Google search hits for "Jim Walmsley" vs. "Scott Fauble", its 15.5 to 1 (1,060,00, vs. 68,400). So, it's fair to say that the average American is a lot more likely to have heard of Walmsley than Fauble. There are way more stories in non-running media about Walmsley. That is in part because there is a huge cross-over appeal to the outdoors world, and in part because he has brought some real talent to the US ultra world (not just a big fish in a small pond). That he sometimes has had big failures had created an even more interesting story about him. That first Western States failure basically took him from an unknown to a story that also broke into the non-running media.
Not sure, if this logic is right.
Maybe nobody searches for Scott Fauble because they already now that is a great runner. So maybe it's fair to say that more people google Walmsley because they don't know him.
The numbers I provided are not counting how many search for those terms. I'm counting how many results come up when you search for those terms. So yes, Walmsley has about 15 times more written about him than Fauble on the internet - and therefore about 15 times more known.
zzzz wrote:
No Walmsley fanboy wrote:
Not sure, if this logic is right.
Maybe nobody searches for Scott Fauble because they already now that is a great runner. So maybe it's fair to say that more people google Walmsley because they don't know him.
The numbers I provided are not counting how many search for those terms. I'm counting how many results come up when you search for those terms. So yes, Walmsley has about 15 times more written about him than Fauble on the internet - and therefore about 15 times more known.
Just for fun, number of results found for a search on Google:
Stephen Curry 85,800,000
Lance Armstrong 25,500,000
Laird Hamilton 8,620,000
Eliud Kipchoge 4,830,000
Mikaela Shiffrin 3,880,000
Galen Rupp 1,630,000
Jim Walmsley 1,060,000
Jakob Ingebrigtsen 410,000
Meb Keflezighi 295,000
(Mebrahtom Keflezighi 316,000)
Matthew Centrowitz 115,000
Scott Fauble 68,400
This doesn't work for people who have common names like Ryan Hall (649 million, but the first page has only one mention of the runner on it).
Actually he's basing his training on what the Japanese have done (and they have obviously been much more successful over the marathon than you American's have been).