Jim Walmsley Olympic Marathon Trials Prediction Thread

bluecolla wrote:

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.

Walmsley is most likely keeping his cards closer to his chest so that he doesn't spook his competitors. 2:09/2nd place is conservative. Even money is 2:07 FTW.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

bluecolla wrote:

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.

If that's including the 2 minutes for the hills and equivalent to 2:07:48, he's an idiot for having run ultras all these years.

I think Mr. Walmsley is doing just fine compared to your average “pro” marathoner. I’d be willing to bet you Walmsley‘s salary is far deal greater than Fauble’s. So making a fair living and doing something you enjoy as opposed to appeasing some hobby jogging keyboard warrior makes you an idiot?

facts facts wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

If that's including the 2 minutes for the hills and equivalent to 2:07:48, he's an idiot for having run ultras all these years.

I think Mr. Walmsley is doing just fine compared to your average “pro” marathoner. I’d be willing to bet you Walmsley‘s salary is far deal greater than Fauble’s. So making a fair living and doing something you enjoy as opposed to appeasing some hobby jogging keyboard warrior makes you an idiot?

2:07:48 is not even close to being just average. And maybe if he had been focused on marathons during his career he would be even faster now.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

facts facts wrote:

I think Mr. Walmsley is doing just fine compared to your average “pro” marathoner. I’d be willing to bet you Walmsley‘s salary is far deal greater than Fauble’s. So making a fair living and doing something you enjoy as opposed to appeasing some hobby jogging keyboard warrior makes you an idiot?

2:07:48 is not even close to being just average. And maybe if he had been focused on marathons during his career he would be even faster now.

The facts are that if you could beat a Fauble type with far more limited specific training you would not have wasted years trail running. Appearance and top American at majors makes you way more money than some ultra contract. Just because you are the biggest star in a tiny market does not automatically have you making more money than a top pro at a real big ticket event. Why do you think Walmsley is even trying this? Because he thinks he can make more money obviously. Top ten would be a great day for him and that's exactly what he said himself. Hell Brogan Austin is much faster than he is and he's got like a 1% shot at making the team. This will likely be the only marathon Walmsley ever races. He's got talent, a 13:50 guy is not a bum by any means. But he knows where he really is on this hierarchy.

Rupp will win 2:10-2:10:30

Ward 2:11

Brogan Austin for 3rd 2:11-2:12

Walmsley will run 2:13-2:14 in 6th to 8th place.

Colorado Springs bald bro SD wrote:

Rupp will win 2:10-2:10:30

Ward 2:11

Brogan Austin for 3rd 2:11-2:12

Walmsley will run 2:13-2:14 in 6th to 8th place.

I don't think Brogan will make the team but he closed CIM really fast for an American. He should pick people off at the end.

21st in 2:15

Don’t be surprised if the race is won in 2:10. The entire course is hills

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

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.

As far as I can tell, no one who beat him in Phoenix had raced and beat him in Houston

Colorado Springs bald bro SD wrote:

Rupp will win 2:10-2:10:30

Ward 2:11

Brogan Austin for 3rd 2:11-2:12

Walmsley will run 2:13-2:14 in 6th to 8th place.

This^

Sounds about right...might plug in some sorta young surprise dude punching above his weight in 3rd...maybe mock?

2:10:01 3RD

PLOT TWIST: JIM WEARS THE ALPHAFLY

it’s gonna be slow wrote:

21st in 2:15

Don’t be surprised if the race is won in 2:10. The entire course is hills

"It's gonna be slow," and 21 will be in by 2:15? Been at this very long?

it’s gonna be slow wrote:

21st in 2:15

Don’t be surprised if the race is won in 2:10. The entire course is hills

Wow talk about a good prediction.

puhleeease wrote:

bluecolla wrote:

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.

Walmsley is most likely keeping his cards closer to his chest so that he doesn't spook his competitors. 2:09/2nd place is conservative. Even money is 2:07 FTW.

this didnt age well.

fromthefuture wrote:

it’s gonna be slow wrote:

21st in 2:15

Don’t be surprised if the race is won in 2:10. The entire course is hills

Wow talk about a good prediction.

Thanks

What do I win?

NotGonnaHappen wrote:

<3 wrote:

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.

Exactly.

Looks like me, the idiot, was the closest. Predicting 2:13:58 for 23rd place. The wind ended up being a little tougher than initially forecast (20mph instead of 9-10mph) so the times slowed up a bit. He ended up 67 seconds slower than my prediction and one place better than I thought.

Who's the idiot now?

Good Guesser wrote:

NotGonnaHappen wrote:

Exactly.

Looks like me, the idiot, was the closest. Predicting 2:13:58 for 23rd place. The wind ended up being a little tougher than initially forecast (20mph instead of 9-10mph) so the times slowed up a bit. He ended up 67 seconds slower than my prediction and one place better than I thought.

Who's the idiot now?

You are still the idiot. We told you that there wouldn't be 23 people breaking 2;14. We were right. There were 16. You were off by a factor of like 44%.

Like I said, the wind was an additional factor that wasn't forecast. 20mph is way different from 10 or less. And not sure what your math is doing there, but 16/23 is only off by 30%... Though that's a crappy way to look at the numbers. That's like predicting one guy under 2:10 and there being 2, so you're off by 100%? More like I was off by 67 seconds, which isn't all that much in a marathon.

Did you have fun watching on TV? I had fun running one of my better races at the Olympic Marathon Team Trials.