Cain 9:38.68 2-mile!!

Raptured wrote:

Mautherve Ockar wrote:

Wejo and Rojo didn't invent the conversion factor. Multiplying by 1.08 to get from a 1500 to a mile or from a 3000 to a two-mile has been standard practice forever. T&F News uses it, and more important statistica bear it out. None of your "well this assumes this and that and it's all a load of horse manure!" means a frigging thing. So shut up; sit back; watch closely; and learn from your betters and elders.

Actually what he wrote was pretty spot on. Most importantly, if she came through 3000 in 9:04, how can you suggest that she could run 9 seconds faster by only cutting off 218 meters?

Granted I didn't read this whole thread so I don't know how things turned, but these arguments against an 8:55 conversion are retarded and I had to post something.

Yes, she split 9:04 en route to a 9:38. That means she ran her last 218 meters at 31.1 200m pace. Transpose that 200m on to 2800-3000m and you already drop 5-6 seconds (31 vs a 36-37). So if she merely had kicked 200m earlier you would already be at 8:58-8:59. The remaining 3-4 seconds is for the extra distance.

Wow...just looked at the results for this! Great performance Mary!

I know two miles aren't run that often, so her all-time standing doesn't carry much weight. How does her 9:35.91 3200m stack up? Does an en route count?

http://www.flashresults.com/2013_Meets/indoor/02-02-NBIG/live/021-1-01.htm

According to TF News 9:48 was the 3200 record but they do not recognize it as a real event.

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/special-articles/281

HS's in this country should get a clue and start running the 3000 like everyone else.

Come on mayne wrote:

Incredible, she keeps delivering!

That is really a crazy time. There are boys who ended up running in the Olympics who had slower times than that in high school (Jeff Galloway and Brian Sell immediately come to mind).

[quote]J.R. wrote:

Mary Decker, Debbie Heald, Jim Ryun et al ran with the pros.

Zero gold medals.

/14,/2341,, wrote:

[quote]J.R. wrote:

Mary Decker, Debbie Heald, Jim Ryun et al ran with the pros.

Zero gold medals.

__

except for decker's two gold medals (WC 1983)

xcZczxczxczxc wrote:

Raptured wrote:

Actually what he wrote was pretty spot on. Most importantly, if she came through 3000 in 9:04, how can you suggest that she could run 9 seconds faster by only cutting off 218 meters?

Granted I didn't read this whole thread so I don't know how things turned, but these arguments against an 8:55 conversion are retarded and I had to post something.

Yes, she split 9:04 en route to a 9:38. That means she ran her last 218 meters at 31.1 200m pace. Transpose that 200m on to 2800-3000m and you already drop 5-6 seconds (31 vs a 36-37). So if she merely had kicked 200m earlier you would already be at 8:58-8:59. The remaining 3-4 seconds is for the extra distance.

Thank you for posting this. I was dreading having to write that out.

The Centro argument is completely ludicrous as well. He came through 1500 in 3:41 in route to 3:56. Ok, well let's assume he is running a 1500. He would (theoretically, but this is a very valid assumption) start the same kick from the same distance out. Thus, he likely would finish in 3:38-3:40, which (gasp) converts to about 3:56.

My god people, use your heads.

Good post.

xcZczxczxczxc wrote:

Granted I didn't read this whole thread so I don't know how things turned, but these arguments against an 8:55 conversion are retarded and I had to post something.

Yes, she split 9:04 en route to a 9:38. That means she ran her last 218 meters at 31.1 200m pace. Transpose that 200m on to 2800-3000m and you already drop 5-6 seconds (31 vs a 36-37). So if she merely had kicked 200m earlier you would already be at 8:58-8:59. The remaining 3-4 seconds is for the extra distance.

Davy davy wrote:

Why convert to some obscure metric distance when we already know that she ran 2 back to back miles of 4:49?

Because there is a rest of the world, and the rest of the world cares more about a 3km time than a 2-miler.

It's relevant.