Then go elsewhere.
I, for one, am getting tired of these two discussions over and over:
It's rubbish that applies to 95% of all top distance runners.
1) Comparing runner's 400 times and saying that guy A supposedly is more aerobically fit because his 400 to 800 ratio is smaller than guy B. Then they say guy B, who had a faster 400 time but a larger ratio, could potentially be a better runner or a WR holder if he developed aerobically. But guys, it doesn't work that way. Those ratios are rubbish.
Nah, you wouldn't want to learn from that.
Some are probably not beatable. 3:55 pace for 3K? Who's going to beat that? 7:58 for 2 miles? 3:26 for 1500? Who the heck will run faster? 19.32 for 200? You think someone's going to break that?
2) Which world records are more impressive. They are all impressive and they are all beatable. Some are more beatable or more "soft" than others. Get over it, lets move on in this discussion.