ventolin^3. help me out

He did not, but the top times (9.6, 19.2, 42.9, etc) line up pretty close to the IAAF table equivalents. The slower times (e.g. 12.0 = 24.0 = etc...) do not line up with the IAAF tables though.

i wish he wouldn't count the 100 and 200 because they both have the potential to be benefited by wind. on average, people's 100 and 200 PRs will have had a tailwind. he probably used "basic" times for Bolt's 100 and 200 but only he could know.

iaaf tables would probably work

Are you making a performance calculator/predictor of some sort? In that case I would recommend the IAAF tables

HardLoper wrote:

Are you making a performance calculator/predictor of some sort? In that case I would recommend the IAAF tables

Are the IAAF tables even based off of performance capability? If not, then that would be a bad recommendation (depending on what the OP wants).

HardLoper wrote:He did not, but the top times (9.6, 19.2, 42.9, etc) line up pretty close to the IAAF table equivalents. The slower times (e.g. 12.0 = 24.0 = etc...) do not line up with the IAAF tables though.

If you look at some of the slower times, say Marita Koch's 10.83/21.71/47.60 pbs, they do line up well

( albeit she didn't run them all in same season, but at her peak, say in '85 when running 400wr, she was good for maybe 10.80/21.60/47.6 on the day )

Also, interesting was Christine Ohurogu's 400pb compared to her 100pb ( probably worth slightly faster last year when running 49.41 )

Also, look at the line for women's 800WR & = for 1500 & 3k & for each of those 3 records compared to the others

Conclusion i got is that women's middle/distance running, the WRs maybe slightly exempted ( but not much ) is rubbish

The 10k WR is very poor

When Dibaba ran 14'11WR, that looks just about par for the course compared to what = for 800/1500/3k bests shoud be in that year if all those events were equally strong ( the 10k again very, very poor )

800 for elite women compared to 14'11 indicates 800 is probably best women's middle/distance in a good year with depth, even moreso when Pamela was in her pomp

reed wrote:i wish he wouldn't count the 100 and 200 because they both have the potential to be benefited by wind. on average, people's 100 and 200 PRs will have had a tailwind. he probably used "basic" times for Bolt's 100 and 200 but only he could know.

iaaf tables would probably work

you have to assume 0 wind/ 0 altitude for all races

there are a lot fewer "basic" 10.00/20.00 if you did go thru the lists & adjust for wind/altitude

reed wrote:my question is: do you have other figures for 15k, 20k, half, full?

i can't really help you, because they are road races not track ones

however, i did use same principles as for track ones & if you assumed flat-road races for some very rough'n'ready prelims

28'00 -> either 58'00 or 60'00 for 20k

i went with 58'00, which indicates a 61'11 for 1/2M at same pace ,

it of course won't be same pace, so add ~ 10s for slowing in longer race, call it 61'20 for 1/2M

( the predictor says 28'00/58'00 -> ~ 61'20 )

so i get very prelim :

28'00 -> 61'20

27'00 -> 59'14

26'30 -> 58'11

26'00 -> 57'08

the 58'23wr is worth maybe a ~ 26'36 for a road 10k ( if you want to assume it for a track, it's alright )

the full M is a lot more tricky as i can't settle on what 58 for 20k i wan't to assign an even number integer which needs to be assigned for 40k

i'll try some numbers

ventolin^3 wrote:the full M is a lot more tricky as i can't settle on what 58'00 for 20k i wan't to assign an even number integer to for 40k

58'00 for 20k has to be = one of these for 40k :

1"58'00 or 2"00'00 or 2"02'00

1"58'00 looks too fast

lets check other 2 :

2"00'00 using predictor with 58'00 -> for full M

2"06'55

that gives :

28'00 = 61'20 = 2"06'55

27'00 = 59'14 = 2"02'42...

i can stop right there;that last line is wrong as 59'14 isn't worth as fast as 2"02'42 as everyone knows

throw that line out & therefore have to go with 2"02 as correct = of 28'00 & 58'00

from predictor:

58'00 / 2"02 ->2"09'11

therefore

28'00 = 61'20 = 2"09'11

27'00 = 59'14 = 2"04'58

26'30 = 58'11 = 2"02'52

i therefore get the M wr of 2"03'23 as =

2"03'23 = 26'38 = 58'26

people may think this is some kind of jiggery-pokery, but i get the M wr is ~ = in strength to 1/2M wr & about a 26'38

just figured i can get "worth" of paula's 2"15'25wr

2"15'25 = 29'29 = 64'27

for full line of previous tables :

2"15'25 = ~ 1'57.1 = 3'56.7 = 8'19+ = 14'16+

this is just testimony to how p!ss weak women's M is

( even paula's wr is not great just lot better than the rubbish being run by other gals )

if you doubt the above, i'm pretty sure if we look at male 2"15'25 guys, those sorta equivalents woud be close

bump

ventolin^3 wrote:

58'00 for 20k has to be = one of these for 40k :

...

I am pretty sure you are abusing whatever rule that is

HardLoper wrote:I am pretty sure you are abusing whatever rule that is

No

Even integer distance/times, keep Even the 1st digit Even, so no 5k/10k starts, the 5k is not even 1st digit

I'm a bit shocked not much interest in it/abuse/diatribe

I didn't think the 1/2M / M WRs woud be close as Sammy really whacked it down in his 58'33 ( apparently solo ) & zedster with 58'23 ( lotta pacing i hear ) shouda pushed 1/2 m beyond M

I'd bet bottom $, Joffree in '11 New York was in ~ 2"02'30 shape on flat course & he did run 2"05-flat with no wabbits !!!

->

2"02'30 = 26'25

After malmo, I rate you as next tier "intelligence/athletics knowledge" guys around here ( I hope to aspire to this group, but you are damn sharp )

Be a little bit more presumptive in your assertions...

ventolin^3 wrote:

HardLoper wrote:I am pretty sure you are abusing whatever rule that is

.

.

.

After malmo, I rate you as next tier "intelligence/athletics knowledge" guys around here ( I hope to aspire to this group, but you are damn sharp )

Be a little bit more presumptive in your assertions...

who you talking to? i'm confused

anyway

i was messing around trying to find a conversion between roads and the track, and i came up with 1.0154. so a bit slower on the road, obviously on a flat road with no wind.

seem okay to you? that makes a 13:00 track 5k equal to 13:12 on the roads

reed wrote:seem okay to you? that makes a 13:00 track 5k equal to 13:12 on the roads

this doesn't look a wise path to follow

what does lenny komon's 26'44 end up as on that basis ?!

ventolin^3 wrote:

reed wrote:seem okay to you? that makes a 13:00 track 5k equal to 13:12 on the roads

this doesn't look a wise path to follow

what does lenny komon's 26'44 end up as on that basis ?!

26:20

Ventolin, do you think Geoffrey will win?

definitely geoffrey/joffree for the win

i used some of those M conversions above for mo

he has a 26'46pb but at his peak musta been nearer 26'30

training for M, some of that 10k speed has to go & regardless of improved endurance, that 10k possibly has to currently drift out to 26'40/26'45, i'm going with 26'45

also, i doubt he will ever be as good a M'er as track guy ( remember 3'28 ), so i put an upper limit for mo, currently ( & maybe even career wise - i can't see him ever being as good at M as track ) off 26'45 as

26'45 = 58'42 = 2"03'55

that i reckon may be his career limit

it woud be asking a helluva lot to get that on your debut & london is slower than a berlin/frankfurt type course

if he runs best race possible, i think mo can on sunday go as fast as

~ 2"04'30

it's faster than course record, but it won't win if big kenyans are firing on all cylinders