2014: 9 so far
2013: 3
2012: 5
2011: 0
2010: 2
2009: 1
2008: 0
2007: 0
2006: 3
2005: 2
2004: 4
2003: 4
2002: 7
2001: 8
2000: 4
1999: 9
1998: 7
1997: 9
1996: 4
1995: 3
1994: 0
1993: 2
2014: 9 so far
2013: 3
2012: 5
2011: 0
2010: 2
2009: 1
2008: 0
2007: 0
2006: 3
2005: 2
2004: 4
2003: 4
2002: 7
2001: 8
2000: 4
1999: 9
1998: 7
1997: 9
1996: 4
1995: 3
1994: 0
1993: 2
most sub 3:30's that is.
"Is most of all time"?
What does that even mean?
Come on ayanleh let's make history mothaf;74{^
Mush wrote:
"Is most of all time"?
What does that even mean?
you must be one of those people that can't find the United States on a world map.
If there's a 1500 in Brussels, it will probably happen. Kiplagat, Kiprop and Souleyman are bound to go sub 3:30 one more time.
Three of the last seven years with NO sub-3:30's!
Bad Wigins wrote:
Mush wrote:"Is most of all time"?
What does that even mean?
you must be one of those people that can't find the United States on a world map.
Yes definitely. My inability to interpret broken English clearly indicates a lack of geography knowledge.
haha! well done, mush. this wiggins guy is an absolute tool. absolute Richard to everyone else, 99% of the time. he gets anything and everything coming to him on this one.
Mush wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:you must be one of those people that can't find the United States on a world map.
Yes definitely. My inability to interpret broken English clearly indicates a lack of geography knowledge.
Come on Mush! You gotta admit that if you were unable to infer what Bad Wigins meant from the title and the post, then you just might not be the intellectual you present yourself to be. Sure it was badly worded, but if you are able to understand it with the context, then he communicated just fine. Stop being a grammar Nazi, this forum isn't exactly a place to polish up the old Doctoral Dissertation.
Mush wrote:
"Is most of all time"?
What does that even mean?
Not a fan of 'bad' but in this case his post was perfectly clear and informative.
urabus wrote:
Mush wrote:"Is most of all time"?
What does that even mean?
Not a fan of 'bad' but in this case his post was perfectly clear and informative.
I understand that it is fairly easy to figure out what he was trying to say as a whole. I didn't mean to turn the thread into a debate about grammar, but you have to admit that "is most of all time" is pretty bad. It isn't like he just used a single wrong word. People have bashed other's grammar on Letsrun for a lot less.
I understand what the post was saying, but I really have no idea exactly what the title was trying to say.
So, now that the dickless lurkers have once again vented their petty grievances, one more sub-3:30 would be the most ever in one year, something that people with actual lives might find interesting.
I think it is sure to happen, and #10 will be Kiprop.
Mush wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:you must be one of those people that can't find the United States on a world map.
Yes definitely. My inability to interpret broken English clearly indicates a lack of geography knowledge.
Both are indicative of being an idiot so the relation made sense.
We already have the most unique athletes under 3:30 this year. The previous record was 4 - 2001 and 1997. The 9 sub-3:30s in 1999 were run by two men.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Clayton Murphy is giving some great insight into his training.
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
70% of WNBA players are black - only 3 have sneaker deals - All are white