Even though she clearly had the ability to as her 8:06.11 3000m tells us. Yes I know she was as doped as they come but her 5000m pb is slow compared to her 3000m pb. Her 3000m would indicate that she should of run well under 14.
Thoughts?
Even though she clearly had the ability to as her 8:06.11 3000m tells us. Yes I know she was as doped as they come but her 5000m pb is slow compared to her 3000m pb. Her 3000m would indicate that she should of run well under 14.
Thoughts?
should of, could of, would of.
iosonfrvuier wrote:
should of, could of, would of.
Wow, how utterly embarrassing for you. Should've, could've, would've.
Are you retarded?
Actually, I am probably retarded. Hopefully you were commenting on the original poster's idiotic use of could of.
I was yeah :D
Simply put:
She didn't run sub 14 in her career because they didn't run the 5000 at the 1993 Beijing Games.
8:06 is roughly equivalent to 29:33 (she ran 29:31). So it is not an outlier for her.
You know what else is it equivalent to? 14:14. Which is, in fact, 3 sec slower than the WR.
Saying that 8:06 should qualify someone to run sub 14 shows what a complete idiot you are.
The 5k was not a premier event for women in 1993. It wasn't until 1995 that it was included in top global competition, replacing the 3k.
Nutella1 wrote:
8:06 is roughly equivalent to 29:33 (she ran 29:31). So it is not an outlier for her.
You know what else is it equivalent to? 14:14. Which is, in fact, 3 sec slower than the WR.
Saying that 8:06 should qualify someone to run sub 14 shows what a complete idiot you are.
8:06 is definitely better than 14:14 and 29:33. Maybe you are what you have called someone else without any reason?
8:06 = 13:54 = 29:11
Source: IAAF
Nutella1 wrote:
8:06 is roughly equivalent to 29:33 (she ran 29:31). So it is not an outlier for her.
You know what else is it equivalent to? 14:14. Which is, in fact, 3 sec slower than the WR.
Saying that 8:06 should qualify someone to run sub 14 shows what a complete idiot you are.
So are you saying Dibaba and Defar should be able to run 8:06?
I think these calculators are a bit unreliable.
One calculator says 8:06 = 14:14 (McMillan), another says it equates to 13:55 (Runner's World) and another says 14:06 (Jack Daniels).
My gut tells me that if Wang really did run 8:06 and 29:31 then she would kill the current WR of 14:11 of someone who couldn't touch Wang's times in the 3 or the 10.
May be because never run 5000m on track, since in 1993 the event didn't exist....
said88 wrote:
Nutella1 wrote:8:06 is roughly equivalent to 29:33 (she ran 29:31). So it is not an outlier for her.
You know what else is it equivalent to? 14:14. Which is, in fact, 3 sec slower than the WR.
Saying that 8:06 should qualify someone to run sub 14 shows what a complete idiot you are.
8:06 is definitely better than 14:14 and 29:33. Maybe you are what you have called someone else without any reason?
+1
The problem is that they never got a chance to run a 5k on that short course in China. Look at her results outside of China - nothing out of the ordinary.
The other guy! wrote:
The problem is that they never got a chance to run a 5k on that short course in China. Look at her results outside of China - nothing out of the ordinary.
The men's results, women's relays, and replication of 1500m times indicate otherwise.
Junxia may have been drugged up beyond imagination, but unless the track could actively transform and make itself exclusively short for womens' individual distance events, it was of normal length.
No. Really.
Here results outside of China were really nothing out of the ordinary.
She'd barely be remembered if it weren't for that one single meet.