It seems unlikely that she'd ever go after it; I don't even think she's run that distance in a big meet before.
BUT, IAAF tables put her at 1:53.00; Mercier says even lower.
What say you? Could she do it?
It seems unlikely that she'd ever go after it; I don't even think she's run that distance in a big meet before.
BUT, IAAF tables put her at 1:53.00; Mercier says even lower.
What say you? Could she do it?
Doubt it. Kratochvilova had 47.99 speed. Of course, she would approach it from the distance side. but I don't see her running faster than 1:55.
New Bacardi-Infused RumGum™ wrote:
BUT, IAAF tables put her at 1:53.00; Mercier says even lower.
IAAF tables don't "put" anyone at anything in another distance. They aren't conversion tables. They are performance equivalency not time predictions.
mkk wrote:
New Bacardi-Infused RumGum™ wrote:BUT, IAAF tables put her at 1:53.00; Mercier says even lower.
IAAF tables don't "put" anyone at anything in another distance. They aren't conversion tables. They are performance equivalency not time predictions.
Well, now you have a decision to make. Are you just gonna be a dick, or are you going to recommend some better tables?
New Bacardi-Infused RumGum™ wrote:
mkk wrote:IAAF tables don't "put" anyone at anything in another distance. They aren't conversion tables. They are performance equivalency not time predictions.
Well, now you have a decision to make. Are you just gonna be a dick, or are you going to recommend some better tables?
Correcting you doesn't mean that I'm some kind of genetalia. You're a vagina for being so defensive. There are no such tables that I know of.
mkk wrote:
New Bacardi-Infused RumGum™ wrote:Well, now you have a decision to make. Are you just gonna be a dick, or are you going to recommend some better tables?
Correcting you doesn't mean that I'm some kind of genetalia. You're a vagina for being so defensive. There are no such tables that I know of.
Oh, so you're saying that no table predicts exactly what any runner can run, and that all we can do is speculate, perhaps on threads such as this one? Ahhh, very good!
New Bacardi-Infused RumGum™ wrote:
Oh, so you're saying that no table predicts exactly what any runner can run, and that all we can do is speculate, perhaps on threads such as this one? Ahhh, very good!
No, that's not what I said. I said I didn't know if any such tables existed. They may. Nowhere in my post did I say anything about "all we can do is speculate". You are literally making things up. Try to stay here in reality.
mmk wrote:
New Bacardi-Infused RumGum™ wrote:Oh, so you're saying that no table predicts exactly what any runner can run, and that all we can do is speculate, perhaps on threads such as this one? Ahhh, very good!
No, that's not what I said. I said I didn't know if any such tables existed. They may. Nowhere in my post did I say anything about "all we can do is speculate". You are literally making things up. Try to stay here in reality.
But this is LetsRun, where my dreams become reality.
Seriously, what is your point? I fu\cking know what the IAAF tables are and what they aren't; as do, I would assume, most people who know about the tables in the first place. That doesn't make them irrelevant to the discussion.
Speaking of which, anyone else have an opinion on the actual subject at hand? Anyone know if Dibaba's even run an 800 as a pro?
He's right, you're being a dweeb. Why would you use IAAF tables for that? The 1500m is her best event; it's a silly comparison.
dwightarm wrote:
He's right, you're being a dweeb. Why would you use IAAF tables for that? The 1500m is her best event; it's a silly comparison.
I wasn't using them to argue for her ability to get the WR; given that she focuses on the 15/5 and may never have even run a serious 800, I think it's less than likely. Just asking a hypothetical question.
And everyone has a best event. Comparing the 800 to the 1500 isn't silly.
I don't think she's capable of it at the moment; I concur with those who'd have her at 1:55 or thereabouts.
Thing to remember though is that she's distance trained; give her a year of Coe-esque training focusing on power and speed endurance and she'd run faster over 800. (And taking a second and a half off wouldn't be the most outlandish thing to ever happen, look at her last couple of 1500m races.) Obviously this is never going to happen though.
People forget that Pamela Jelimo ran 1:54 flat a few years ago. Not too far off really. If only she'd kept her focus and progressed then we'd have both of the stupid 800m and 1500m world records off the books as of today.
Bloody hell, Jelimo's still only 25.
As an aside, wouldn't be surprised by Sum running 1:54 and Ajee Wilson 1:55 over next year or two.
New Bacardi-Infused RumGum™ wrote:
But this is LetsRun, where my dreams become reality.
Seriously, what is your point? I tucking know what the IAAF tables are and what they aren't; as do, I would assume, most people who know about the tables in the first place. That doesn't make them irrelevant to the discussion.
Speaking of which, anyone else have an opinion on the actual subject at hand? Anyone know if Dibaba's even run an 800 as a pro?
You are making things up again. I never said the IAAF tables are irrelevant. Why do you keep making up arguments?
I already told you my point. I said the IAAF tables are not predictions. How do you not know what my point was? It was the only thing that I said in my first post. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
I don't know if most people know or don't know what the IAAF are, but I do know that many on this forum don't know. I don't know why you choose to assume either case. Which again brings me back to my first post which should have been clear.
New Bacardi-Infused RumGum™ wrote:
dwightarm wrote:He's right, you're being a dweeb. Why would you use IAAF tables for that? The 1500m is her best event; it's a silly comparison.
I wasn't using them to argue for her ability to get the WR; given that she focuses on the 15/5 and may never have even run a serious 800, I think it's less than likely. Just asking a hypothetical question.
And everyone has a best event. Comparing the 800 to the 1500 isn't silly.
why does run gum cost so much? $5 for 2 pieces of gum. what a rip off.
mkk wrote:
New Bacardi-Infused RumGum™ wrote:Well, now you have a decision to make. Are you just gonna be a dick, or are you going to recommend some better tables?
Correcting you doesn't mean that I'm some kind of genetalia. You're a vagina for being so defensive. There are no such tables that I know of.
There are such tables and you can use them for free on the internet. They are based on Gerry Purdy's work years ago. I just entered Dibaba's 3:50 and the table calculates an average expected 800m of 1:54.34 (averaging the predictions from several methodologies, with Gerry Purdy's method predicting 1:50.98.)
Check it out for yourself:
http://tools.runnerspace.com/gprofile.php?do=title&title_id=801&mgroup_id=45577(Yeah I know, strange url.)
I shouldn't have said that calculator is based on Purdy's tables, it uses several different calculations then shows the results for each along with a final average from all of them. It uses several different calculation systems.
It's a shame that all of the records set by fiercely ugly, juiced up women like Krachilocova and basically any Chinese woman can't be broken by extremely good looking athletes like Dibaba. Records should only be valid if the athlete is at least moderately good looking.
Web based equivalence/prediction tool available at Runnerspace.com. Enter a time, select a distance, click the button and it will show you a list of equivalent times over all racing distacnes, shows results from 4 different methods and a final average of the four:
http://tools.runnerspace.com/gprofile.php?do=title&title_id=801&mgroup_id=45577
Gerry Purdy's pacing tables wrote:
I shouldn't have said that calculator is based on Purdy's tables, it uses several different calculations then shows the results for each along with a final average from all of them. It uses several different calculation systems.
Where does it say that calculator uses several calculation systems? All I see is the calculator. Am I missing something?
mmk wrote:
Gerry Purdy's pacing tables wrote:I shouldn't have said that calculator is based on Purdy's tables, it uses several different calculations then shows the results for each along with a final average from all of them. It uses several different calculation systems.
Where does it say that calculator uses several calculation systems? All I see is the calculator. Am I missing something?
Go ahead and enter an event distance and time, then click on the "Calc" button and after a few seconds it will display a table showing 4 equivalent times with the method used listed in the table heading. The last column of the table will list an average of the 4 other equivalent times.
The 4 methods used are "Purdy", "VO2 Max", "Cameron" and "Riegal."