Track and Field News says that Solinsky ran his final 100m in 12.1?

chet wrote:

Solinsky did NOT run his last 100 in 12.1 seconds. It is OBVIOUS to anybody who looks at a video of the finish. Furthermore, he moved from lane 1 to lane 2 in the final 100 meters, meaning that he ran more than 100 meters in the distance between the mark indicating 100 to go and the finish. (OK, admittedly this is a miniscule difference).

This is true...it did not look fast.

brooks launch wearer wrote:

His last lap was a 56.1. So if you subtract the 12.1 from 56.1, you see he came through the 300 in about 44. Then he sped up. Very reasonable.

So if he came through the 300 in about 45, would 11.1 for the last 100 seem very reasonable to you?

I'm not an expert on fast finishes, but Peter Coe said that Seb's final 100 in the 1980 Olympic 1500 final was 12.1 -- and that was off a very slow pace (2:04.9 at 800), and with a fairly quick fellow named Steve Ovett on his tail. I doubt that Solinsky, after running 9900 meters at American record pace, closed as fast as Coe did in a tactical 1500 Olympic final.

malmo wrote:

Alan, your cold streak continues. 12.1 would be one of the fastest finishes of any race 1500 and above in the history of the sport.

Thank you malmo thank you. It may pain you (or maybe not) to have me on your side, but nonetheless, we agree on this one for sure. And we agree Alan is way more often wrong than right when it comes to his opinions stated on this site.

I know Geb closed one of his WC 10000 wins in 25.1, and it was a very tactical and slow pace (for him), and he was BLAZING that last 200, in an absolute all-out sprint. And he has much more pure speed than Solinsky. And Geb's last 100 at best might have been 12.4. Solinsky's last 100 was much slower than that.

Watch:

Solinsky has blown our minds with his 26:59 and amazing last 800. But let's not get carried away and silly now.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Thank you malmo thank you. It may pain you (or maybe not) to have me on your side, but nonetheless, we agree on this one for sure. And we agree Alan is way more often wrong than right when it comes to his opinions stated on this site.

We don't agree. Alan is right way more than he's wrong. e's a 99 percent free-throw shooter who just missed thrre in a row. Hence the cold streak comment.

ummm....idiot....i was replying to the guy so he said 5k and 10k finishes are faster than 1500m finishes and he's never heard of guys closing 1500m races in 52 or 53 seconds. and i thought you were one of the intelligent guys on here....

malmo wrote:

dummy detector wrote:

i guess you have never watched a world champs or olympics 1500m race then because last laps in the 50-53 second range have happened many times in olympic and world champs final since 1980

just off of memory

1980 coe 52 last lap

1983 cram 51 last lap

1984 coe 53 last lap

1987 bile 53 last lap

1991 morceli 51 last lap

1992 cacho 50 last lap

1993 morceli 50 last lap

1995 morceli 51 last lap

1996 morceli 52 last lap

1997 el g 52 last lap

2004 el g 51 last lap

i'm sure there are others....

An exactly how does this relate to the erroneous report that Solinsky ran 12.1 for his final 100m?

he was talking about mottram racing a 5k. the guy's pr is almost 20 seconds off the wr so i don't think he was talking about record attempts.

benjewman wrote:

i think he meant record attempts in the middle distances not championship races.

Starkist wrote:

I say maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Who are we to set limits on human accomplishment?

There was a semi-famous runner from the 60's named Gerry. A few years ago he made a claim that he was on sub-2 hour marathon pace through 26 miles and then collapsed before the finish. People on this site immediately discredited this without any evidence to the contrary. We are in no position to say that it did not happen.

Yeah, who are we to set limits on how fast Solinsky closed the last 100m nine days ago? You negative letsrun idiots are what's holding back the history of American distance running.

Oh, by the way, thanks for posting the video. It's a good 'teaching moment' illustration of how fast finishes in distance races really go. Gebrselassie ran 25.1 going 12.55/12.55 (11.3 final 90m).

Solinsky's final 90m was about 12.6, or 14.00 for the final 100m.

Sub :26 finishes in distance races are really fast, and rare, even at the world class level. When you look at Bekeles races the finishes are generally a top-end sprint for the full 400-500 meters, with no 100m increment much under 13s, if at all.

dummy detector wrote:

ummm....idiot....i was replying to the guy so he said 5k and 10k finishes are faster than 1500m finishes and he's never heard of guys closing 1500m races in 52 or 53 seconds. and i thought you were one of the intelligent guys on here....

I can't read the minds of rabid hotheads. Sorry.

Heres more detailed information from the list you quoted.

50.8 Ovett 1980 Oly 27.2, 27.4, 26.5, 24.3 (54.6/50.8) 1:45.4

51.2 Coe 1980 Olympics 27.3, 27.4, 26.7, 24.5 (54.7/51.2)

53.0….Coe….1984 Olympics 3:32.53

49.9… Cram … 87 Euro 3:45.5

51.5....Morceli....1991 WC 3:32.85

50.7....Cacho......1992 Olympics 3:40.12

50.6....Morceli....1993 WC 25.2, 50.6, 1:49.0, in a 3:34.24 race

51.3....Morceli....1995 WC 25.9, 51.28, 1:49.0 3:33.73

53.6....Morceli....1996 Olympics

51.5....ElGuerrouj.1997 WC

53.9....ElGuerrouj.2003 WC

51.9....ElGuerrouj.2004 Olympics (12.7,12.9,12.9,13.4) (but Silva had 51.3)

54.1....Ramzi......2005 WC (but Kaouch had 53.1)

El G 53.1(3:26.00)

5000

53.9….Aouita….Oslo 85 13:00.4WR

52.8….Aouita….1987 WC 13:26.3

52.2…Morcelli….1994 Zurich 13:03.85

53.4…. Kipchoge…2003 WC 12:52.79

53.5…. El Guerrouj…2003 WC 12:52.83

53.6…. Bekele…2003 WC 12:53.12

53.4 Kipchoge 2003 WC 12:52.79

53.5 El Guerrouj 2003 WC 12:52.83

53.6 Bekele 2003 WC 12:53.12

52.6 Bekele 2004 Oly 5000 (2nd) 13:14

2004 Oly 10000

52.9 Bekele

Just in case anyone needs anymore support for malmo's point. Here is video of the 100m at Stanford. It is clear that they are well back of the line that Solinsky is crossing in malmo's screenshot (when the clock reads 26:47, 12.6 seconds before Solinsky finishes).

http://www.flotrack.org/videos/coverage/view_video/236854/330980

Looks like the original Silver Spoon Fanboys have been caught exagerrating again. Back in the day they were the original rich kids to take mah and paws fortune and weasel their love for the sport of T&F into VIP access. They used to pay $200 for a cover picture, now it's $125. $75 for an inside picture is what T&FN used to pay, it's $25 today. I may have gotten my information wrong though. Why they don't check before making claims I can honestly say why. Everyone got caught up in the moment of Sols' AR. Tall stories result. Sols AR is that rare an event. People just can't control themselves. I'm still in shock myself.

Lester Bangs wrote:

Just in case anyone needs anymore support for malmo's point. Here is video of the 100m at Stanford. It is clear that they are well back of the line that Solinsky is crossing in malmo's screenshot (when the clock reads 26:47, 12.6 seconds before Solinsky finishes).

http://www.flotrack.org/videos/coverage/view_video/236854/330980

Here's a better link.

Just in case your mind can't sort out depth of resolution and parallax, Solinsky took 43 strides in that last 90m, or 2.1 meters per stride. That information is helpful when trying to pinpoint him on the track from a front view.

Maybe it was just a simply typo, and should've been 13.1 instead of 12.1. Jesus, things happen. People pirated the splits from the T&FN site and are then irate that one was off. Typical.

Dow down 1000 wrote:

Maybe it was just a simply typo, and should've been 13.1 instead of 12.1. Jesus, things happen. People pirated the splits from the T&FN site and are then irate that one was off. Typical.

No doubt it WAS a typo. I said that before. Anyone sober or past the age of puberty would have recognized it as soon as it was put up and then fixed it right away. I mean if you type "12.1" the very next thing that should have happened was "who the f*** took these goddamn splits? If the goddamn pimple-popping Flotrack idiots can get it right then why can't you? Pay attention next time!"

The problem is, not one person in T&FN employ is capable of recognizing the obvious and then fixing it.

Sean Hartnett is a P/T contrib to TAFN and is honest. Can't vouch for the rest.

Minnesotans have no Accent wrote:

Sean Hartnett is a P/T contrib to TAFN and is honest. Can't vouch for the rest.

I agree.

Dow down 1000 wrote:

Maybe it was just a simply typo, and should've been 13.1 instead of 12.1. Jesus, things happen. People pirated the splits from the T&FN site and are then irate that one was off. Typical.

Pirated splits? Is information copyright protected?

----------------------------------------------

From the editor of T&FN

"In the October issue of T&FN, in the "On Your Marks" section you'll find a small note which cites a NY Times report that the Ivy League schools are

considering dropping down to Div. III."

This "news" was a bit of Internet tomfoolery which found its way [translation: pirated from a Letsrun hoax thread] to the T&FN office, at which point the fact-checking system obviously failed completely. There are no such plans, of course.

T&FN (the buck-stops-here guy in particular) is of course very redfaced about the whole incident and wishes to apologize profusely for any problems this note might cause. Formal letters of apology have gone out to the schools concerned and an article of retraction will of course appear in the next issue."

E. Garry Hill

Editor, T&FN"

brooks launch wearer wrote:

k-12 wrote:

I want to say "go back to Dyestat" except that Dyestat is dead.

On second thought, GO BACK TO DYESTAT!

What are you talking about?

_____________________________________

That's what I'm talking about.

Napolean

"Looks like the original Silver Spoon Fanboys have been caught exagerrating again. Back in the day they were the original rich kids to take mah and paws fortune and weasel their love for the sport of T&F into VIP access."

Senile, drunk and entitled.