No Weigh Jose wrote:
RIP VAN WINKLE wrote:And the reason you know this is?
Anyone who has to ask lacks the requisite intelligence, perceptiveness, and/or knowledge of the sport to engage in a meaningful discussion on this topic.
No offense.
No Weigh Jose wrote:
RIP VAN WINKLE wrote:And the reason you know this is?
Anyone who has to ask lacks the requisite intelligence, perceptiveness, and/or knowledge of the sport to engage in a meaningful discussion on this topic.
No offense.
No Weigh Jose wrote:
RIP VAN WINKLE wrote:And the reason you know this is?
Anyone who has to ask lacks the requisite intelligence, perceptiveness, and/or knowledge of the sport to engage in a meaningful discussion on this topic.
Translation: "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Therefore, I'll engage in ad hominem attacks. I am a colossal dunce."
The fact is that Solinsky has moved up as well as Rupp. Rupp can run with Solinsky at 800m, so your notions make no sense. Checkmate.
Solinsky is one of the best distance runners in the country. Both literally and figuratively. End of discussion.
Solinsky is too big to translate the 5km/10km speed up to the marathon.
And he would stuggle with heat in even moderately warm conditions.
xperiment of 1 wrote:
Solinsky is too big to translate the 5km/10km speed up to the marathon.
And he would stuggle with heat in even moderately warm conditions.
Yeah, DeCastella was too big for the marathon, too, and so was Gelindo Bordin.
Solinsky's 3:35 1500 at Mt Sac was the 6th fastest time by an American last year. He would have an easier time making the 1500m team, and would probably be less likely to be injured. Certainly, he could have gone faster than that if he tried.
coach d wrote:
Solinsky's 3:35 1500 at Mt Sac was the 6th fastest time by an American last year. He would have an easier time making the 1500m team, and would probably be less likely to be injured. Certainly, he could have gone faster than that if he tried.
No, when you can run 26:59, you are a potential star in the marathon. Solinsky is NOT a potential star in the 1500m. This is truly elementary. Hell, 3:35.89 is not even comparable to 26:59. Solinsky moves up well.
RIP VAN WINKLE wrote:
No, when you can run 26:59, you are a potential star in the marathon. Solinsky is NOT a potential star in the 1500m. This is truly elementary. Hell, 3:35.89 is not even comparable to 26:59. Solinsky moves up well.
is 40 seconds in the 10k less than 4-5 seconds in the 1500?
Reality check223 wrote:
RIP VAN WINKLE wrote:No, when you can run 26:59, you are a potential star in the marathon. Solinsky is NOT a potential star in the 1500m. This is truly elementary. Hell, 3:35.89 is not even comparable to 26:59. Solinsky moves up well.
is 40 seconds in the 10k less than 4-5 seconds in the 1500?
Please translate the question. It makes no sense.
The De Castella comparison is an interesting one. Deek was in his prime when I was in junior high and high school. He certainly looked big but according to this 1983 interview he is listed at 5'10-3/4" and 143 lbs.
http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/images/stories/tfn_pdfs/Interviews/rob_de_castella.pdf
I though he be much heavier. Solinky is listed at 6'1" and 165 lbs, much bigger than Deek.
Yeah, except DeCastella is also listed as 5'11, 155 lbs.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1126019/index.htm
De Castella suffered a sideache with five miles left. "But I gritted my teeth and ran through that," he said. At 5'11", 155 pounds, he's a stiff-backed runner with the most powerful thighs of any world-class marathoner. "And his arm action looks as if he's tearing jungle undergrowth out of his way," said David Miller of London's Daily Express.
RIP VAN WINKLE wrote:
No, when you can run 26:59, you are a potential star in the marathon. Solinsky is NOT a potential star in the 1500m. This is truly elementary. Hell, 3:35.89 is not even comparable to 26:59. Solinsky moves up well.
Solinsky ran 3:35 one month after 13:10. He was nowhere near sub-27 shape at that time, and he wasn't training for 1500. He was probably just doing it as "speedwork" and he ran 1.5 seconds slower than the PR of the 1500 bronze medalist in Deagu. I'm curious about how fast he could go if he tried.
RIP VAN WINKLE wrote:
Reality check223 wrote:is 40 seconds in the 10k less than 4-5 seconds in the 1500?
Please translate the question. It makes no sense.
Oh, my bad. I was referring to your line "3:35 is not even comparable to 26:59".
The current best in the 1500m are at about 3:30.
The current best in the 10k is at about 26:17.
And I was asking if 40 seconds in the 10k is less than 5 seconds in the 1500m
Reality check223 wrote:
RIP VAN WINKLE wrote:Please translate the question. It makes no sense.
Oh, my bad. I was referring to your line "3:35 is not even comparable to 26:59".
The current best in the 1500m are at about 3:30.
The current best in the 10k is at about 26:17.
And I was asking if 40 seconds in the 10k is less than 5 seconds in the 1500m
Well, the world records are 26:17 and 3:26. The fastest performances in 2011 were 3:30 and 26:43. There is no reason to think that anybody is currently capable of either 3:26 or 26:17, so 3:30 and 26:43 would be better numbers to use, and yes, I think being 16 seconds off a 10,000 is much better than being 5 seconds off a 1500, but more to the point, there are many more runners who can run 3:35.89 than 26:59.
26:43?
Bekele ran that coming off a break
He will be back to 26:17ish shape by the games
Reality check223 wrote:
Oh, my bad. I was referring to your line "3:35 is not even comparable to 26:59".
The current best in the 1500m are at about 3:30.
The current best in the 10k is at about 26:17.
And I was asking if 40 seconds in the 10k is less than 5 seconds in the 1500m
Do you realize that no-one has run within 26 seconds of 26:17 since 2008? No-one in the world is even CLOSE to 26:17 right now. Also, top times in the 1500 are at about 3:29 in recent years, not 3:30. If you're trying to make an argument, don't use facts regarding the 10,000 that are outrageously incorrect.
Reality check223 wrote:
26:43?
Bekele ran that coming off a break
He will be back to 26:17ish shape by the games
Bekele will never be in 26:17 shape again. It's just not in him anymore.
Reality check223 wrote:
26:43?
Bekele ran that coming off a break
He will be back to 26:17ish shape by the games
Riiiiiight. Even though he couldn't even run this fast in all of 2009, prior to any injury problems.
Raptured wrote:
Reality check223 wrote:26:43?
Bekele ran that coming off a break
He will be back to 26:17ish shape by the games
Riiiiiight. Even though he couldn't even run this fast in all of 2009, prior to any injury problems.
I doubt that he was far off. He played and jogged a 26:45 at the World Champs. What shape would you put him in that year?
And it's not in him anymore? Did you read the interview with Hermans today? Bekele will be back with a vengeance in 2012.
But my original comment was really a question not a point. Is 40 seconds in the 10k less than 5 seconds in the 1500m? What's the conversion?
The man ran 26:43 off of 1 previous race he DNF'd. Coming into an Olympic year, so long as he doesn't get injured, I wouldn't be surprised if he could break his own WR again. In '08 he was in magnificent shape and probably could have broken his 10k record.