break it up wrote:
Ryun trained for the mile and also had great speed. I can imagine throwing his 1967 form into world class competition and today's tracks and running 1:42 and 3:45 for the mile. I doubt low 1:40. That's a big stretch.
And today's mondo tracks are faster than the synthetic ones of the late 70's which Ventolin refers to.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
etc.
Someone wants to know the ultimate potential for a specific runner over a specific distance, say 5000m. For this there are maybe 50 times of this runner available for this distance, most with tapes on video or youtube etc. A mass of information of splits, conditions etc. Now there is the chance to analyse the races and try a prediction of the "ultimate" potential of this runner based on all this material.
But wait, I have a much better idea. Why not just doing an estimate over an distance the athlete never has trained for - say 400m - and has run just five years before in an early season competition (which means you practically don't know anything about his potential here) and back this up by a rough estimate over another distance - probably 800m - which the athlete in question maybe has run a few times in lower competition. That's all what you need! Two times - based on pure speculaton - over distances you don't know anything about the potential of the athlete in question. With this information it's just an easy thing to calculate exactly what the athlete is capable in an totally different distance where you know practically everything the athlete has ever done and on which the athlete has specialised for several seasons.
The calculation is so easy because it's the same for every runner with this potential over these two distances, regardless if he is a more endurence type athlete or what ever. Wow, that's some science.
Back this up with bad words for EVERYONE who didn't agree with you completely. Congratulation.
you started smart but dumbed quick
let me explain
rudy probably has 44.75 - 45.00 / 1'40.75 ability in "perfect" "rested" race
whatever he gets predicted for above 800 is worthless as he only runs/trains upto ~ 800
1'40.75
with
44.75
->
2'10.5
3'28.1
7'38.3
13'35.6...
completely wasted by 3k...
So, you're saying Rudisha is in 1:35 shape right now but won't be able to run this time until 50 years from now? I see what you're saying...makes sense.
deanouk wrote:And today's mondo tracks are faster than the synthetic ones of the late 70's which Ventolin refers to.
no
65% energy return is limit & has been for 20++y
ohhhhhhhh i see wrote:So, you're saying Rudisha is in 1:35 shape right now but won't be able to run this time until 50 years from now? I see what you're saying...makes sense.
no
ohhhhhhhh i see wrote:
So, you're saying Rudisha is in 1:35 shape right now but won't be able to run this time until 50 years from now? I see what you're saying...makes sense.
That's what he's saying, no problem for him.
What the f*ck is up with the moderators deleting random posts?
Every now and then, the typical LR poster comes out with a hypothesis and it is alwasy predictably along these patterns;
(1) Runner (insert name here) could have won if he had not run in the 2nd lane.
(2) In (insert year probably before 60% of the people on the planet were born ) runner x.McNoun could have run this time (less than current world record).
(3) Based on runner x.McNoun's splits he could have run time xxxx (less than current world record) if he had paced himself properly.
All this are stupid arguments folks, Anyone who ever took a basic statistics class and understood statistics, and this is all statistics folks,it is all statistics, knows one thing, you do not extrapolate beyond or below you data points.
A curve is not linear forever, there are diminishing returns, there are saturation points where more input does not result in more output and so on and so forth. But again let not proper data analysis and sound scientific argument interfere with your fantasies.