Lagat 4:54, Levins 4:55, Torrence, Bumbi, Jager 4:57 - mile/1500/3000 equivalent?

4:54 = 3:34,3:52,7:37

Yessum wrote:

Well he ran 4:56.99, so it's essentially 4:57. Props for beating Bumbalough and Jäger, though this is much closer to Torrence's event (1500) than theirs (5000/steeple for Jäger), so I'm not too surprised. Good run for all of them.

Also, to the person whose talked about Lagat not running any fast indoor times lately and thus not being as good as Ryan Hill or capable of better than 7:37, he ran an 8:09 two mile just last winter, which is equivalent to 7:33. The year before that, he didn't get in a fast one but he absolutely thrashed Rupp and Lomong at USAs. In fact, every indoor AR he's targeted the last couple of years, he's achieved. So I don't really know what you're talking about.

McMillan has 8:09 at the equivalent of 7:34.8 for 3K. I said that he might be able to bust a 7:34-7:35 if he got pulled by somebody quick like Gebhriwet, but wouldn't have ran faster than 7:37 in the conditions he ran in today.

If you guys honestly think Lagat can run 7:32 at age 39, that's fine. But I think it's straight insane. Here is what we actually know that isn't speculation: He hasn't ran that fast in years, indoors or outdoors. He ran the equivalent of around a 7:37 or so today. 7:32 is extremely fast and is Lagat's PR from SEVEN YEARS AGO. You know, when the dude was 32.

And you guys are acting like I'm the one going out on a limb.

7:32 isn't extremely fast. Especially when it's only a few seconds faster than what you're saying he can certainly run. There's nothing extreme about that. 7:20 is extreme.

tfc wrote:

7:32 isn't extremely fast. Especially when it's only a few seconds faster than what you're saying he can certainly run. There's nothing extreme about that. 7:20 is extreme.

The fastest time in the world this year is 7:34.13. 7:32 is extremely fast. But yes, considering 7:20 would be a world record by 5 seconds, I would say that would be extreme.

39 year old Lagat cannot certainly run 7:34. I never said certainly. That would be a very, very good race for him. Just like his 7:37 equivalent today was an very good race for him. 7:32 is the fastest he has ever run indoors, at any age.

"Bernard Lagat is age 39 and he’s still setting American records.

He won a scintillating men’s 1000 tonight in 4:54.73"

8:15/7:19/16:13 would not be out of the question...

i'm pretty sure his mile/3k equivalents are

~ 3'52i/7'36i

2k is a rarely raced event & it is weakest of all distance events ( albeit 1k is pretty sh!t as well but maybe not quite as bad )

his 5k is worth

~ 13'05i

Lagat's PR of 7:29 was set in 2010. He ran a 7:32 in 2011. And he completely destroyed a 12:58/26:5x shape Rupp and Lomong in 2012. And last year he crushed Levins, Jager, and Bumbi in a 2 mile, in which he put 4 seconds on second (Bumbi) over the last quarter mile, to win in 8:09.

I agree that his prime SHOULD be behind him, but he would have medaled in the 2012 Olympics if not for someone cutting him off, and here he is setting an AR, easily handling Olympians Jager and Levins...I might be proved wrong, but I would not say Lagat couldn't run 7:32, particularly if he was racing Rupp and Rupp went for a big time. I'd also not favor Ryan Hill over Lagat. Lagat sure destroyed Ryan Hill last summer, didn't he?

Kenyan! Bernard Lagat is as American as Ahn Hyun-Soo is Russian. That said, he will probably whup our best Americans again next weekend.

Yessum wrote:

Lagat's PR of 7:29 was set in 2010. He ran a 7:32 in 2011. And he completely destroyed a 12:58/26:5x shape Rupp and Lomong in 2012. And last year he crushed Levins, Jager, and Bumbi in a 2 mile, in which he put 4 seconds on second (Bumbi) over the last quarter mile, to win in 8:09.

I agree that his prime SHOULD be behind him, but he would have medaled in the 2012 Olympics if not for someone cutting him off, and here he is setting an AR, easily handling Olympians Jager and Levins...I might be proved wrong, but I would not say Lagat couldn't run 7:32, particularly if he was racing Rupp and Rupp went for a big time. I'd also not favor Ryan Hill over Lagat. Lagat sure destroyed Ryan Hill last summer, didn't he?

7:29 was outdoors, not indoors, brah.

RuKiddingMe!! wrote:

Lagat is the Alex rodriguez/Barry Bonds of Track and Field!

And you cannot be bothered to read the full analysis on the incident you are probably referring to. Both of those guys had huge paths in the underground; where is the link you are implying to hundreds of trips down that path. Go away you pathetic punk.

sawthatonecoming wrote:

The fastest time in the world this year is 7:34.13. 7:32 is extremely fast. But yes, considering 7:20 would be a world record by 5 seconds, I would say that would be extreme.

39 year old Lagat cannot certainly run 7:34. I never said certainly. That would be a very, very good race for him. Just like his 7:37 equivalent today was an very good race for him. 7:32 is the fastest he has ever run indoors, at any age.

Indoors isn't slower than outdoors. No one is running on old wooden tracks anymore.

tfc wrote:

sawthatonecoming wrote:

The fastest time in the world this year is 7:34.13. 7:32 is extremely fast. But yes, considering 7:20 would be a world record by 5 seconds, I would say that would be extreme.

39 year old Lagat cannot certainly run 7:34. I never said certainly. That would be a very, very good race for him. Just like his 7:37 equivalent today was an very good race for him. 7:32 is the fastest he has ever run indoors, at any age.

Indoors isn't slower than outdoors. No one is running on old wooden tracks anymore.

might want to take a glance at the record books

And at what distances exactly were the indoor leading marks last year equal or faster than outdoors?

tfc wrote:

[quote]sawthatonecoming wrote:[/b

Indoors isn't slower than outdoors. No one is running on old wooden tracks anymore.

Electric Avenue wrote:

And at what distances exactly were the indoor leading marks last year equal or faster than outdoors?

tfc wrote:

[quote]sawthatonecoming wrote:[/b

Indoors isn't slower than outdoors. No one is running on old wooden tracks anymore.

Ummm...the 3000m. You aren't helping your cause.

It's a shame that Lagat didn't go for the Indoor WR. It would be a shame for a runner of his caliber to have never set any kind of WR and I think the indoor 2000m was/is the only one left he is capable of doing at this point in his career.

The Waterboy wrote:

It's a shame that Lagat didn't go for the Indoor WR. It would be a shame for a runner of his caliber to have never set any kind of WR and I think the indoor 2000m was/is the only one left he is capable of doing at this point in his career.

Agreed.

Also w/r/t indoors vs. outdoors: there's not case to be made, and it's not just the surface that makes outdoors faster. It's also the distance of the track. If a 2000m race was run on a straight landing strip it would be faster than an equivalent performance on a 400m outdoor track or a 200m indoor track.

SCIENCE.

By a few tenths, for men only, in a fluke year (no fast 3000s outdoors), four seconds faster outdoors for women, in an event that is raced sporadically outdoors and almost every indoor meet. Not to mention the five seconds or so between the outdoor and indoor WR.You should have picked the 60m dash, dumas.

george oscar bluth wrote:

Electric Avenue wrote:

And at what distances exactly were the indoor leading marks last year equal or faster than outdoors?

Ummm...the 3000m. You aren't helping your cause.

You asked a (stupid) question, and I answered it, jackass. How could you be so idiotic to be arguing that outdoors 3000m times are inherently faster than indoor times (which I agree with), and then to support that you ask someone to try to find a race last year where the indoor time was as fast or faster than the outdoor time, THE ONLY EXAMPLE OF WHICH IS EXACTLY CONTRADICTING THE POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE. You are fucking awful at making a point.