I hope this does not tun out to be true!
I hope this does not tun out to be true!
Short-Middle-Distance Loving wrote:
I hope this does not tun out to be true!
Why? I hope she fails to break the record. We don't need more dopers breaking each others' records stealing the headlines.
You is Good
You is Gawd
You is da real MVP
Alanson is in on the game! And LRC learned that Dibaba is NOT doped to the gills today!
alanson wrote:
2:31, and possibly not as fast as Muir. It's a tough race that isn't staged very often, closer to 800 than 1500, and she never runs 800 competitively. She'll go out a bit too fast, and hit the last 200 no better than 32 seconds.
Pretty good prediction.
2:33.06
I wonder wrote:
So after Laura Muir split 2:00.5 during her 1k, and Diababa will likely split 1:59, does Letsrun finally agree with me that the current talent in the women's sport is in the 1500+?
This is the reason Semenya/Niyonsaba/Wambui look SO good. 2:00 is not fast. It is a terrible standard for elite performance.
At the meeting where Laura Muir broke the British record for the 1k, she ran faster than the 'elite' women's 800m field that included Olympic finalists, en route.
The women's 800m is the weakest track event right now. 2:00 = 1:47.
smart guy
I get roughly a women's
1'53.00 = 1'43.50
women's track is hugely under-developed that even kratoch wouldn't have broken men's equivalent of 1'43
but remember, this was back in early '80s when only 1 guy had "officially" broken 1'43 albeit on mickey-mouse 6 lane tracks
kratoch's time was fair value in early-80's but nonsense now if women had progressed properly
they simply don't hit the gym hard enough
a 800 elite gal shoud be leg-pressing a fat sumo-wrestler for multiple reps
the women's 800 time shoud be down
~ 1'52 - low
probably worth men's = of
1'42.75
Calculo get out of this thread
She ran 2:33, splitting 2:00. Pacing was fine, probably 29.0, 59.3, 1:29. Just not fit enough or didn't want it bad enough
TrackCoach wrote:
2:00 = 1:47
1:59 = 1:46
1:58 = 1:45
1:57 = 1:44
1:56 = 1:43
1:55 = 1:42
1:54 = 1:41
1:53 = 1:40
How is it weak?
I hope this isn't iaaf = points for mens/womens 800s ???!!!
either way is poor
there is no way to work out equivalent, but I don't believe a a 1'53.0 is better than 1'43.5
however, I can use some mathematical tables i'm very confident in to help out 800 to 1500 & perhaps work with
1'40.00 = 3'24.50
1'41.00 = 3'26.38
1'42.00 = 3'28.25
1'43.00 = 3'30.12
...
1'50.00 = 3'43.25
1'51.00 = 3'45.12
1'52.00 = 3'47.00
1'53.00 = 3'48.87
1'54.00 = 3'50.75
1'55.00 = 3'52.62
1'56.00 = 3'54.50
1'57.00 = 3'56.37
1'58.00 = 3'58.25
1'59.00 = 4'00.12
2'00.00 = 4'02.00
these are some "math equivalent" times from 1 source
it is impossible to estimate women's times to men's apart from rough 10+% for short runs & maybe near 10% for longer runs as potential
paula's 2"15+ had male pacers & big wind helping her for last part
I severely doubt her run was worth with all huge help better than a man's
~ 2"05-flat
it had huge wind & drafting advantage & obviously nominally superior to men's record at time of
2"05'38
from kanoochi
paula had slightly superior wr to men nearly 14y ago because of pacing + nice wind, but her superiority over men's M was eroded as it's now
2"02'57
or 2"41' quicker !!! than paula's day
paula's 2"15'25 i'd equate to as a
29'28.9
14'16.00
8'18.66
5'22.93
3'56.53
2'30.37
1'57.08
51.54
23.52
11.76
the women's times are absolutely shocking !!!
still totally undeveloped !!!
i'd offer quick end to compare to men :
all for 0 wind
26'05.57
12'34.50
7'17.76
4'42.33
3'26.08
2'10.07
1'40.84
43.42
19.46
9.73
indications are that human male is optimally evolved for
200 - 400 running...