calculo has the best response. 4:44.79 for 2000m is 1,095.78 Purdy points 7:20.67 for 3000m is 1,116.24 Purdy points A strong record is not about how close #2 is, or what pre-EPO era times were, but about how easy it would be for someone to beat it today.
calculo wrote:
conclusions:
- the 3k is marginally stronger than 2k
Second best response.
Let it Rupp wrote:
Komen has both the 3000 AND the 300 records? That's some decent range.
Purdy predictor is based on 1936 "Portuguese scoring tables", undistorted by EPO-aided records, producing the same conclusion: Komen 3000m is marginally stronger than El G's 2000m.
Deanouk wrote:
If this isn't the biggest red rag indication that EL G was doping on a grand scale then nothing will convince.
He runs a 3:50 mile, which is rarely broken these days and which would have put him in the all time top 6 in the event 15 years or so earlier (before he broke the 2000m WR), and then carries on for another lap at an even quicker pace!!
This is probably even better than the 3000m WR, and both times are clearly medically assisted in my opinion.
Think about it,..... a 3:50 mile, faster than Bayi or Ryun ever ran that distance, followed by another lap of 54 secs!
The distance is so rarely run these days because all the elites know it's impossible to approach, let alone break, without peds.
And this is the main problem (and there are many) with Calculo's calculations: he uses a model based on extreme performers and performances from a narrow period of time (the EPO era), which has been distorted by the heavy use of peds during that time, and which are unable to be applied to clean (or at least cleaner) athletes running before and after this period.
Just because EL G can run 7:23 and 3:26, it does not follow that he therefore must have been capable of 1:41, if his longer distance performances were effected by a drug that is for endurance events.
mcmillan web site says that a 7:20 3000 is equivalent to a 4:42 2000. It also says that 5000 equivalent is 12:53. So Bekele should have had no trouble beating Komen's record. Yet...
What about the women s 400m and 800m records. They 've been on the books longer.
Purdy says the 5000m equivalent is 12:43. Purdy is better than McMillan. (I may be biased). Komen clearly did amazing things around 3K, while Bekele's better performances were 5K, 10K and now marathon. Purdy says Komen's 5000m is equivalent to a 7:18.75 3000m and a 7:50.66 2 mile. By comparison, El G's 2000m, and Komen's 3000m (and 2-mile) records are weaker than 5K and 10K. This makes sense for events rarely run, where world record attempts are less frequent. Equivalency calculators are great for comparisons, but calculators are not the real world. Komen also ran #3 all time 12:39 5000m -- he himself should have no trouble beating his own 3000m record.
sham i am wrote:
mcmillan web site says that a 7:20 3000 is equivalent to a 4:42 2000. It also says that 5000 equivalent is 12:53. So Bekele should have had no trouble beating Komen's record. Yet...
All of those calculators are complete nonsense.
In a "which is stronger" thread, you cannot avoid using calculators.
This is the way to do analysis like this.
Purdy predictor wrote:
In a "which is stronger" thread, you cannot avoid using calculators.
Yes you absolutely can and should.
Comparing against what others have actually run is a good start.
What the hell is the point in saying "well according to this calculator Komen ran 1:41 for 800m so therefore he would have smashed the 2k WR given the chance" ???
Totally ridiculous.
ex-runner wrote:
Purdy predictor wrote:
In a "which is stronger" thread, you cannot avoid using calculators.
Yes you absolutely can and should.
Comparing against what others have actually run is a good start.
What the hell is the point in saying "well according to this calculator Komen ran 1:41 for 800m so therefore he would have smashed the 2k WR given the chance" ???
Totally ridiculous.
Agree...people are weird on this thread.
OK then, why don't you answer the question? El G actually ran the 2000m WR and Komen actually ran the 3000m WR. Which performance is stronger? Tell us the right method how we can and should determine this.
ex-runner wrote:
Purdy predictor wrote:
In a "which is stronger" thread, you cannot avoid using calculators.
Yes you absolutely can and should.
Comparing against what others have actually run is a good start.
What the hell is the point in saying "well according to this calculator Komen ran 1:41 for 800m so therefore he would have smashed the 2k WR given the chance" ???
Totally ridiculous.
Whahah wrote:
http://theconversation.com/is-usain-bolt-the-greatest-athlete-of-all-time-thats-not-what-the-numbers-say-82212This is the way to do analysis like this.
Not really. That would make Larry James the 2nd greatest athlete of all time. Lee only just beat him.
I don't understand how the graph shows women's 100m times dropping since 1988. That makes no sense. The article says
"If we look at the fastest 100m race times for each year, we see there has been a large decrease in fastest times for both men and women."
Which doesn't align wth the graph at all.
Purdy predictor wrote:
OK then, why don't you answer the question?
El G actually ran the 2000m WR and Komen actually ran the 3000m WR.
Which performance is stronger?
Tell us the right method how we can and should determine this.
ex-runner wrote:
Yes you absolutely can and should.
Comparing against what others have actually run is a good start.
What the hell is the point in saying "well according to this calculator Komen ran 1:41 for 800m so therefore he would have smashed the 2k WR given the chance" ???
Totally ridiculous.
The guy looking at the second best times and times managed by the all time greats does a good job.
The updated 2017 IAAF tables are ok also for making a comparison between events. They are based on actual competition results not fantasy. They have the 3000m record slightly edging out the 2000m record.
Interestingly they have the 3000m record at about equivalent to 12:35 also which I agree with.
The guy looking at second best times said 2000m was better, while the IAAF tables say 3000m is better. I wouldn't use the "second best" method for the less run 2000m. If you think IAAF tables are OK, then Purdy is OK too, because the principle is the same. Both are based on real performances. The IAAF traces its roots to the Hungarian scoring tables, but has been modified over time to stay current. Purdy, is based on the Portuguese scoring tables.
ex-runner wrote:
The guy looking at the second best times and times managed by the all time greats does a good job.
The updated 2017 IAAF tables are ok also for making a comparison between events. They are based on actual competition results not fantasy. They have the 3000m record slightly edging out the 2000m record.
Interestingly they have the 3000m record at about equivalent to 12:35 also which I agree with.
Purdy predictor wrote:
The guy looking at second best times said 2000m was better, while the IAAF tables say 3000m is better.
I wouldn't use the "second best" method for the less run 2000m.
If you think IAAF tables are OK, then Purdy is OK too, because the principle is the same. Both are based on real performances.
The IAAF traces its roots to the Hungarian scoring tables, but has been modified over time to stay current.
Purdy, is based on the Portuguese scoring tables.
ex-runner wrote:
The guy looking at the second best times and times managed by the all time greats does a good job.
The updated 2017 IAAF tables are ok also for making a comparison between events. They are based on actual competition results not fantasy. They have the 3000m record slightly edging out the 2000m record.
Interestingly they have the 3000m record at about equivalent to 12:35 also which I agree with.
I said all the calculators are nonsense I have no idea what the Purdy tables are or what they are about. If they attempt to do any sort of predicting the performance of athletes then they'd re nonsense too.
It also doesn't matter that two different methods have two different answers. That's not the issue.
ex-runner wrote:
Purdy predictor wrote:
The guy looking at second best times said 2000m was better, while the IAAF tables say 3000m is better.
I wouldn't use the "second best" method for the less run 2000m.
If you think IAAF tables are OK, then Purdy is OK too, because the principle is the same. Both are based on real performances.
The IAAF traces its roots to the Hungarian scoring tables, but has been modified over time to stay current.
Purdy, is based on the Portuguese scoring tables.
I said all the calculators are nonsense I have no idea what the Purdy tables are or what they are about. If they attempt to do any sort of predicting the performance of athletes then they'd re nonsense too.
It also doesn't matter that two different methods have two different answers. That's not the issue.
They aren't calculators, they are tables, using real world data.
You still haven't answered the question at hand.
Whahah wrote:
http://theconversation.com/is-usain-bolt-the-greatest-athlete-of-all-time-thats-not-what-the-numbers-say-82212This is the way to do analysis like this.
This link was ridiculous. Steriod athletes like Flojo, Butch Reynolds or altitude enhanced sprint records from 1968, which is just a joke.
ThatAverageRunner wrote:
ex-runner wrote:
I said all the calculators are nonsense I have no idea what the Purdy tables are or what they are about. If they attempt to do any sort of predicting the performance of athletes then they'd re nonsense too.
It also doesn't matter that two different methods have two different answers. That's not the issue.
They aren't calculators, they are tables, using real world data.
You still haven't answered the question at hand.
Read
oh gawd....can you please stop it already?
LISTEN TO ME!!!!!
drivel snarf burp fart idiot basic intrinsic
~ 5m wide! suicide first ~ 35m! moron barf gargle slurp
jizz swallow is this a joke basic barf fart gag moron
jizzel drivel slurp fart choke sh*t are you dense?
basic ~ 3'24! jim ryun secret man crush jizz barf intrinsic
is this a joke? my predictions are superior to all others slurp gag drivel
i am vent, i am calculo, i am LR love child of retardo canova and rekrunner! Drivel snarf
barf snurf gag puke moron basic drivel intrinsic joke gargle gurgle idiot
quote myself within a quote within a quote am i serious
is this a joke?
barf fart gasp moron drivel 26 flat basic jizz jim ryun into my mouth rubbish
intrinsic moron myself quote wabbit idiot gargle
buffoon burp slurp swallow gasp choke gag drivel basic
snurf sniffle drivel dribble slurp burp gag barf moron
are you dense?
is this a joke?
do you not no basic maths?
~5m wide basic 3'24! are you dense
WR!!! under fantasy conditions can you not listen!
idiot moron predictions im wrong always quote myself within a quote drivel
your not as smart slurp as me burp i am vent gag
barf barf moron intrinsic basic joke