Quincey - Greatest 400 ever

What's wrong with predicting what people could have done in an event the day of other races?

Plenty of people have PB's that aren't the best they could have done. Think of two people: Wanjiru and El Guerrouj.

Wanjiru is under performed in the 5000m- his best is 13:12 but he then almost ran this pace before fading to a 26:41 10000m!!! Yea, he never ran the 5000m again for time but come on, he easily at the very least could have a mid 12:50s PB, especially on the day he ran his 10000m PB.

El Guerrouj we know is underperformed in the 800m officially (forgetting his time trial). Is it wrong to predict he could at least have run under 1:43? And absolutely the day he ran 3:26 he could have done so!

And then you can wonder what if El Guerrouj and Komen ran their best 3000m's together, what if Haile, Komen, and Bekele were in their top shape for a 5000m etc. And of course you can shave a bunch of seconds off for pacing and conditions. Plus, another example of someone easing up a lot is Mottram in his 8:03 2 mile. That day I'm sure he could have run 8:01 without celebrating, maybe better if they had better pacing.

who are you addressing this to ?

i give hicham 1'42.7 +/- 0.2s in his 3'26wr shape, but no better than ~ 12'45 at the time if his endurance lasted perfectly to 5k ( it almost certainly woudn't have )

try here with 3'25.5 - 3'26.0 / 12'45 - 12'47.5 for 800m/3k/10k :

http://www.jundo.co.uk/

( you have to offer him 3'25.5 as he went 53+ on the last lap, so the pace to bell had been too slow in ~ 2'32 - if he had been dragged thru smoothly to maybe 2'31 or even 2'30, he woudn't have gone 53+ last lap, more like 54/55, but an eventual time quicker than 3'26.0 )

canova reckoned kemboi was in 12'45 shape when he ran 26'30 ( he trained him ) so you really have to offer a 12'45 to any 26'30 guy

biggest surprise was tergat who only went 12'49 just a week before his 26'27wr, but this was likely due to following the wr pace upfront of geb/komen which was too fast for him & he faded in last km - if he'd run his own race in no-man's land 20 - 30m behind them in latter stages thruout he shouda gone 12'45 that day

I should have quoted. It's a response to all the wonderful posts of "thinker"

deanouk wrote:I took the splits for that run at the time. It was a pretty stupid performance by Ramzi, as I think it got many tongues wagging as to what he was on. Not sure it's quite worth 3:28 flattened out, but nonetheless a highly impressive turn of speed with a lap to go.

55.7, 59.6 (1:55.3), 58.9 (2:54.2), 38.7 (53.0 last 400)

last 800 ~ 1:52.9

last 700 ~ 1:37.6

last 400 ~ 53.0

last 300 ~ 38.7

last 200 ~ 25.8

last 100 ~ 13.3

using all 8 splits of

55.7/44.3/15.3/44.6/14.3/12.9/12.5/13.3 ->

~ 3'28.7

but also note iirc, he cruised in just towards the end with race easily won save some energy for next race

at very worst he was in mid-3'28 shape

The Waterboy wrote:

What's wrong with predicting what people could have done in an event the day of other races?

I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with it. Hypotheticals and projections are part of parcel of being a sports fan. They are what bar discussions are made of (and Letsrun.com is in many ways just a large bar).

The problem is that Ventolin^3 gets so wrapped up in his own projections and predictions that he forgets entirely that they are speculative and then calls anybody an imbecile and moron who dares to suggest that his particular calculations didn't fall straight off of God's lips.

What Ventolin^3 does with calculators is interesting. I enjoy some of his original posts. The personal invective involved ina ny sort of disagreement just turns me off of taking him seriously. At that point he becomes merely entertainment like watching the bearded lady at the circus.

'at very worst he was in mid-3'28 shape'

What does that equate to without the juice?

Mr. Obvious wrote:The problem is that Ventolin^3 gets so wrapped up in his own projections and predictions that he forgets entirely that they are speculative and then calls anybody an imbecile and moron who dares to suggest that his particular calculations didn't fall straight off of God's lips

no

these are not just merely "speculative", but methods tried on 100s of elite athletes stats & then offered with a firm degree of confidence to be highly accurate given accepted parameters

"speculative" are ole rules of thumb, e g

- "1500 time is your 800 time doubled for an endurance guy

- 10k time = (2*5k time) + 1'00

then coupla laughables from frank horwill

- 5k = (3*1.5k time ) + 2'15

- 800 time = (2*400 time) + 8s

( that last one is really embarassing to post )

i have no problem with people with an open mind & trying to learn new things, but i have no time/patience for idiots who think hicham's 1'47pb is

"what he ran & all that he is good for"

& even if you point out he also ran that in last 800 of a 1500, they drivel :

"well it's still only 1'47"

there are too many morons like this in the world

jesus, we have the internet & we have an explosion of tools - you can download free, few MB mathematical applications which are vastly superior to the ones that took man to the moon !

using such, you can work out very accurately what a 3'26 guy coud run for 800 or 3k or 5k with a good idea of his 400 time ( likely 47.25 - 47.75 ) - WE ARE CAPABLE OF THIS IN 21ST CENTURY

i'm quite happy to discuss with guys who have an open mind & if they say :

"well, i reckon hicham was good for 1'44 but no better"

it's a start & they are in the ballpark & open to further tutouring ( i woud actually bet my bottom $ that he was capable of 1'42.7 +/- 0.2s )

i have no times for morons who imbecilically stick to :

"he went 1'47, that's what it is, that's what it was & that's the bottom line"

do they think that if hicham had lined up for the 800 final in '99, kip wouda thought :

"no threat - he's just a 1'47 guy !"

ventolin^3 wrote:

i have no times for morons who imbecilically stick to :

"he went 1'47, that's what it is, that's what it was & that's the bottom line"

do they think that if hicham had lined up for the 800 final in '99, kip wouda thought :

"no threat - he's just a 1'47 guy !"

If he would have lined up in that race he would have run a hell of a lot faster than 1:47, no one disputes that. But he didn't, he never ran a fast open 800. That's too bad and it makes for some interesting discussion. The problem with you is that you act like everything you say is completely correct and if anyone disagrees you get pissed off and insult everyone. You can look at all the scientific formulas in the world but you CAN'T know how much time is saved by having rabbits to the bell. You can have a basis for estimate, yes. But you act as if your basis for estimate is gospel when it isn't and that just turns everyone off to you. I still think you are an interesting poster who has some good ideas and does some cool analysis, you obviously know a lot about track. You just need to adjust your attitude.

haha YOZA wrote:But he didn't, he never ran a fast open 800

you are starting to show moronic tendencies

he didn't run an 800 after '95 with his 1'47.18 when fwiw he was a 3'31.16 guy

do some simple proportion for 800m when he ran 3'26

You can look at all the scientific formulas in the world but you CAN'T know how much time is saved by having rabbits to the bell

learn to read

1s/lap for wabbiting or advantage for a 800 solo & wabbit from 200 - 400m of ~ 0,5s

fetch the link few posts above

You can have a basis for estimate, yes. But you act as if your basis for estimate is gospel when it isn't

eh ?

you have researchers from '70s who gave it - another poster came up with it using mureika's calculator to estimate it & it came out as same number - an absolutely beautiful piece of lateral thinking & i reproduced it for him, because empirically it works & i for one was itching to know why no one had broken 3'30 or 3'50 solo

Mr. Obvious wrote:The problem is that Ventolin^3 gets so wrapped up in his own projections and predictions that he forgets entirely that they are speculative and then calls anybody an imbecile and moron who dares to suggest that his particular calculations didn't fall straight off of God's lips

ventolin^3 wrote:

no

these are not just merely "speculative", but methods tried on 100s of elite athletes stats & then offered with a firm degree of confidence to be highly accurate given accepted parameters

Quod erat demonstrandum

Thinker wrote:Quod erat demonstrandum

moron

which part of q e d does your numbskull associate between :

projections and predictions that he forgets entirely that they are speculative

&

not just merely "speculative", but methods tried on 100s of elite athletes stats & then offered with a firm degree of confidence to be highly accurate given accepted parameters

I guess I just don't understand why the personal invective is necessary at all. Just stick to your analysis and debate that and it would make for better reading. I think more people could actually be persuaded that your models were accurate if you toned down the personal attacks.

Well lets see.... just on this page alone we have:

the real ole timers ( guys who's opinion i trust)

but this was likely due to following the wr pace upfront of geb/komen

he shouda gone 12'45 that day

Now perhaps you actually believe that

-who you trust and

-what you think "is likely" and

-what you think Tergat "shoulda" done

are part of a "method tried on 100s of elite athletes" "offered with a firm degree of confidence". I suspect the rest of us call would call these "speculation". Just like... oh... say assigning Watts the world record because his effort "looked easy" to you.

F*** you ventolin, seriously. What the F*** is wrong with you? How F***ing hard is it to understand that El G never ran a fast 800 when he was in WR 1500 shape? Yes, we can debate what he could have run but fact is he didn't. How F***ing hard is it to understand that there is no way you can scientifically prove that a rabbit through the bell gives 1 s/lap. You F***ing can't do it. All your bullshit links are speculation and hypothesis but you can never know because there are way too many variables in proving that in the real world. Again, it's fun to talk about but stop F***ing acting like what you say is the only correct answer because it's F***ing not, it's only correct from your viewpoint.

moron

that is opinion of ownwer/editor of t&f news & editor for last coupla decades & he does the stadium announcing at olympics & wc

idiot

which part of "watched" virtually every golden/diamond meet since start in '90s + rietis/colognes from the '80s, does your numbskull fail to understand as significant opinion ?

find 1 guy here who can match that

go watch it on youtube

oh, sorry imbecile, it's not on youtube, so you have jackshit to offer someone who saw paul stoopidly following komen going at wr pace & then geb kicking off him for 12'41 to 12'45 with paul fading badly to 12'49

offer criticism on what you see/know

f***ung clueless moron

f***ing idiot

"speculation" is hicham going somewhere < 1'47

analysis of 100s of elite athletes with hugely poweful software & finding NO exceptions given parameters, is long way beyond "mere speculation", but you are a f***ing idiot in the "1'47 hicham camp"

imbecile

he built his winning lead by 200m & did nothing more

idiot, you clearly haven't seen 85% of the <44 runs in history to judge

As I said.

QED

haha YOZA wrote:F...

clearly a f***ing moron barely out of his 20s with a retard's grasp of science or even abilty to fetch links offered

jeez, how f***ing dumb are you ??

Thinker wrote:As I said.

QED

no

moron

you have an imbecilic grasp of latin

Whatever you say, Sunshine. Now please, put the knife down. We all just want to help you.