Opimized time for 3:33.1 1500.0m based on even pacing:
3:26.64
I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot
Opimized time for 3:33.1 1500.0m based on even pacing:
3:26.64
I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot
jjjjjjj wrote:
I say he'll run faster than this optimization because there were multiple 3:26 (Kiprop), 3:28 (Makhloufi, Iguider) and 3:29 (Willis, Souleiman) guys near him in the last lap and they could not stick.
Lane 2 is longer than lane 1. Redo your calculation with 1 or 2 seconds difference in the last lap. What does the optimizer calculate for that?
TrackBot wrote:
Opimized time for 3:33.1 1500.0m based on even pacing:
3:26.64
I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot
Wrong. Trackbot has entered the times into that calculator incorrectly.
The optimization actually gives:
3:28.73
jjjjjjj wrote:
I tried the times backwards and trackbot had the same answer (of course, in reality, it would be far, far more difficult to run 38/70/66/55 than to do the 38 at the end), so I think it is time that we recognize that there is a very good reason that Asbel Kiprop and the other sub 3:30 guys could at best get alongside Centro in the last lap and could not hang with him as he was upping the pace that last lap: it was an extremely good run, worth sub 3:30, and surely this will be the year that he throws down a 3:28 or 3:29, because Centro is that good. I say he'll run faster than this optimization because there were multiple 3:26 (Kiprop), 3:28 (Makhloufi, Iguider) and 3:29 (Willis, Souleiman) guys near him in the last lap and they could not stick.
TrackBot wrote:Opimized time for 3:49.0 1500.0m based on even pacing:
3:29.93
I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot
Wrong. Trackbot is using that calculator incorrectly.
The actual optimization for the times you posted is:
You entered - 3:49.0
Optimized Time - 3:37.90
Why are so many on this site so simple.
It is not obvious to anyone that saying that a man that managed to run: 46.5 55.3 57.8 53.5
Is therefore capable of: 41.6 55.0 55.0 55.0
Is madness?
Fine. What are the fastest 1200m's in history? Only four have been run (from the start) in under 2:47, all by Guerrouj. Ryun ran without a pacer, unlike Guerrouj. And he ran in weather in the 90s. A poster said 97. I doubt that. But it was hot and the track chewed up after two days of competition. What time do you expect for mid 90s from an optimized 3:28? And then add a pacer and what do you expect?
jjjjjjj wrote:
Fine. What are the fastest 1200m's in history? Only four have been run (from the start) in under 2:47, all by Guerrouj. Ryun ran without a pacer, unlike Guerrouj. And he ran in weather in the 90s. A poster said 97. I doubt that. But it was hot and the track chewed up after two days of competition. What time do you expect for mid 90s from an optimized 3:28? And then add a pacer and what do you expect?
Are you sure that a mile is long enough to be affected by temperature? A "chewed up track" is vague. Your reasoning is poor.
Trackbot! Optimize 1500m 66 65 48 60
Opimized time for 3:59.0 1500.0m based on even pacing:
3:47.99
I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot
Trackbot! Optimize 1500m 49 66 64 60
Opimized time for 3:59.0 1500.0m based on even pacing:
3:48.89
I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot
jjjjjjj wrote:
Fine. What are the fastest 1200m's in history? Only four have been run (from the start) in under 2:47, all by Guerrouj. Ryun ran without a pacer, unlike Guerrouj. And he ran in weather in the 90s. A poster said 97. I doubt that. But it was hot and the track chewed up after two days of competition. What time do you expect for mid 90s from an optimized 3:28? And then add a pacer and what do you expect?
The optimization is bullshit. It's just a made up calculator designed by one guy and I'm pretty sure it is still in beta mode. That 3:33.1 is no better than 3:30 on a modern track. The legend of the splits have been spread here like Chinese whispers. As have the track quality and conditions.
The calculator incorrectly spewed out 3:26 and you jumped on it like a dog on heat. You and calculo just want any smidgen of 'evidence' to support your preconceptions.
3:28.7 is also bullshit as are all the "optimizations" on this thread.
TrackBot wrote:
Opimized time for 3:59.0 1500.0m based on even pacing:
3:47.99
I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot
Wrong
TrackBot wrote:
Opimized time for 3:59.0 1500.0m based on even pacing:
3:48.89
I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot
Wrong
Trackbot! Optimize mile 64 70 74 55
Opimized time for 4:23.0 1609.344m based on even pacing:
4:11.99
I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot
Yes, I am sure that a mile is long enough to be affected by temperature. Heat dissipation is very much an issue in a race that lasts over three minutes.
An historical table says that weather was very good for Ryun's 2nd mile world record, 3:51.1 in 1967, which was in Bakersfield, CA, one of only three warm weather cities where there have been mile world records since Roger Bannister broke 4. The other two are Kingston, Jamaica (Filbert Bayi, but in May) and Rome (El Guerrouj July 7 1999). In Rome that day, the high temp was 80 degrees, the low temperature 68, and the dew point was just 71 degrees. The race probably was at night with quite favorable conditions. Kingston, Jamaica has averages in May of 77/88. This record just beat Ryun's record and Walker subsequently dropped it almost two seconds, so given Bayi's ability, demonstrated in other races, it seems likely to me that the weather that day probably slowed him down--and I don't know exactly what the weather was. All the other sub 4 mile world records were set in cool weather cities.
Trackbot! Optimize mile 66 70 55 51
Opimized time for 4:02.0 1609.344m based on even pacing:
3:50.06
I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot
TrackBot! Optimize 25m 0.5 2 0.3 1 1