exactly
& see jeremy : 20.19/43.45
0.87s slower over 200 but only 0.27s slower over 400
exactly
& see jeremy : 20.19/43.45
0.87s slower over 200 but only 0.27s slower over 400
ventolin^3 wrote:
what coud fred have run that day as orthodoxy dicates ?
What is orthodoxy? Whatever you dictate, you mean?
I can tell you that Quincy Watts not only did not run the greatest 400 ever, but that he has not run either of the 2 greatest 400s ever run. IF you are not clear on this by now, perhaps you should just stop commenting on that of which you know not of...Darling, your idiocy is better when shrouded in silent mystery and not shouted from the rooftops...
moron
clearly you can't follow any basic physics analysis - the most basic phenomenoma being analysis of energy expenditure
on that basis, it is at least on a par with 43.18
but of course, you are a f***ing imbecile - i did the calculation based on method outlined by oxford physicists from their website - something you obviously can't comprehend as you are the idiot who coudn't even give a ballpark correct answer to a 60/60/60/50 theoretical guy's time flattened out
3'47.2 !
utter drivel
now moron, show me the laughable method you used for flattening out 60/60/60/50
show me what you got
then tell me what you get for fred's 20.5/23.9 off orthodox 1.5s & 1.0s differential ( it's orthodox, moron, because 400m running 101, 1st lesson you are taught is to decide which splits to run off, & 1.0 to 1.5s is the standard given by any coach/manager to his runner ) - a run many compared to evan's 43.86wr & intuitively superior to anything caballo ever ran
show me science you imbecile - impress me
put up or shut the f*** up
ventolin^3 wrote:
show me science
Mr Ventolin, a serious question - do you believe in God?
Ventolin, I know you're not very bright, but recognize that Bernard Lagat in 2006 ran a 12:59.22 with a last lap of about 51.5.
Now you can be sure that Bernard could have, with runners to chase, "jogged" a 3 minute 1200 and sprinted a 50 second last lap, i.e., 60, 60, 60, and 50.
Now in 2006 Lagat ran a 3:29.68 in Rieti. So let's say he was worth a 3:46.45 for a mile and maybe 3:45 for 1600. Now you're going to try to tell me that this 60, 60, 60, and 50, which I've said Lagat could have done that year is worth significantly better than 3:47.2? You are beyond stupid...Think before your next post, darling.
And before you embarrass yourself any further, darling, remember that in that 12:59.22 in 2006 that Lagat averaged about 63.27 per lap for 11.5 laps before unleashing that 51.5 last lap...so you surely understand that he was capable of running 60, 60, and 60 before unleashing a 50. Now I will admit that this probably would have been close to his limit in 2006 and that it would be worth about 3:47.2, also close to his limit in 2006. Whereas you would like to give him something close to the world record for this effort, which shows that you are like the man who wants to teach me about Paris because he has read a map, whereas I would learn more from one who has been there...
jennifer cruz wrote:Ventolin, I know you're not very bright, but recognize that Bernard Lagat in 2006 ran a 12:59.22 with a last lap of about 51.5
moron
you are a complete imbecile
i saw that race live in the stadium - i travelled specially a long way to see kennster get his butt whupped - same meet tyson ran 19.79 ( whupping bolt iirc, but bolt was no threat at the time & i didn't make the effort to remember the rest of the field ) & jw running about 44-flat
Now you can be sure that Bernard could have, with runners to chase, "jogged" a 3 minute 1200 and sprinted a 50 second last lap, i.e., 60, 60, 60, and 50
no !
no !!
no !!!
even in his 3'26 shape he coudn't have run 50s off 3'00 for the mile ( i don't talk 1600m )
this shows you clearly have no f***ing clue about the sport
even hicham in his 3'26wr coud only go 53.2
the only man born who couda come close was jim ryun
Now in 2006 Lagat ran a 3:29.68 in Rieti. So let's say he was worth a 3:46.45 for a mile and maybe 3:45 for 1600. Now you're going to try to tell me that this 60, 60, 60, and 50, which I've said Lagat could have done that year is worth significantly better than 3:47.2? You are beyond stupid...Think before your next post, darling.
moron
see above
you are making the idiotic, newbie mistake of considering 3'00 at even pace having taken virtually nothing out of the athlete
one lap of 60s in the opening lap of a 800 may take very little out of an elite, but 3 laps of 60s will take a significant amount of even hicham or bernie & will not let them get anywhere near their open 400 ability, which was likely high-47 at the time
learn some some basic physics about the nature of the kinetic energy formula
jennifer cruz wrote:And before you embarrass yourself any further, darling, remember that in that 12:59.22 in 2006 that Lagat averaged about 63.27 per lap for 11.5 laps before unleashing that 51.5 last lap...
no ! no!! no !!!
i know i'm talking to an utter moron when they start digging out lap/average times
that is kindergarden analysis & don't ever bring that lowest-level crap to my table
bernie's actual split from the vid was about 51.0
the 51.5 is almost certainly the one from kennster's time when leading at the bell & bernie's final clocking, when bernie was behind kennster at the bell
his splits were therefore more likely : 12'08.2/51.0
this evened out ->~ 12'41.1
this shows, that for that one day at least, bernie had combo of speed & endurance to run a time well below 12'45 if the race had been run at 12'40 pace gun-to-tape
so you surely understand that he was capable of running 60, 60, and 60 before unleashing a 50
moron
it tells us nothing about his mile potential at the time
all it tells us is that he was capable of running a 5k well below 12'45 that day
Now I will admit that this probably would have been close to his limit in 2006 and that it would be worth about 3:47.2, also close to his limit in 2006. Whereas you would like to give him something close to the world record for this effort
f***ing idiot
i have never claimed bernie coud ever go 60/60/60/50
there hasn't been a man born except with possibilty of ryun who coud have
do the calculation yourself - go fetch method in archives
which shows that you are like the man who wants to teach me about Paris because he has read a map, whereas I would learn more from one who has been there...
imbecile
i saw that 12'59 race from the stands
Do people not remember that part of the reason Bolt was so popular in the Olympics wasn't just that he broke the WR in the 100m but that he EASED UP? He admitted that he was trying to flap his arms to fly when he was on David Letterman. People thought his 100m was so cool because he ran so fast and DIDN'T TRY HIS HARDEST! He just happened to break the world record, but he didn't need to and he wasn't trying. He could have run 9.73 with that lead and everyone would have loved him. But it was the source of so many articles, some which kept making the main page here, about how "Bolt that day could have run a 9.5 or a 9.4" if he had just tried.
You all remember those. That was half the excitement about his run. Nobody cared that he ran 9.68 but they were interested in what he could have done had he not celebrated.
IT'S THE SAME THING HERE. Just because Quincey didn't dance and make poses after his races doesn't mean his run wasn't as remarkable, or rather "what was possible" wasn't as remarkable. What Bolt could have run in 2008 was half the excitement, and what Quincey could have run is half the excitement here. It's the same thing.
When Tyson Gay ran 9.69 after worlds in 2009, was that the same exact performance because of the time as Bolt's 9.69 in 2008? Is time all that matters? No, because Bolt eased up in his run and Tyson Gay ran through the line. Tis 43.7 isn't equivalent to just any other 43.7 run by Jeremy Wariner, it's better because it's clear he could have run so much faster, just like Bolt.
' doesn't mean his run wasn't as remarkable'
Rubbish Bolt did it AND set a world record
It was a great run by Quincey 'Medicine Man' but not the greatest
ukathleticscoach wrote:
' doesn't mean his run wasn't as remarkable'
Rubbish Bolt did it AND set a world record
It was a great run by Quincey 'Medicine Man' but not the greatest
I know he set a world record but he wasn't trying for it which was my point, and again, with his lead if he had run 9.73 people would have been just as excited and just as speculative on what he could have run.
Also come on man you aren't thinking.
Pretend for a second that the WR for the 10000m is 26:59 set by Chris Solinsky. Just pretend that it is.
Now compare to when Bekele when he ran 27:01 for an OR in Beijing, which included easing up in a 53 last lap, 4:02 final mile.
Solinsky ran faster but what's the better performance? Clearly Bekele, because we know that just a small change in his running would have produced a much better result.
You can't assume two performances are the same if one ran through the line and one didn't, and since the times are so close to each other it's not far fetched at all to say Quincey could have equaled Michael Johnson's current WR
The Waterboy wrote:
You can't assume two performances are the same if one ran through the line and one didn't, and since the times are so close to each other it's not far fetched at all to say Quincey could have equaled Michael Johnson's current WR
It is possible but certainly not guaranteed and I hardly think somebody is a moron because they disagree with Ventolin^3 for having a different assessment of how easy his second 200 meters was run.
Ventolin, you're really showing how stupid you are. There is no way that Lagat's 12:59 was worth a 12:41. You don't live in the real world. Also, Lagat's last lap was NOT 51 flat. The last lap for the leader (meaning from when Kenenisa crossed the line until Lagat finished was about 51.9). Lagat of course was faster, about 51.5, maybe 51.4.
And darling, I was not underestimating the difficulty of running 60, 60, and 60, but I know that Lagat in 2006 could have come through at 3:00 and closed in about 50 flat. This is elementary, my dear Ventolin. But you're too thick to grasp it. You're telling me Lagat can run 11 and 1/2 laps at 63.27 and close in 51 flat (your words) but he cannot run 3 laps at 60 and close in 50? He cannot anymore, but he could in 2006. It's jaw-dropping to be arguing with an imbecile who is so dumb that he calls other morons...
jennifer cruz wrote:
Ventolin, you're really showing how stupid you are. There is no way that Lagat's 12:59 was worth a 12:41. You don't live in the real world. Also, Lagat's last lap was NOT 51 flat. The last lap for the leader (meaning from when Kenenisa crossed the line until Lagat finished was about 51.9). Lagat of course was faster, about 51.5, maybe 51.4.
And darling, I was not underestimating the difficulty of running 60, 60, and 60, but I know that Lagat in 2006 could have come through at 3:00 and closed in about 50 flat. This is elementary, my dear Ventolin. But you're too thick to grasp it. You're telling me Lagat can run 11 and 1/2 laps at 63.27 and close in 51 flat (your words) but he cannot run 3 laps at 60 and close in 50? He cannot anymore, but he could in 2006. It's jaw-dropping to be arguing with an imbecile who is so dumb that he calls other morons...
Well what would you equate Lagat's 12:59? Remember he is not saying ALL 12:59's in non-rabbited races are equal to 12:41s with rabbits, and he's not even saying all 12:59's with 51 second last laps are equal to 12:41 with rabbits.
Rather, he is saying BERNARD LAGAT, the speedy 3:26 runner who ran a 12:59 with a 51 last lap (arguably equating to something EVEN FASTER since he ran wide on the last curve to pass Kipchoge and Choge), could have run a 12:41. That is a very different prediction and also one that is very likely.
As for the 60-60-60-50 being possible or not, I agree with Ventolin that it's not possible. Even though it's "only" a 3:50 mile and even though 60 second laps seem so slow for them and even though he has a lot of speed and is a great kicker etc, there is a certain limit to what you can run in your last lap.
For example, in a decent 800m there is no way I can see Rudisha closing in 48 seconds. It's just not possible. I don't think he could do it after a 52 second first 400 or even a 55 second first 400 I think he couldn't do it or would have trouble with it. A 60 second first 400 maybe, but also remember he's not saying it's never possible to run a 50 second last lap for a mile, but rather not possible after a decent paced mile (no matter how many people have broken 4 minutes, that time is still "decent" on the world level). Thus I'm sure he would agree that Lagat could run lets say 62-62-62-50 or something but certainly not a 50 after 4:00 pace just like Rudisha couldn't close in 48 even after low 1:50/high 1:40s pace.
jennifer cruz wrote:Ventolin, you're really showing how stupid you are. There is no way that Lagat's 12:59 was worth a 12:41
You don't live in the real world. Also, Lagat's last lap was NOT 51 flat. The last lap for the leader (meaning from when Kenenisa crossed the line until Lagat finished was about 51.9). Lagat of course was faster, about 51.5, maybe 51.4.
i have know gone back & checked vid :
bernie split 12'07.5/51.7 ->12'43.6
learn something idiot
in all "standard" wr attempts, the elite is paced to 3k & then runs solo for last 5 laps
bernie's theoretical 12'43 is with drafting upto the bell : that is 4 laps of further drafting at 1s/lap = 4s compared to "standard"
if he had run a "wr attempt" set up only for him with standard pacer to 3k & then dropping out, his expected time wouda been
~ 12'47/12'48
which is perfectly in keeping with was expected off that race
And darling, I was not underestimating the difficulty of running 60, 60, and 60, but I know that Lagat in 2006 could have come through at 3:00 and closed in about 50 flat. This is elementary, my dear Ventolin. But you're too thick to grasp it. You're telling me Lagat can run 11 and 1/2 laps at 63.27 and close in 51 flat (your words) but he cannot run 3 laps at 60 and close in 50? He cannot anymore, but he could in 2006. It's jaw-dropping to be arguing with an imbecile who is so dumb that he calls other morons...
moron
you are clearly the dumbest f***ing idiot ever to grace these boards
you have no clue as to relative energy expenditure of fast laps
& moron, don't ever offer me drivel about average time/lap
that is kindergarden analysis
i will show how fast a 50s last lap represents
Ventolin, you are beyond stupid, darling. First of all, Lagat was essentially drafted in that race in London until about 100 meters to go. So he essentially got better drafting than many record attempts receive, not factoring in the pacing.
Secondly, YOU'VE NOW ADMITTED THAT YOU WERE WRONG about his last lap...this is a sign of progress...it wasn't that hard, was it? NOW admit that you're wrong again, about every disagreement you and I have had on this thread...I know all about relative energy expenditure and you know nothing at all. This is why you were willing to say a 12:59 was worth a 12:41...rubbish, you clown. You are a clown with a calculator.
ventolin^3 wrote:
the semi still took helluva lot out of him, when he coud "only" go 43.50 in the final, when experienced viewers ( myself included ) were expecting 43.0/43.1 from him
So either that semi was harder than you thought, or you've just admitted you can't predict for shit. Or both.
jennifer cruz wrote:Ventolin, you are beyond stupid, darling. First of all, Lagat was essentially drafted in that race in London until about 100 meters to go. So he essentially got better drafting than many record attempts receive, not factoring in the pacing
moron
you so f***ing stoopid you can't read what i wrote ???
i already said he had 4 laps more drafting than kennster did in 12'37 for equivalent of ~ 12'47/12'48
another 300m will only add 0.75s to that
Secondly, YOU'VE NOW ADMITTED THAT YOU WERE WRONG about his last lap...this is a sign of progress...it wasn't that hard, was it? NOW admit that you're wrong again
that number was from memory of watching vid 9/12 ago
now i checked it & precise figure is 51.7
about every disagreement you and I have had on this thread...
no
you are an idiot without a clue
I know all about relative energy expenditure and you know nothing at all
complete & utter drivel
you haven't the vaguest grasp of physics
This is why you were willing to say a 12:59 was worth a 12:41...rubbish, you clown. You are a clown with a calculator.
f***ing imbecile
can't you read ???
it was worth 12'43 & with drafting only to 3k it was ~12#47/12'48
get that into your numbskull
moron
i am not going to work out 60/60/60/50 evened out for you as it for you to do & show us your "science"
i will do a proxy : a 1500 with similar pace, as it is a race run far more often & more relevant in global terms
standard conversion given by t&f news is 1.08 between mile/1500 ( it's a good enough guide without knowing their precise 800 ability to get better figure ), so all lap splits offered can be converted by
~ ( 1500/1609.344 )/1.08
so a 50s lap in a 1500 = ~ 50.33 in a mile
& a 49s lap in a 1500 = ~ 49.32 in a mile
& actual 50s in a mile = ~ 49.67 in a 1500 - which's relevance will be shown later
consider guy who in a 1500, runs perfect even pace 60s/lap to the bell for 2'45 & then runs following for last lap & what their evened-out time is
60 for 3'45 ->3'45
59 for 3'44 ->3'43.92
58 for 3'43 ->3'42.69
57 for 3'42 ->3'41.31
56 for 3'41 ->3'39.74
55 for 3'40 ->3'38.00
54 for 3'39 ->3'36.07
53 for 3'38 ->3'33.96
52 for 3'37 ->3'31.63
51 for 3'36 ->3'29.10
now the crucially fast last laps
50.00 for 3'35.00 ->3'26.36
49.75 for 3'34.75 ->3'25.63
49.50 for 3'34.50 ->3'24.90
49.25 for 3'34.25 ->3'24.15
49.00 for 3'34.00 ->3'23.38
moron
learn something about true nature about energy expenditure & how idiotic your estimate for 60/60/60/50 as 3'47.2 is