The Waterboy wrote:Thus I'm sure he would agree that Lagat could run lets say 62-62-62-50
that ->~ 3'43.26
so in his 3'26 prime he couda just about done it
The Waterboy wrote:Thus I'm sure he would agree that Lagat could run lets say 62-62-62-50
that ->~ 3'43.26
so in his 3'26 prime he couda just about done it
Your models are erroneous Ventolin, darling. I know that Lagat could in 2006 run his 3000 meter race pace for 3 laps and close in 50. When I say he could have closed in 50, it might be 50.xx, due to his basic speed being not known for sure, but he probably had about 47.5 400 speed at his best. After all, he ran 63.27 pace for 4600 meters before closing in 51.7, which included running around people and therefore probably losing a couple tenths. I am not sure there is any point in continuing this, as your thick skull does not absorb the truth very well.
jennifer cruz wrote:Your models are erroneous Ventolin, darling
no
moron
the model is direct from site of oxford physicists applied to sport
they are not wrong
you are an idiot who doesn't know any physics
I know that Lagat could in 2006 run his 3000 meter race pace for 3 laps and close in 50
drivel
you know bullshit
the only way he coud run a 50s off his "3k pace for 3 laps" woud be if his 3k pace in '06 was
7'22
When I say he could have closed in 50, it might be 50.xx, due to his basic speed being not known for sure, but he probably had about 47.5 400 speed at his best
not in '06 he didn't
as he was no longer a 3'26 guy but a 3'29 one, his basic speed wouda been more like 49s
After all, he ran 63.27 pace for 4600 meters before closing in 51.7, which included running around people and therefore probably losing a couple tenths
never offer me kindergarden average speed/lap analysis
I am not sure there is any point in continuing this, as your thick skull does not absorb the truth very well.
f***ing moron
you offer me basic arithmetic analysis when this problem requires more sophisticated analysis
you are incapable of this
don't offer me lowest level "63.xx/lap speed & then..." crap
i asked you to show me working for 60/60/60/50 evened out
put up or shut the f*** up idiot
moronlet me see if have any knowledge of science : maths, specificallythis is a mensa puzzle which is for top-end achievers in their testsit involves, knowledge of maths, logic & commonsense if you can solve it, it shows me your maths is excellent & your failure to answer 60/60/60/50 evened out is unnecessarysolve one or the othershow me you are not some ignorant imbecile when it comes to maths
"The Golden Ball & the Oxford Professors :
An Oxford Professor named Hall
Possessesed an Octagonal Ball,
The Square of it's Weight
Divided by Eight
Was Pi times the Root of Sod All.
Now the more perceptive reader will have spotted immediately the logical & mathematical flaws in the above statement. If it was octagonal, it can hardly have been a ball & the maths seems to contain serious flaws. I am now in a position to reveal the true story. The ball was in fact a ball, not octagonal , & made of pure gold. Together with another Professor he had obtained it in illicit fashion during an archaeological dig in peru. The 2 accomplices being born complexifiers, fell into a dispute about how they should divide up this valuable object.
One had a fancy to have a solid gold paperweight & as a ball is not much use for that purpose, decided that it must be a cylinder ; so he said,
" All I want is a cylinder from the ball & I can turn this up on the lathe in the laboratory. All the rest of it, the golden swarf, you shall have & you can sell it for a considerable sum "
The 2nd Professor did some calculations & proved to his own satisfaction that any true cylinder from the sphere must contain less than half the volume of the sphere & so he agreed to the terms.
Was he wise ?
If the total weight of the of gold in the ball was 1 kg, what was the least weight of swarf his friend could make in turning a true cylinder from the golden ball ? "
Darling, is this a joke? Of course, the answer is .53kg. The mass of the carved off part would then of course be .47kg.
Now really, darling...
try again moron
Darling, I wrote the incorrect answer...but I had solved it correctly. The answer is .58kg, with the carved off part being .42kg. Now, the truth is that I am also correct about Lagat and everything else in this thread...
jennifer cruz wrote:Darling, I wrote the incorrect answer...but I had solved it correctly. The answer is .58kg, with the carved off part being .42kg
show some working & express answer as irrational expression
Now, the truth is that I am also correct about Lagat andeverything else in this thread...
drivel
'seeing as running 26'17 unwabbited is currently impossible for any human, your question is nonsensical'
You need to put down your excel and pick up a dictionary and look up the definition of impossible
Incidentally have you ever read the book 'We'
are you aware "wabbit" isn't a word?
also, as someone else asked, if this semi was so easy why'd it take so much out of him for the finals?
fun thread. don't stop now!
skippymcc wrote:
are you aware "wabbit" isn't a word?
also, as someone else asked, if this semi was so easy why'd it take so much out of him for the finals?
Bekele won the 10000m in Berlin easily by barely kicking a 57 to a 26:46 win. No one would argue he could have gone so much faster, it even came from the man himself that he wasn't really kicking. That doesn't mean he was a 100% for the 5000m double.
There is no contradiction in saying that he eased up to a 43.7 but couldn't run the same thing soon after
skippymcc wrote:also, as someone else asked, if this semi was so easy why'd it take so much out of him for the finals?
learn :
after tim ran 9.78wr, he said he felt great afterwards
the next day, however, he said his feet were so swollen & painful that he coud barely put them down on the ground or put on his shoes
this lasted a week, so intense he said was the hammering his feet had given the track
V3
Incidentally have you ever read the book 'We'?
He probably read "Pat the Husband: A Parody" by mistake.
i'm not even sure what you're trying to say. is that story supposed to mean that everyone who takes it easy one day should be feeling bad the next day?
epic thread - have to approve, but wtf
skippymcc wrote:i'm not even sure what you're trying to say. is that story supposed to mean that everyone who takes it easy one day should be feeling bad the next day?
get a brain
"damage" may not occur to the CV system from ease of performance but to musculo-skeletal system subsequently
got a brain bigger than yours
damage that "MAY" occur subsequently to an activity has no effect on an athlete's potentiallity priorhand. physicallity is not effect either. what occurs after the fact is afterwards, not beforewards.