rojo wrote:
So there was zero chance Tuntivate was going to run sub 27. Maybe scott.
Tuntivate went 1446, 1431.
You obviously mean 13:46 and 13:31...
So he improved his 5000m PB by 11 seconds
...wasn’t happy with that, so he improved it by a further 15 seconds...
Does his 13:46 count as a new NR?
Technically, he is now faster than Hocker at 5000m (of course, he had a rolling start).
balanceboard wrote:
Tennis's switch from small wood to large composite rackets changed the game but there wasn't a big deal made of it because its entertainment. Maybe there's resistance to technology enhancements in running because it's seen as pure like swimming. This won't last long.
Also, everyone switched to the new rackets. The game changed, but there was no competitive advantage because everyone was using the new rackets. With plated shoes times will be faster, but the competitive advantage will disappear when every shoe company develops their own plated shoe. Even now, Nike sponsors the majority of athletes so with them all wearing plated shoes they run faster but there is no competitive advantage.
There using aluminum bats/high COR drivers/dimpled swimsuits
All of which have been rightly banned (mostly).
*They're
^ wrote:
Ron Clarke ran ... 27:39.89 and 13:16.6 on DIRT in 1965
You could be joking, but no he didn’t. There were synthetic tracks in Stockholm and Oslo by ‘65/‘66.
I'd say he just hasn't run a good 5k.
John Wesley Harding wrote:
^ wrote:
Ron Clarke ran ... 27:39.89 and 13:16.6 on DIRT in 1965
You could be joking, but no he didn’t. There were synthetic tracks in Stockholm and Oslo by ‘65/‘66.
Yes he did.. I see you on here repeatedly doing nothing but trolling .. Clarke 12:51y ; 27:39.89 and 13:16.6 on DIRT in 1965 .. no joke fool.
Of course, but that doesn't explain 27:17. If he had run full minute (or more) faster previously in the 5k, this would still be a shock.
^^ wrote:
John Wesley Harding wrote:
You could be joking, but no he didn’t. There were synthetic tracks in Stockholm and Oslo by ‘65/‘66.
Yes he did.. I see you on here repeatedly doing nothing but trolling .. Clarke 12:51y ; 27:39.89 and 13:16.6 on DIRT in 1965 .. no joke fool.
Link me to the evidence that those were run on dirt, please.
sandybeaver wrote:
Having followed Kieran since high school (same school but never overlapped) it is great to see his progression here. Between Kieran and Sam Parsons it’s great to finally see Delaware natives represent on this level. No disrespect to Marquis Dendy, but before these guys DE had basically nobody since Vicki Huber on the track make news.
Charter 2008 Represent!
steeplepeople wrote:
sandybeaver wrote:
Having followed Kieran since high school (same school but never overlapped) it is great to see his progression here. Between Kieran and Sam Parsons it’s great to finally see Delaware natives represent on this level. No disrespect to Marquis Dendy, but before these guys DE had basically nobody since Vicki Huber on the track make news.
Charter 2008 Represent!
Is it that difficult for DE to produce a runner who will actually represent the US?
The assumption of benefit that you take as gospel (apparently because of the letters "PhD") is a wild ass guess that may or may not apply to any individual runner.
The evidence:
rough mechanical estimates (of what?)
observations (of what? Vaporflys?)
thoughts from other athletes (blatant guessers without data)
different guys/gals will see different benefits (in other words, could be no benefit at all)
You’ve got a multivariable problem with multiple unknowns, and you jump to the shoes. A more plausible explanation is that months and months of essentially uninterrupted training could yield the results you see. And because months and months of quality training will yield favorable results for basically everyone, it is far more plausible than shoes for which “different guys/gals will see different benefits” (or no benefit at all), and which haven't been worn in every race where there's been a standout performance.
canucklehead wrote:
CowboyBob wrote:
I would consider this all good for track and field. Improved equipment doesn't affect any other sport as much as it seems to affect track and field. No one questions when a new tennis racquet comes along. No one questions when better golf clubs come along. Only deflated footballs and footwear seem to be an issue for track guys. Let it go, just as track surfaces have helped improve times from running on the old cider tracks, so now shoes help improve times. Big deal. Enjoy the moment as much as the guys and gals that ran some fantastic times during a really down time in this world of ours. I applaud the results and give a huge thumbs up for all these athletes who have managed to continue training and competing when a lot of the country is shut down.
One can't 'enjoy the moment' of fantastic runs unless there's a reliable frame of reference, can they? Especially for those who don't follow T&F closely.
Bolt is not the most famous track athlete in the last 50 years because he won the big races. It's because he won the big races with the fastest times ever.
Historical time comparisons are an important way to keep people interested in a sport. Without meaningful comparisons, track will become even less popular than it is now.
Also, you're way off base about whether equipment advances are controversial for fans and competitors in golf, tennis and other sports; they have always been so.
Well stated.
I have a hard time believing the 2-3 seconds per 1500/mile.
You really telling me Gudaf Tseguy, who wasn't wearing new spikes, would have done a 3:50 indoor 1500 if she were in DFs? That's equalling the outdoor record by 2016 super sketchy Dibaba. Outdoors that would be like Tseguy running a 3:47. That if only she'd had Nike spikes she might have beaten Kipyegon and Hassan in Doha 2019??
Also worth pointing out that despite both Muir and Dibaba having DFs since beginning of 2019, neither of them have PB'd outdoors at 1500-5000 distances.
Also worth pointing out Timothy Cheruiyot hasn't PB'd in the 1500 despite having DF's since 2019.
The spikes are awesome - I've got a pair - but I don't think they're in the same ballpark as the road shoes (my road PBs have dropped, track ones haven't, though haven't got injured since I got them).
mrs. cup wrote:
Americans born here who compete for the US are natives. His parent(s) moved here and gave birth to him but he competes for his "native" land. The US Olympic Committee requires an athlete to be a national of the country for which they compete. US military members live overseas and give birth while being there. Do you consider GI Joe's child who is born in Germany and lives their first 3 years there? Is Grant Fisher a native Canadian in your eyes?
Why do you feel the need to define and categorize him (and others) like this?
It certainly isn't to give credit or support and it doesn't seem particularly neutral (i.e. the implication, whether intended or subconscious from you, is that there is something negative about him or his parents not being "native" (your words, not mine)).
The fact you even care about this is ridiculous and shows a lot about your character. You certainly aren't informing or entertaining anyone. Go away.
John Wesley Harding wrote:
^^ wrote:
Yes he did.. I see you on here repeatedly doing nothing but trolling .. Clarke 12:51y ; 27:39.89 and 13:16.6 on DIRT in 1965 .. no joke fool.
Link me to the evidence that those were run on dirt, please.
"Against skinny, striving young Lindgren, he appeared like a sedate demigod brushing away an impertinent schoolboy."
The 3 mile WR at least was run on dirt:
https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20808198/ron-clarkes-record-setting-1965/Another giver of +1 wrote:
John Wesley Harding wrote:
Link me to the evidence that those were run on dirt, please.
"Against skinny, striving young Lindgren, he appeared like a sedate demigod brushing away an impertinent schoolboy."
The 3 mile WR at least was run on dirt:
https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20808198/ron-clarkes-record-setting-1965/
All Clarke’s bests were run on dirt... ALL, as in every single world’s record, all on dirt tracks. Clarke would’ve run 13:04/27:15 (1.5%) just upon the track surface alone.
red5 wrote:
kanga shoe wrote:
The shoes
It’s either that or the other thing that they won’t let you say on letsrun because it’s true
Why is the drug topic off limits when we're talking about a guy who has never passed a drug test? I'm not guaranteeing that he's juiced, but none of you are even close to guaranteeing that he's not. Until he's tested regularly in and out of comp (or tested ever) I'm not assuming he's clean. It seems the history of sport (not just running) is being forgotten. Track surfaces change, shoes change, we all remember and acknowledge that. Chemical advantages come into existence too. Somehow that is forgotten or just taboo to talk about. No one ever speculates how fast Clarke would have run if everything - tracks, shoes and everything nobody wants to post in this thread - were the same for him as for Komen.
Come on, don't we all remember the hotel room bust with EPO loaded into syringes? The fact that none of the associated runners tested positive - they were high profile and regularly attended events which test - proves that it is incredibly easy to get away with. Armstrong talks about this openly these days; if you're willing to do it, it is trivial to do so and not flunk a test.
Tuntivunte is tough as nails. Lost his shoe in first lap of 3000m indoor, went on to win ripping his toes and feet to shreds in the process. I've lost the link to his photo of his foot that he posted (twitter?). but probably best not to post, it will turn people's stomach as it looks like someone took a belt sander to his foot. You can google it yourself, just keep airsickness bag handy. Here's the kinder gentler story:
Has anyone stopped to think that maybe during this time where no one is racing, these PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES were actually training harder and smarter than ever before. With no races they were able to train true to their bodies. They were allowed to take random down weeks if they were fatigued and were able to really push it when they were feeling good. All of this is a perfect recipe for athletes to run, FAST. Add in the mental benefit of just being happy to race and nothing about these fast times has been surprising to me. Why can't we just appreciate how fast people are running. Why does this community always have to undermine accomplishments. To quote the man himself, "HaVaRd OnLy MaDe NaTiOnAlS bEcAuSe Of ThE VaPoR FlY"