Not what I am saying at all, in my world, you run what you ran, you do not get credit for faster, maybe next time it happens, but if you choose to go 61/59 instead of 60/57.5 to the half? You don't get credit for 3:52 from 3:54.60. Think what you want. Insult me all you want.
Aren’t you the same guy who recently said Kessler could certainly run faster in the 3k than the 7:30 that Strand and Wolfe ran?
Not what I am saying at all, in my world, you run what you ran, you do not get credit for faster, maybe next time it happens, but if you choose to go 61/59 instead of 60/57.5 to the half? You don't get credit for 3:52 from 3:54.60. Think what you want. Insult me all you want.
Of course, you are correct. You NEVER get credit for a mark you have not run. There is no list of times that guys COULD HAVE run. Great race by Marco.
Not what I am saying at all, in my world, you run what you ran, you do not get credit for faster, maybe next time it happens, but if you choose to go 61/59 instead of 60/57.5 to the half? You don't get credit for 3:52 from 3:54.60. Think what you want. Insult me all you want.
Aren’t you the same guy who recently said Kessler could certainly run faster in the 3k than the 7:30 that Strand and Wolfe ran?
I did, I did not say his 7:39 was WORTH 7:29 because he is older. I used some data points to get to where I did.
Can Marcus or Warhurst do anything wrong in your eyes?
And since you asked like a d-ick..No, not really. Ron's role with Hobbs is different now anyway, he is 81.
If anyone knows, or can help, when I post, it does not go immediately it just sits there, I have to hit refresh circle in top left and even then it does not go all the time.
I could tell you but then you would have to be a decent person. I (and not nearly alone on this)thought if things broke right Langon could run almost exactly what he ran. he could have gotten there a different way. As it is he PR'ed by 1.6 secs. Similar to BU 5K when he ran last 200 fastest of almost all if you get to see splits. he probably left 1-2 out there. But, you don't know, he close this mile in 1:54.x he would have never done that off 1:57, why? Would I be so sure, you might day? Because he is not running 3:51-52 yet, in my own opinion.
This race was set up for the winner to go 3:52-53, BUT, nobody went for even slower than that, When Pacers dropped at a pretty conservative 2:27+, there was still a gap. Murphy found himself, a bad spot for him even though he is a better kicker than Martin. He has enough to hold off Martin so why look right or just over shoulder? Never saw Langon storming in, in 26.2, and diving. The pacers were there for a 3:52-53, nobody bit.
I did, I did not say his 7:39 was WORTH 7:29 because he is older. I used some data points to get to where I did.
How is that different than what zxcv did? He used some data points to estimate what Langon would be capable of running with even splits.
Also before people make what are sweeping presumptions, did they even see the race? Look at how it laid out 3:52 was out there if they got right on the back of Cohen and Watcke, who even had to slow down and they still were not connected.