is it possible that the electronic time "conveniently"
didn't work during the 800m? After all, italian organizers
have been cheating before.
is it possible that the electronic time "conveniently"
didn't work during the 800m? After all, italian organizers
have been cheating before.
We know it didn't work! That's why they took the photo-cell time.
Why would the Italians do that on purpose to benefit a British athlete?
Anyway, I'm sure you possess a stopwatch. Try timing it yourself. I have a very good quality dvd of the race from a commercial dvd, and whenever I time it, I get 1:41.5! So I don't think there's any question it was any slower than the 1:41.73 they went with.
There were 3 statisticians/officials there at the meet and they got 1:41.6, 1:41.6 & 1:41.7. The IAAF could have taken the 1:41.6 as the official hand timed WR, but chose to go with the photo cell time, probably because it would have been a bit embarrassing for them to recognise the failure made.
It also failed for Carl Lewis in the 100m that evening.
ventolin wrote:
beacause history tells us the 2s split differential is one most commonly used to run the 800pb ( not saying it's right, but you have to give history it's due )
so
1'45.0 -> 51.5/53.5
1'44.0 -> 51.0/53.0
1'43.0 -> 50.5/52.5
1'42.0 -> 50.0/52.0
1'41.0 -> 49.5/51.5
1'40.0 -> 49.0/51.0
1'39.0 -> 48.5/50.5
his zurich split of 48.5 was 1'39.0 pace !!!
What does this have to do with anything?
Even if we agree that a 2 second differential is ideal (though it's just an arbitrary number), in order to break 1:41 your chart says he has to go out in sub-49.5. But in his world record run he DID go out in almost exactly 49.5 (I've already heard 49.3) and his differential was more than 2 seconds. He was already less than ideal.
Any faster on the first lap and the differential simply would have grown. Any slower on the first lap and he wasn't breaking 1:41 (according to your chart).
The man ran a ton of fast races, and his best effort was 1:41.11.
err...
49.5 -> 1'41.0
he ran 1'41.11
so he was 0.11s off the charts
you believe that difference is big enough to prove the charts wrong ???
No, it proves YOU are wrong about his potential to run 1:40-mid.
He either went out at 49.5 or 49.3 (like I said, I've read both). If he went out in 49.5 then he came home in 51.61, a 2.11 second differential. If he went out in 49.3 then he came home in 51.81, a 2.51 second differential.
Either way he was already beyond the perfect 2.00 seconds. Any faster on his first lap would just make his second lap slower (ie, even further away from 2.00).
So in order to hit that magical 2.00 he actually should have gone out slightly SLOWER. But your charts say that going out slower than 49.5 means you can't run under 1:41. Understand now?
This part of the discussion is pointless anyway, because 2.00 is an arbitrary margin. 1.80 or 2.50 could both also produce fast times.
I'm just saying that according to your logic, sub-1:41 was not in the cards.
and Lagat can beat Bekele if bekele wears cement shoes
its infuriating wrote:
The man ran a ton of fast races, and his best effort was 1:41.11.
And Peter Snell ran a ton of 800s and 880s. Does that mean that we are certain he was no better than the 1:44.3 he ran on that less than 400m grass track in Christchurch? That he would have run no faster had he been on a synthetic track in Switzerland?
fawn leibowitz wrote:
And Peter Snell ran a ton of 800s and 880s. Does that mean that we are certain he was no better than the 1:44.3 he ran on that less than 400m grass track in Christchurch? That he would have run no faster had he been on a synthetic track in Switzerland?
Why are you comparing Snell to Kipketer? We know Snell did not have many of the same advantages that Kipketer did - modern surfaces, modern shoes, modern training, and rabbited races.
I'll say that Snell ran as fast as possible given the conditions of his day. How many races do you suppose Snell ran in his life? 75? 100? Probably more, right? I would think that's enough chances for us to conclude he maxed out his potential on grass/dirt with no rabbits in 1960-whatever.
Look, if you want to speculate about Kipketer's 400 or 1500 pr's, that could be an interesting debate. Obviously he didn't race them often enough or focus his training on them to maximize his potential in either of those two events. I think it's safe to assume he could have gone faster in both. How much faster? Who knows, but I'll agree that a pr is not always just a pr. Some prs can be soft due to lack of opportunity.
All I'm saying is that Kipketer ran enough modern rabbited 800 races that we shouldn't be speculating about his potential. What he ran is what he ran.
Next you guys will be telling me El G could have gone faster at 1500 meters.
Come on, it has to stop somewhere.
he could have. both he and lagat could have run 3:25.xx just ask ventolin.......
its infuriating wrote:
Next you guys will be telling me El G could have gone faster at 1500 meters.
Come on, it has to stop somewhere.
It is a paradox to say that someone could not have gone faster!! Think about it....
its infuriating wrote:
No, it proves YOU are wrong about his potential to run 1:40-mid.
He either went out at 49.5 or 49.3 (like I said, I've read both). If he went out in 49.5 then he came home in 51.61, a 2.11 second differential. If he went out in 49.3 then he came home in 51.81, a 2.51 second differential.
Either way he was already beyond the perfect 2.00 seconds. Any faster on his first lap would just make his second lap slower (ie, even further away from 2.00).
So in order to hit that magical 2.00 he actually should have gone out slightly SLOWER. But your charts say that going out slower than 49.5 means you can't run under 1:41. Understand now?
you are clueless about the situation
the 1'41.11wr cologne race was just a run of the mill circuit race for him & he had the fatigue of a 1'42.20 from just 2 days before in his legs
i was shocked to find him even running on that sunday after the brussels race earlier as that was a tough race
he ran surprisingly efficiently in cologne ( 2s differential ) but in terms of athletic peaking, the zurich race was the one where he was in best outdoor shape of season & had a reasonable 5 days rest after his WC win so holding onto that form & enough time to recover
zurich off a 49.0 - 49.25 wouda been mid-1'40
if you can't grasp that, that's your problem
you're a stupid idiot
mcafee wrote:
It is a paradox to say that someone could not have gone faster!! Think about it....
ventoIin wrote:
you're a stupid idiot
not my post
if i call someone an idiot, i'll at least spell my handle properly
ventolin wrote:
zurich off a 49.0 - 49.25 wouda been mid-1'40
if you can't grasp that, that's your problem
Your problem is that you're divorced from reality. The Science of Sport says that his 1:41.11 splits were:
49.31/51.80 = 1:41.11
So let me get this straight. You're arguing he could have run something like this in Zurich:
49.00/51.50 = 1:40.50
or
49.25/51.25 = 1:40.50
Despite going out faster than in Cologne, you also expect him to come home faster. WTF?
It seems like we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes legitimate evidence. I'm arguing Kipketer could not run 1:40.50 because in a lifetime of high level races (more than 100?) he never did it.
You're ignoring the body of evidence of his entire career and focusing on one single race where the man happened to run splits of 48.34/52.90 = 1:41.24. Somehow this leads you to the conclusion that going out 0.91 seconds slower for that first lap would have made his second lap 1.65 seconds faster. Why do you think this? I have no idea. There is no formula that exists that would lead you to this conclusion, yet you've taken a "hunch", something that is qualitative, and turned it into a quantitative assertion. That's what your problem is.
you clearly don't read
in cologne when he ran 1'41.11 he had 1'42.20 fatigue of 2/7 ago from brussels
i was shocked to see him even there & expected nothing better than a 1'43-flat at the gun
to run 1'41.11 was shocking - it seemed impossible to do
without that race in his legs he wouda undoubtedly come back faster than 51.80
i see no problem with 49.31/~ 51.31 for a 1'40.6 without brussels
in zurich, i expected even fastest run of year as that was peak aim of outdoor GP season, a few days after gold
49.25/51.25 for 1'40.50 seems perfect
did you actually see any of these races live ?!
its infuriating wrote:You're ignoring the body of evidence of his entire career and focusing on one single race where the man happened to run splits of 48.34/52.90 = 1:41.24. Somehow this leads you to the conclusion that going out 0.91 seconds slower for that first lap would have made his second lap 1.65 seconds faster. Why do you think this? I have no idea. There is no formula that exists that would lead you to this conclusion, yet you've taken a "hunch", something that is qualitative, and turned it into a quantitative assertion. That's what your problem is.
no
you are assuming lactate level goes up in a linear fashion with quicker 1st lap
it doesn't
kip was likely a 45-flat in that year if he'd run 400s all year
for him, lets try a scenario
- for 52s opener, he'd have lactate of x
- for 51s opener, he'd have lactate of ~ (52/51)x
- for 50s opener, he'd have lactate of ~ (52/50)x +
- for 49s opener, he'd have lactate of ~ (52/49)x ++
- for 48s opener, he'd have lactate of ~ (52/48)x +++
the lactate level will go up exponentially until it gets to pb of 45.0 - the lactate level at 45.0pb will never be just a simple (52/45)x - it will be vastly higher than this
therefore, the premise that going out in ~ 49.25 instead of 48.50 ( he didn't go 48.34 - that was the wabbit ) will reduce lactate debt by significantly more than by simple proportion & therefore will save you more time on 2nd lap than you gave up on 1st lap
its infuriating wrote:You're ignoring the body of evidence of his entire career and focusing on one single race where the man happened to run splits of 48.34/52.90 = 1:41.24. Somehow this leads you to the conclusion that going out 0.91 seconds slower for that first lap would have made his second lap 1.65 seconds faster. Why do you think this? I have no idea. There is no formula that exists that would lead you to this conclusion, yet you've taken a "hunch", something that is qualitative, and turned it into a quantitative assertion. That's what your problem is.
no
you are assuming lactate level goes up in a linear fashion with quicker 1st lap
it doesn't
kip was likely a 45-flat in that year if he'd run 400s all year
for him, lets try a scenario
- for 52s opener, he'd have lactate of x
- for 51s opener, he'd have lactate of ~ (52/51)x
- for 50s opener, he'd have lactate of ~ (52/50)x +
- for 49s opener, he'd have lactate of ~ (52/49)x ++
- for 48s opener, he'd have lactate of ~ (52/48)x +++
the lactate level will go up exponentially until it gets to pb of 45.0 - the lactate level at 45.0pb will never be just a simple (52/45)x - it will be vastly higher than this
therefore, the premise that going out in ~ 49.25 instead of 48.50 ( he didn't go 48.34 - that was the wabbit ) will reduce lactate debt by significantly more than by simple proportion & therefore will save you more time on 2nd lap than you gave up on 1st lap