Of course Kipketer could go more than some tenths faster than 1.13,2 in a 600m! When he broke the world record with 1.41,24 he ran close to 48 flat for the first 400m and as far as I know he also ran 1.14 flat for the first 600m even though he ran alone already from 400m! AND he still finished the last 200m in 27s flat. With a little faster first 400m in less than 48s he could have gone very close to 1.12,0 min or at least 1.12,3 or something
ventolin^2 wrote:
all posts starting with 10/14/2009 6:47AM are troll
not my style
ignore them
Lol! You are joking aren't you?
Please tell me you're being ironic.
You are ALWAYS calling someone retard or moron or idiot. Both those posts from yesterday you claim were not legit and beneath your character, are exactly the sort of responses many have come to expect from you.
Your holier than thou attitude does not become you!
ventolin^2 wrote:
that 1'13 has been on the list for 35y & i've never seen or heard anyone question it
if anyone has proof it's not genuine - post it
What list/s are you refering to?
As I said earlier; to which you made no response apart from your usual tirade of offensive language; his time is no where to be seen in the IAAF "Progression of World Records" book. Perhaps the onus should be on you to provide proof it is genuine.
-What were the 200 and 400 splits in this race, for instance? That would tell us a lot.
-Is there video evidence of the race?
As you know full well, there are inaccurate splits flashed up on screen during grand prix races, even today. You already acknowledged this last week in another thread; the 400m split for pacemaker in EL G's 3:26 Brussels race was given as 53.6*, when the clock clearly stopped 3 or 4m before the start line. If they can make such a mistake in 2002, then I'm sure it could have been the case in a small African meet some 35 years ago.
Ventolin said:- "the likelihood is that he had at worst 1'42.0 potential at the time in order to have done that split & still able to run another 200m"
Another example of contradicting yourself. You stated earlier that his run was worth 1:42.31. Now it's worth 1:42.0 "at worst". And all this based on a split which isn't recognised by the IAAF, and a formula of yours that claim the most ridiculous potentials for (mainly Kenyan) athletes, which are never realised.
Kipkurgat had a PB of 1:43.9. I don't doubt he was capable of faster in ideal circumstances. But to claim a potential of 2 secs faster based on 1 (untrustworthy) split from 1 race is plainly fanciful and holds little weight with the vast majority of statisticians. Give me 2 or 3 other performances from him which hint at such standards and I might be willing to revise my thoughts.
Just picked up on this thread. The graa Track Snell ran the 1;44.3 on was on Lancaster Park in Christchurch, a Cricket field in the summer and a Rugby field in the Winter. Still is Today !!
It was on a 440yd track. When the world record was set the application to the IAAF (of the time) had to have a Surveyors report in it. The track was measured to the most accurate dtetail that could be done. Including rises and falls. That suvey would have taken a day or two to do.
No way on earth was it measured with a Wheel !!.
As for talk of it being done on a 385 yd track ..... That was the mile record in Wanganui a week before ... where the 5 bends came from .. I don't know !!!!
Once again that track had to be measured to the most precise detail before a record could have been submitted.
I lay at least one grass track a year and have done for the best part of 30 years. My own one has permanent Survey pegs and they are checked every year. It still amazes me how accurate it is .. and all we are doing is putting it down for High School kids and the general public to run on.
Get with the programme people ... Snell ran 1:44.3 and proved he was that good by nailing 2 Oly golds 2 years later.
Whoops ! early speling mistake .. A grass track not a graa track !!
epopians wrote:Lol! You are joking aren't you?
Please tell me you're being ironic.
You are ALWAYS calling someone retard or moron or idiot. Both those posts from yesterday you claim were not legit and beneath your character, are exactly the sort of responses many have come to expect from you.
Your holier than thou attitude does not become you!
moron
when i call someone an idiot, they know it's from me !
I'm sorry, is somebody looking for me?
epopians wrote:
What list/s are you refering to?[/quote]
try this one for starters :
http://www.gbathletics.com/cm99.htmhis time is no where to be seen in the IAAF "Progression of World Records" book.
so ?
if they don't like including en-route times but only actual 600m races, that is their problem
Perhaps the onus should be on you to provide proof it is genuine
nope moron
it's on enough reputable lists
the onus is on YOU to disprove those lists
-What were the 200 and 400 splits in this race, for instance? That would tell us a lot.
dig out your '74 t&f news - it'll be there - you can have a teaser - race won in 1'49.9
-Is there video evidence of the race?
as they haven't videoed that meet in the '00s, i doubt they did 35y ago
If they can make such a mistake in 2002, then I'm sure it could have been the case in a small African meet some 35 years ago.
moron
he was over 7s ahead of the next guy at 600m
there is no possibility of "confusion" error here - just knowing where the 600m point is & even an idiot such as yourself knows it's at the start of the bend in lane 1 ( or do you ?? )
Ventolin said:- "the likelihood is that he had at worst 1'42.0 potential at the time in order to have done that split & still able to run another 200m"
Another example of contradicting yourself. You stated earlier that his run was worth 1:42.31. Now it's worth 1:42.0 "at worst".
moron
do you have the slightest clue about the "scientific method" ??
i used 2 methods with error in it & i am rather pleased that they give similar results - he wasn't chasing a wabbit or a time in christchurch & we don't know how bad the wind was
getting low-1'42 with that & possibilty of significantly better as indicated by 2nd method is a distinct consideration
And all this based on a split which isn't recognised by the IAAF
idiot
iaaf isn't source of all stats - just the ratifier
if no one submitted kirkugat's split to them in '74, they woudn't have considered it, but it's on enough stat lists
and a formula of yours that claim the most ridiculous potentials for (mainly Kenyan) athletes, which are never realised
moron
since when is johnny gray a kenyan ???
i analysed him because he happens to be the wr holder
Kipkurgat had a PB of 1:43.9. I don't doubt he was capable of faster in ideal circumstances. But to claim a potential of 2 secs faster based on 1 (untrustworthy) split from 1 race is plainly fanciful and holds little weight with the vast majority of statisticians
drivel
name 1 reputable statistician who has come out in print with that assertion
Give me 2 or 3 other performances from him which hint at such standards and I might be willing to revise my thoughts.
eh ?
he jogged the semi in 1'44.38, which was 3rd on all-time list at the time, which you wouda seen with your own eyes if you had been out of nappies & watching the tv
anyone with any athletics knowledge at the time were expecting him to destroy fiasconaro's wr in the final if he got right conditions - he didn't
Why does everybody hate me? I never make a mistake, I take a bath as often as I need to (2-3/month), I wear clean diapers. Why are you so mean?
we luv u ventoolin
Running a half mile WR on grass is pretty good, but I've always been more impressed with Dock Ellis' perfect game on LSD.
What is the price range for those grass tracks Kim?
Kim, did you ever hear about the old Oxford Uni grass track which Bannister raced on? He says in his autobio that it was so uneven that when the runners were on the backstraight, they half-disappeared from view.
Hey Bob, I would not have a clue what the price range is. 99.9% of Average Grass tracks in this country are laid by Volunteers in Track Clubs. Some are laid by City Council Staff.
Cost is paint or weed killer, Wooden Survey pegs, Steel measuring tapes and a knowledge of mathematics.
I do it as Part of my Job. If Permanent survey pegs need to be put in then the cost of a Surveyor.
I have put in tracks to suit fields. I have even puit in a Track that lonely needed to be used Twice !! Within a month you would not have known it was there !!
Kim Stevenson wrote:
Get with the programme people ... Snell ran 1:44.3 and proved he was that good by nailing 2 Oly golds 2 years later.
To be more precise, you CANNOT say he RAN 1:44.3. He was timed in 1:44.3 on a grass track using a timing system that was ratified to the standards at the time the event was conducted. But to claim--as some in this thread have--that Snell's time was as good or better than Coe and Kipketer is a very different matter. For anyone to even submit the measurement and timing certificate for Snell's WR to modern ratification standards, he would need to have his head examined.
Jim Ryun beat Snell as a teenager and 1-2 years later when Ryun had the WR, Snell at his all-time best would not have been able to touch Ryun. But Ryun never ran 1:44.3 on a real track. And no athlete coached by Lydiard ever ran sub-1:45 under any conditions at any other time. But Coe, Cruz, and Kipketer ran in the vicinity of 1:42 (faster for Kipketer) multiple times, and to modern measurement and timing standards.
eh ???
what is this drivel :
"But Ryun never ran 1:44.3 on a real track"
he ran 1'44.9 for 880y which anyone who believes in validity of simple arithmetic converts to 1'44.3 for 800m
the iaaf believes arithmetic :
as for snell, he ran 3'54.1wr with poor splits - looking at 3'52+ with "perfect" wabbiting
give him 1s/lap conversion from dirt to 70's synthetic & he was a ~ 3'48 guy back in mid-'60s
that's pretty damn good, but ryun was likely a 3'27/3'44 guy back in his 1500wr on a '70s track
ventolin^2 wrote:
eh ???
what is this drivel :
"But Ryun never ran 1:44.3 on a real track"
he ran 1'44.9 for 880y which anyone who believes in validity of simple arithmetic converts to 1'44.3 for 800m
the iaaf believes arithmetic :
http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=j/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=800/detail.htmlas for snell, he ran 3'54.1wr with poor splits - looking at 3'52+ with "perfect" wabbiting
give him 1s/lap conversion from dirt to 70's synthetic & he was a ~ 3'48 guy back in mid-'60s
that's pretty damn good, but ryun was likely a 3'27/3'44 guy back in his 1500wr on a '70s track
Oh God! Heaven help us! Is it your one aim in life to sap the enjoyment out of these threads for everyone with your nonsense?
Can you not stop talking bollocks?
There is no way on Earth that Snell was capable of 3:48.
When he set his 3:54.1 WR he went through laps of 56.6, 1:54.4 (57.8) & 2:54.6(60,2) and then dragged himself through a last lap of 59.6!! His last 800m was c. 2:00
"It was was mechanical desperation running, completely without inspiration", said Snell.
Cinder track or not, a guy with a 3:48 potential doesn't run almost a minute for the last quarter off a 2:54.6 three quarters.
And Ryun was never capable of 3:27. Your conversion from cinder to synthetic is completely unfounded. 1 sec per lap is ridiculous. Over 25 laps on a wet, poor dirt track, maybe, but certainly not over 4 laps on a well kept, hard track.
Those athletes have got to find another 4 strides per lap!? Whatever the surface is, they still have to move their legs faster than what they ever did before to the tune of fitting in an extra 16 strides in a race. No way!
You're saying that Ryun could run faster in the late 60s than what any athlete can run today, 40 years later? Rubbish.
The 100m WR has come down by 0.4 in the same period, the 10k by 1:22min (57 secs if you use your far fetched hypothesis), and there has been vast improvements in all areas of athletics. And you allude to less than a second advancement in the 1500 and Mile based on what Ryun "should" have run!? Laughable.
Stick your calculator up your a*** and go back to your jaundiced fantasy world where no Kenyans have ever taken drugs and people with a bad case of tourettes are taken seriously.
.....Moron, idiot, moron,..... moron, retard, eh!..... idiot, eh! Eh!.......................
epopians wrote:Oh God! Heaven help us! Is it your one aim in life to sap the enjoyment out of these threads for everyone with your nonsense?
moron
it's to throw some education/enlightenment along the ways
Can you not stop talking bollocks?
unfortunately you are the retard spouting drivel
There is no way on Earth that Snell was capable of 3:48
yes he was
When he set his 3:54.1 WR he went through laps of 56.6, 1:54.4 (57.8) & 2:54.6(60,2) and then dragged himself through a last lap of 59.6!! His last 800m was c. 2:00
"It was was mechanical desperation running, completely without inspiration", said Snell.
Cinder track or not, a guy with a 3:48 potential doesn't run almost a minute for the last quarter off a 2:54.6 three quarters
learn idiot
3'54 is ~ 58.5 for 4 laps
56.6 is almost 2s too fast
it is is like a 3'30 guy today requiring 56s/lap running 54s for 1st lap - the lactate debt is already very high & scuppering times
1'54/1'58 already shows you huge lactate debt he'd acquired in 1st 1/2
And Ryun was never capable of 3:27. Your conversion from cinder to synthetic is completely unfounded. 1 sec per lap is ridiculous. Over 25 laps on a wet, poor dirt track, maybe, but certainly not over 4 laps on a well kept, hard track.
moron
again your drivel with nothing to counteract 1s/lap
i ran on cinders & synthetic in same shape - i got 1s/lap & countless others i've talked to have similar estimates
ryun ran that 1500 with deep indentations on the track, splattering dirt & therefore wasting energy transferred to it - learn physics moron
Those athletes have got to find another 4 strides per lap!? Whatever the surface is, they still have to move their legs faster than what they ever did before to the tune of fitting in an extra 16 strides in a race. No way!
you are a complete & utter f***ing moron
speed = stride x frequency
on a synthetic, there is no need to increase frequency
the harder bounce with no dirt-splattering energy waste makes your stride longer with same frequency
for your peabrain to understand :
speed increase = ratio of track hardness ^0.5
for small increments in hardness
for a dirt track with = hardness to synthetic, substitute some factor for dirt-splattering as proxy for reduced hardness of dirt as this is same concept of energy-wastage
You're saying that Ryun could run faster in the late 60s than what any athlete can run today, 40 years later? Rubbish
moron
i said he coud run 3'27 on a 70's track
learn to read idiot
The 100m WR has come down by 0.4 in the same period, the 10k by 1:22min (57 secs if you use your far fetched hypothesis)
eh ???
hayes ran 10.06 with some wind on a chewed up lane 1 from previous 20k walk - more than 1s/lap equivalent for '70s
you want to try those again & what your implying ?!
and there has been vast improvements in all areas of athletics. And you allude to less than a second advancement in the 1500 and Mile based on what Ryun "should" have run!? Laughable
moron
you clearly have no clue
run without jogging inital 300, with wabbits to at least 1k & '70s track wouda run ~ 6s quicker
Stick your calculator up your a*** and go back to your jaundiced fantasy world where no Kenyans have ever taken drugs and people with a bad case of tourettes are taken seriously
i'm afraid i only mention a calculator i chanced upon which pointed me in direction of absolute truth
if you find a better one, i'd like to sign up to that
as for rest - your are drivelling
.....Moron, idiot, moron,..... moron, retard, eh!..... idiot, eh! Eh!.......................
i'm pleased you've learnt to accept your handicap
ventolin^2 wrote:
[There is no way on Earth that Snell was capable of 3:48
yes he was
learn idiot
3'54 is ~ 58.5 for 4 laps
56.6 is almost 2s too fast
it is is like a 3'30 guy today requiring 56s/lap running 54s for 1st lap - the lactate debt is already very high & scuppering times
1'54/1'58 already shows you huge lactate debt he'd acquired in 1st 1/2
[/quote]
Ha! Ha! Ha!
I can't begin to tell you how that is so full of holes on so many levels. It's contradictory nonsense of the highest order, which is actually beneath me even responding to it.
Blah, blah, blah!
All utter crap. But I'd expect nothing more from you. If living in a deluded existence keeps you happy and off the streets, then I'm happy for you and relieved for everyone else.
Isn't it time for your next round of medication?
epopians wrote:Ha! Ha! Ha!
I can't begin to tell you how that is so full of holes on so many levels. It's contradictory nonsense of the highest order
show it moron
which is actually beneath me even responding to it
from a kindagarden teacher
i doubt it