Bernard Lagat may try 5000/10000m double in 2012...discussion and predictions

Honestly we should hold off the debate until their careers are over. If Bekele could manage to win the 10000 in 2011 and 2012 he is best 10000 runner ever, no contest.

Both guys are great.

ventolin^3 wrote:

as for your premise 27'00 = 30'20, where on earth do you get that from ???

applying that to ingrid kristiansen when she ran 30'13 in '86 that means according to your ratio, the men's equivalent time wouda been then

~ 26'53 !!!

the wr at the time was mamede's 27'13

are you seriously going to claim ingrid was the equivalent of a 20s better runner than the men's wr holder at the time ???

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm okay with that. Kristiansen was a space alien.

In the race when Bernard Lagat ran 12:54.1 the pace

1km....pacer too out much too fast

2km....pace slowed but slightly ahead of AR pace

3km....pace slowed no longer on AR pace

4km....pace slowed may have trouble breaking 13:00

5km....torrid last 1000m

Most of the top 10 runners could have run faster with a more even pace; therefore, I still suspect Bernard to be in 12:47-12:49 shape this year. Any such runner won't have a problem running sub 27 10000m if they weather and pacing is good. The question is if he gets good pacing and weather how far under 27 will he go...Bernard himself threw a number out there and he guess is 26:40.

Seriously 26:37.5 and shocks the world. Many will then speculate what Bernard could have done had he moved up to the 5000m and 10000m 8-10 years earlier against the likes of in their prime Haile and Kenenisa.

i would love it if he does double that he actually does one event for one country and can't be the best 3 in that country and then try's to be top 3 for a different country.

Precisely Watson wrote:

Stick a fork in Bernie. He needs to retire. I'm tired of hearing about him, he's washed up and should quit trying to be world-class. Ok, maybe he's not THAT washed up, but he's on the down-swing, and truthfully, I'm just sick of him.

Sucks a washed up on the down swing should quit trying individual just ran FASTER than any other AMERICAN EVER!

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm okay with that. Kristiansen was a space alien.

making her also 24s faster than iron-man lopes - greatest M'er of the '80s

making her also 29s faster than the legendary henry rono

making her also 45s faster than quadruple gold medallist viren

i don't think so...

haha, YO (super serial) wrote:

My bad. 6 it is.

So your entire argument is based on Bekele having a shorter career, running in fewer Championships which makes him better? ... with maybe one loss in an open event early in Geb's career.

Geb - same amount of golds

Geb - more silvers

Geb - more bronzes

Geb - more records

Geb - more years

Sure, Bekele can win more in the future but those eggs haven't hatched.

See, this Lagat character is going to stop him (chuckle, chuckle)

The debate can still happen now but yes it will really have to be resolved when they stop running.

Oh, and to Bekele's credit that 2003 head to head race (and 2004 and 2008) would help any tie breaker. Geb may have been past his prime but still closed that race in 12:58 so he wasn't far past his prime.

There are too many posters who are repeatedly stating "X was past their prime" how do you know if that athlete was past their prime because they hit a certain age? Everyone single man and woman mature at their own rate, grow and stop growing at different times in their lives; therefore, it only an assumption as to when someone would be past their prime. IN ALL REALITY Bernard, Kenenisa, or X could be a freak of nature and not hit their prime til 38 or 39.

Precisely Watson wrote:

Stick a fork in Bernie. He needs to retire. I'm tired of hearing about him, he's washed up and should quit trying to be world-class. Ok, maybe he's not THAT washed up, but he's on the down-swing, and truthfully, I'm just sick of him.

Ok. Didn't Bernie just run a PR and set a new AR like, a couple weeks ago? He was world champion in the 5000m three years ago, and he's running it faster now. I know he's probably lost a little bit of kick so winning a world title now would be less likely, but he's still world class, no doubt about it.

You're criticizing someone because of their longevity as an athlete? What the hell? If you were still setting PRs and breaking records (not to mention getting paid good money for it) would YOU quit? F*** no you wouldn't. What is your problem?

ventolin^3 wrote:

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm okay with that. Kristiansen was a space alien.

making her also 24s faster than iron-man lopes - greatest M'er of the '80s

making her also 29s faster than the legendary henry rono

making her also 45s faster than quadruple gold medallist viren

i don't think so...

It's totally possible. Why can't we have one woman that's a freak of nature and is better than the men? If she actually were a man and ran those times, it would be great, but it wouldn't be ridiculous according to today's standards. Also, those men you listed were from different time periods.

You assume the performance differences are or should be a constant in percentage terms, across the distances, >2' duration to <2h duration. You have no solid basis for this aside from what you apparently believe is a proper regression line.

Of course Lagat could have run 26:30's for 10000m.

We will agree to disagree. I think Bekele is a better 10000 runner than Geb, he sure as hell is a better 5000 runner. The next few years could change how I feel about the 10000 if he doesn't run or loses and I would think it could change your mind too if he wins two more golds but for now we will leave it as is.

because mamede/lopes/rono & viren were also "freaks of nature"

there is no way that that particular woman "freak of nature" was any better than those male "freaks of nature"

those men were NOT from different time periods - they all ran in the '80s - same decade as ingrid's 30'13

NO

i gave a range of 10 - 11% which is NOT a constant %age difference

10s inputting data into a software program woud immediately give you a dozen curves of fit - here's one that looks aesthetically pleasing & gives an initial ballpark relationship

if t = men's time, then equivalent women's time is T for distances of 800 - M ( & it's not too bad for 100 - 400m !!! ) :

T = 1.0854214 * 0.999996^t * t^1.0028459

see what it yields for women's times in %age terms for the following men's times ( convert all into seconds ) :

1'41

3'26

7'20

12'37

26'18

27'00

2"03'59

you can also try

10.00

20.00

44.00...

VIPAM wrote:

There are too many posters who are repeatedly stating "X was past their prime" how do you know if that athlete was past their prime because they hit a certain age? Everyone single man and woman mature at their own rate, grow and stop growing at different times in their lives; therefore, it only an assumption as to when someone would be past their prime. IN ALL REALITY Bernard, Kenenisa, or X could be a freak of nature and not hit their prime til 38 or 39.

VIPAM, you make some contributions to this board, but you also post some of the stupidest crap I have ever seen, and the above ranks near the top as the epitome of idiocy. Kenenisa hit his peak in 2004-2005 and has been falling off a bit, but he has had enough margin to remain dominant. Bernard Lagat is also past his prime, and is only setting personal bests in races he did not focus on as a youth.

Look at the times when these superstars set their personal bests in their best events.

Geb was 25 when he ran 12:39 and 26:22.

Bekele was almost 22 when he ran 12:37 and he was 23 when he ran 26:17.

Bernard Lagat was 26 when he ran 3:26.34.

Yes, these athletes are freaks of nature but they are NOT going to hit their primes at 38 or 39, and to suggest it as you did above is the height of folly.

he will be busted with EPO before 2012

ventolin^3 wrote:

because mamede/lopes/rono & viren were also "freaks of nature"

there is no way that that particular woman "freak of nature" was any better than those male "freaks of nature"

those men were NOT from different time periods - they all ran in the '80s - same decade as ingrid's 30'13

You are making a lot of assumptions that fit your already-existing scheme. Those men may have been fast for their time period, but that doesn't necessarily mean there can't be a woman that would be better. They were all in the same performance range, the fastest guy on that list was 21 secs faster than the last guy on your list, and that woman, according to your conversion (whether it's accurate or not) was 24 seconds faster than the first guy on your list. It's pretty big, but not unthinkable, especially if you consider that you are assuming your "conversion" is accurate down to within 5 seconds or so, which there is absolutely no way of knowing, so stop acting like there is. Also, just because women weren't able to compete at the same time men were, doesn't mean they didn't start with a concept of what is good. There are several reasons they could have caught up with the men faster than the men developed by themselves. You are assuming the improvement curve is linear, and there is absolutely no evidence that that should be true.

Chet

The statement was made to show while highly unlikely it is still possible and not to assume an athlete will continue to slow down in ALL DISTANCES because they hit 35. As far as what you think of my post I could really care less as I don't think very highly of you either. So if Bernard went out and ran 12:46, Kenenisa ran 26:16, or Geb 2:03:25 would that mean they are still past their prime because all three are still capable of such times. When was the last time Kenenisa got in a 10000m race STRICTLY for time- a couple years ago and he soloed sub 26:28 on U.S soil- didn't he? World records haven't been a priority of his since he doesn't think anyone can break the ones he currently holds, the last several years he started chasing Golden League jackpots.