Women's 5000m Fastest Last Lap Ever: do you know of any female closing faster then this 53.7 (video)

ukathleticscoach, you're looney.

Malmo is right, and UKAc... you are wrong (as per usual). It was a comedy of errors that VIPAM took verbatim as if the reported split was accurate, when it wasn't. It's really not more complicated than that. As good as these women are, there is absolutely no way that they could run that fast at the end of that race. A sensible person would get that right away, and question the obvious mistake - VIPAM proved himself far more gullible (not that this was an intentional error) than I would have thought that his knowledge of the sport would allow. VIPAM should have known better, but was just trying to stake a claim as to just how good these women really are (like we didn't know already?).

Eat dirt dude it's not that serious. Every person who is continously arguing over the actually spilt is showing his lack of life outside of this board.

can-can

Vipam was wrong about the spilt but to say "there is absolutely no way they could run that fast" is PLAIN STUPID.

In 2006 noone thought we would see a man run 9.59.

Noone thought a female could close a sub 31 minute 10000m with a 4:28 mile.

It was a rarity when one female ran sub 59 seconds in a 5000m, yet at one of the previous World champs FOUR women ran sub 59 last lap of a fast 5000m.

Noone thought we would see two men closing with a sub 13 minute 5000m in a 10000m track race off a decent opening 5000m.

The list goes on and on about what was once thought impossible in our lifetime becoming old news.

You're wrong if you think we'll never see a woman close a 15 minute flat 5000m in 53 high or 54 low.

Seriously, ukathleticscoach, you need to (a) read the first few posts of the thread again, and (b) watch the video. You've completely misunderstood the whole sequence of events (i.e. the on-screen clock stopping at the two-mile line instead of the finish).

Also, you appear to be under the impression that movies are still recorded on cellulose film that can stretch and distort time. If a digital video is shot at 30 frames per second, then each frame takes... wait for it... 1/30 of a second. It's not about "fancy software," it's about a basic understanding of post-1995 technology.

As for the parallax effect caused by a camera angle that's not perfectly parallel to the finish line, it's relevant for measuring the TOTAL race time (i.e. start to finish). But the effect is negligible for taking an in-race split that doesn't include the start, since the angle is exactly the same in both cases.

winner runs sub 58, 2nd runs 58 point, 3rd & 4th run 59

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa7STALJbmM

with 5th and 6th not too far behind. So we may very well see some female closing in 53, 54 within a few years.

EatDirt wrote:

winner runs sub 58, 2nd runs 58 point, 3rd & 4th run 59

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa7STALJbmM

with 5th and 6th not too far behind. So we may very well see some female closing in 53, 54 within a few years.

Eat dirt. You're silly, and you can't subtract. Defar led the entire last lap. It was 58:58. Once again, clear as day.

We won't be seeing a 53 or a 54 from the women in any distance race even if they go 16:00 plus. I don't even think that we'll see a sub 56.

when I play a youtube video of a race, the timing is never right. it simply does not play at real time pace, but there is always a lag, so putting a stopwatch to it does not give an accurate reading. others with better connections may find different results.

I really liked the video. But all this commentary blows.

EatDirt wrote:You're wrong if you think we'll never see a woman close a 15 minute flat 5000m in 53 high or 54 low.

as malmo said, this isn't going to happen anytime soon

this gal ran 1'56/3'57 ( more like high-1'55 / 3'55 shape if you consider these were championship races & not a tt on the circuit ) :

if she coud run only 53 in an open 400, it is really not feasible that any of these 5k/10k gals will ever come close, otherwise, they woud probably be running 1'53 for the 800 !!!

even the greatest 800 runner of recent times - 1'54 flat coud do no better than 52.78 at altitude :

the 5k/10k gals are nowhere near this open 400 ability as with their far superior over-distance endurance, they woud slaughter a 1'54-flat

'ukathleticscoach, you're looney'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQWPXR1cisk

Yeah I'm looney!

I see you are still arguing the toss about the last lap time with other people hence proving my point that using youtube to time laps is inaccurate

Of course you being the sort of person who thinks they know best about everything will never see that

I don't think that I know best just prefer to leave timing to the timing officials, not a bunch of muppets on the internet

I watched the video; it is certainly a very fast lap, but I noticed right away that the clock stopped before the line. Strange indeed, but the studio crew could be understandably excited, and just jumped the gun on the finish line.

ukathleticscoach - Whether or not malmo is right in arguing everything, he is COMPLETELY right here. If you came into the argument now (just witnessing the video and subsequent argument), you would see how right malmo is in this case.

malmo - As I said, absolutely right in this case. It was not 53, 54, or 55 seconds on that last lap, and not even 56 flat. 56.9 - 57.1 or so is about the fastest I get on a watch.

For those saying that it is insignificant, and wonder why malmo spends so much time arguing his point, I say this - OF COURSE it matters! It matters A LOT! To argue that the last lap was 53.7 is an insult to anyone who has closed a race in 53.7! If indeed 56.9 is the fastest close in a women's distance race, it should be celebrated for what it IS!

If people want to argue what COULD HAVE BEEN (hypothetically with different pacing, weather conditions, etc), that is fine. But to continue to deny what ACTUALLY HAPPENED takes away from the sport.

'ukathleticscoach - Whether or not malmo is right in arguing everything, he is COMPLETELY right here. If you came into the argument now (just witnessing the video and subsequent argument), you would see how right malmo is in this case.'

Have you even read what I put?

My point is that taking times of youtube is inaccurate. How can he be completely right when all different times have been put up here.

Look at all the widely varying times on here

For most races the upload is so dodgy you cannot come close to getting an accurate reading. This one is no exception - the runners are miles away from the camera as they reach the bell. The speed they are going errors are going to creep in

malmo wrote:

EatDirt wrote:

winner runs sub 58, 2nd runs 58 point, 3rd & 4th run 59

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa7STALJbmM

with 5th and 6th not too far behind. So we may very well see some female closing in 53, 54 within a few years.

Eat dirt. You're silly, and you can't subtract. Defar led the entire last lap. It was 58:58. Once again, clear as day.

We won't be seeing a 53 or a 54 from the women in any distance race even if they go 16:00 plus. I don't even think that we'll see a sub 56.

holy shit malmo calm down. your getting lost in this nonsense of whether the time was off by .2 seconds. just take the video for what the author intended...to show a really exciting finish! damn...

I do realize the video could be watched at various speeds (depending on internet connection) - HOWEVER, the angle of the camera is right at the finish line, so by using a frame by frame analysis, you CAN get some extremely accurate splits.

I would say the 0.5 second difference (between 56.9 to 57.4) would be a reasonable margin in this case while just watching the video in real time, but it is possible to pinpoint more precisely if you have A LOT of time on your hands (malmo . . . while I respect and agree with the analysis in this case, it does sometimes seem like you have a lot of free time!).

Anything outside of that range almost certainly comes from a slow internet connection, or relying/trusting the splits of the overeager clock on the screen.

DonkeysRear wrote:

Actually end of story is that it's not that important and your arguing like it's trial for someone's freedom. Get a life, so what if Defar ran 57 point or 56 point back in 2007. Let's wait and see what they do at the 2011 Worlds.

Finally someone gets it, arguing relentlessly about exact splits down to the hundredths taken from a youtube video is an exercise in futility.

I am surprised that 3 pages in no one bothered to look at the TFN official splits; here they are:

1. Defar (Eth) 15:02.51 (14.7, 28.6, 56.9)

2. T. Dibaba (Eth) 15:02.87 (15.2, 29.1, 57.38);

runthecountry wrote:

I would say the 0.5 second difference (between 56.9 to 57.4)

You haven't read the thread. 56.9 and 57.4 isn't a margin of error due to buffers from streamingor a slow intrenet connect, or anything else. They are the exact last lap times of Defar(56.9) and Dibaba(57.4).

The 57.1 time cited at the beginning is the last lap split of the leader -- first Dibaba at 4600 and then Defar at the finish.

officialdom wrote:

I am surprised that 3 pages in no one bothered to look at the TFN official splits; here they are:

1. Defar (Eth) 15:02.51 (14.7, 28.6, 56.9)

2. T. Dibaba (Eth) 15:02.87 (15.2, 29.1, 57.38);

No one is arguing that the hundredths of seconds are significant figures. They are not, especially in T&FN's case, an outfit that reports obvious errors like VIPAM did often -- the latest being Solinsky's final 100m in his 10k.

Seriously, is it really important to regurgitate the fact that Vipam was wrong? Big f*cking deal. Just let it go, that's the real aggravating issue here. Everyone makes mistakes. Remember when you tried to argue Silva's splits in the Athens 1500m were not correctly reported, and you did it based off of the nbc video feed (again a stupid thing to do)? You spent 2-3 pages arguing you were right and then someone pointed out you were looking at another athlete's foot and not Silva's, and thus your whole argument fell apart. It's not a big deal.

Malmo - I did just read through the entire thread earlier this morning - I was not saying that 56.9 to 57.4 was the range you would come up with after analyzing the video, I was merely allowing that much difference for hand timing errors with a stopwatch (about .24 seconds, and doubling it to be generous).

For reference, I just timed it again and got Defar in 57.04. Probably a little slow because you can anticipate the finish line in the bell lap, but at the actual finish, it just pops into the right hand side of the picture right at the end.