this year, they only split 2:47.5 at 1200, but when kiprop ran 3:27 last year, he was at 2:45.9 at 1200.
this year, they only split 2:47.5 at 1200, but when kiprop ran 3:27 last year, he was at 2:45.9 at 1200.
Reading is comprehension wrote:Not all 0.8% are the same...Some people have no sense of proportion. McCringleberry would be one of them.
Since he correctly correctly calculated the percentage, I'd say he has an excellent sense of proportion. Now the OP on the other hand....
Reading is comprehension wrote:
Hingle McCringleberry wrote:No it's not a mountain to climb. Given where he is, he needs an improvement of about 0.8%.
You're as dumb as the OP.
My god you are an idiot. Not all 0.8% are the same. Do I seriously have to explain that to you? If you are a 5:00 runner, 0.8% is no big deal. Near wr pace and.....oh nevermind.
Actually a 0.8% improvement is a bigger deal for a 5:00 runner. I guess math is not your strong point. Not to worry; you're not the only idiot here. Just read the first post for proof.
So, 5:00 to 4:58 or thereabout is "equal to" 3:27.6 to 3:25.9? Because it is the same percent? Is there any limit to letsrun retardation?
Hingle McCringleberry wrote:
Reading is comprehension wrote:My god you are an idiot. Not all 0.8% are the same. Do I seriously have to explain that to you? If you are a 5:00 runner, 0.8% is no big deal. Near wr pace and.....oh nevermind.
Actually a 0.8% improvement is a bigger deal for a 5:00 runner. I guess math is not your strong point. Not to worry; you're not the only idiot here. Just read the first post for proof.
So wrote:
So, 5:00 to 4:58 or thereabout is "equal to" 3:27.6 to 3:25.9? Because it is the same percent? Is there any limit to letsrun retardation?
Hingle McCringleberry wrote:Actually a 0.8% improvement is a bigger deal for a 5:00 runner. I guess math is not your strong point. Not to worry; you're not the only idiot here. Just read the first post for proof.
No one said they were equal. I guess reading comprehension is not your strong point. Add yourself to the OP's idiot club.
No one said they were equal.You definitely implied as much when you suggested that a 3:27 runner could improve by a whole second. Specifically, Kiplagat has just lowered his PB 1.62 seconds from 3:29.27. However, that was from 4 years ago, and he is now almost 25 - peak miler's age. The odds are he may never run as fast again, in which case that 1 additional second might as well be infinity.
MarathonMind wrote:
No one said they were equal.You definitely implied as much when you suggested that a 3:27 runner could improve by a whole second. Specifically, Kiplagat has just lowered his PB 1.62 seconds from 3:29.27. However, that was from 4 years ago, and he is now almost 25 - peak miler's age. The odds are he may never run as fast again, in which case that 1 additional second might as well be infinity.
He didn't imply that at all. Is English your second language?
And given K's current fitness level, you must be nuts to downplay his chances at 3:26. Is your argument really that he is "almost 25”? Laughable!