Lolzy wrote:
Considering that her PR was 3 seconds faster than anyone else in the field, i wouldn't call that an easy victory.
Don't follow your logic, but I agree. That said, I would call it a victory she made look easy.
Lolzy wrote:
Considering that her PR was 3 seconds faster than anyone else in the field, i wouldn't call that an easy victory.
Don't follow your logic, but I agree. That said, I would call it a victory she made look easy.
Seriously mate? wrote:
His uniform attire was as atrocious as his "pro" debut.
Frank Lee wrote:Is it a pro debut if you don't make any money?
Was he even wearing Skechers or was it something else with the logo removed? I was there (BOOTS ON THE MF GROUND) and could not make out any logo on the shoe
The times have now been corrected
As someone said earlier it may have been a chip/finish line confusion as some of the initial places were slightly out of order based on who crossed the finish line (chip time maybe), but now it appears to be finish line times.
https://liveresults.nyrr.org/e/NYRR-5THAVEMILE-2017#/leaderboard/pro-women-1mile/FINISH
How did Craig Merber do?
Course is net 9 meters down. But that 2nd quarter uphill can take your legs out if you're not careful. A strength course for sure.
Having said that, Willis ran his last 800 in 1:50. The rest of the top 5 or so ran around 1:51. That was a super fast, thrilling finish!!
Great entertainment! These guys def put on a show today!!
Kicks. wrote:
Course is net 9 meters down. But that 2nd quarter uphill can take your legs out if you're not careful. A strength course for sure.
Having said that, Willis ran his last 800 in 1:50. The rest of the top 5 or so ran around 1:51. That was a super fast, thrilling finish!!
Great entertainment! These guys def put on a show today!!
Anybody got a replay of this I missed it.
Oh yeah. After Willis, the next 7 guys all an 3:52!! The next 3 ran 3:53!! The next 3 ran 3:54!! That's as deep and as close as you can get! The guy in 11th ran 3:53 and couldn't even make top ten! Crazy, competitive mile.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Kicks. wrote:Course is net 9 meters down. But that 2nd quarter uphill can take your legs out if you're not careful. A strength course for sure.
Having said that, Willis ran his last 800 in 1:50. The rest of the top 5 or so ran around 1:51. That was a super fast, thrilling finish!!
Great entertainment! These guys def put on a show today!!
Anybody got a replay of this I missed it.
When I saw the start list, I thought this must be one of strongest fields in race history. The race certainly lived up to the hype.
No Alan Webb this year on the broadcast team.
Blanket wrote:
Oh yeah. After Willis, the next 7 guys all an 3:52!! The next 3 ran 3:53!! The next 3 ran 3:54!! That's as deep and as close as you can get! The guy in 11th ran 3:53 and couldn't even make top ten! Crazy, competitive mile.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:Anybody got a replay of this I missed it.
Please explain how you know the guy in 11th couldn't make top 10!
1) What is the World Record for the most runners in one race breaking 4:00 in the mile?
2) How many of the women set new PRs for the mile today?
areusure? wrote:
Blanket wrote:Oh yeah. After Willis, the next 7 guys all an 3:52!! The next 3 ran 3:53!! The next 3 ran 3:54!! That's as deep and as close as you can get! The guy in 11th ran 3:53 and couldn't even make top ten! Crazy, competitive mile.
Please explain how you know the guy in 11th couldn't make top 10!
Cuz he got 11th !!!! HaHaHaHa.....
For those that passed kindygarden.....
it looked like King Chez went too hard up the hill during quarter two and had nothing left for the finish. He had actually gapped the chase pack after the 800, not counting the 2 that went for the halfway bonus. If he were to have run a smarter race, I bet he'd have fared much better. This is where experience on the course helps.
Kicks. wrote:Course is net 9 meters down
that does add ~ coupla secs compared to flat road
the estimate is for a downhill is the component of g of 9.81 which relates to 9m over 1609.344m which either aids in a downhill or hinders in an uphill
- for 3'51.3, a prelim corrected time woud be based on speed of :
( 1609.344 / 231.3 ) - ( 9.81 * ( 9/1609.344 ) = 6.903m/s
->3'53.14
- for 4'16.6, a prelim corrected time woud be based on speed of :
( 1609.344 / 256.6 ) - ( 9.81 * ( 9/1609.344 ) = 6.217m/s
->4'18.86
obviously, the downhill helps women more as they are running at slower speeds
it's still impressive for jenny, whose run works out at ~ 3'59-high !
I do not know if there is a race that had more than 17 go sub-4 but
17 th place 3:56.86 Robert Kibet KEN Berlin 1997-08-26 is the highest sub 4 placement I can find
No. You are wrong again.
You need to give calculation adjustments for:
1) the small incline that was part of the race course
2) race was run on roads and not on a fast track
3) uneven parts of road
4) manhole covers on the road
5) runners not wearing spikes
Please show the work for all of your calculations and give references from the scientific literature to support your adjustments.
Good luck.
You will need it.
calculo wrote:
the estimate is for a downhill is the component of g of 9.81 which relates to 9m over 1609.344m which either aids in a downhill or hinders in an uphill
- for 3'51.3, a prelim corrected time woud be based on speed of :
( 1609.344 / 231.3 ) - ( 9.81 * ( 9/1609.344 ) = 6.903m/s
So you're actually using the acceleration owing to gravity multiplied by the percent grade as your velocity correction factor? Is there any empirical basis for this at all?
Let's try it for a steeper grade -- a 50m (164') drop -- for a 4:00 1600-meter runner.
(1600/400) + (9.81 * (50/1600) = 6.667 + 0.3065 = 6.973 m/s = 3:49.4.
Might be close.
statsgangstaventolin.VDOT.com wrote:No. You are wrong again
more nonsense
do you know any basic physics ???
You need to give calculation adjustments for:
1) the small incline that was part of the race course...
is this a joke ???
can't you think ???
is it not obvious that if someone wanted to give a detailed breakdown of uphill/downhills of the course we coud sum up the components for an overall far more precise conversion ???
do i have to be stating this ???
Please show the work for all of your calculations and give references from the scientific literature to support your adjustments.
Good luck
is this a joke ???
can't you work it out from physics yourself ???
did you do any physics in your life ???
does the concept
"do the thinking yourself & work out the answer from 1st principles" not register with you ???
You will need it.
no
i don't
Sharon Cherylike wrote:So you're actually using the acceleration owing to gravity multiplied by the percent grade as your velocity correction factor? Is there any empirical basis for this at all?
it's application of basic physics...
I hope someone posts a YouTube video of these races. I can't find it anywhere. Looks like Dominique Scott ran a good race.
Jess Judd is terrific.
I can't wait until next year to see how much she improves over the winter.
European women 1500m running is going to be very exciting with the front running trio of Muir, Klosterhalfen and Jess.