Army also ignores Cooper’s 200m PR is from over two years ago, and he ran that as part of a triple in lousy weather. He hasn’t raced at 200m since. Of course Cooper hasn’t really improved at all sunce then. 🤣🤣😂😂🤔🤔
He does appear to consciously ignore what you guys have noted about doubling, no races at certain distances for a year or two and so on. That’s rather dishonest. I watched those sprint races on Cooper’s channel and he is most assuredly capable of better times now. But why even risk pulling a hamstring or what have you while racing a 200m sprint event that he hasn’t run in over two years? In the 400m, Cooper might be capable of 45 low this season and eventually sub 45. Why is this hard to accept? He’s an extremely unusual talent.
He is an unusual talent. But so far we see the talent confined to his specialty distance. Nothing yet says it will extend to a much shorter distance. Or a longer one. But that also applied to Rudisha and Kipketer.
Army also ignores Cooper’s 200m PR is from over two years ago, and he ran that as part of a triple in lousy weather. He hasn’t raced at 200m since. Of course Cooper hasn’t really improved at all sunce then. 🤣🤣😂😂🤔🤔
We don't know if he has improved his sprint speed. We can't assume he has simply be cause his endurance has improved.
But you make all kinds of negative assumptions and state them as facts, forgone conclusions. At least your myopic hypocrisy is consistent. Sure, Cooper still has the same sprint speed he exhibited at 14 and 15. It’s as silly as saying if Rudisha could have broken 45 he would have. He didn’t run many 400s as he concentrated on his bread and butter event. He very well might have broken 45 if he chose to pursue that as a goal. For all we know, Cooper may never run a serious 400 ever again. What we do know is that if he ever breaks 45 you will provide reams of excuses to downplay and negate the performance. You are contrarian just to be contrarian, while telling yourself you’re being logical.
We don't know if he has improved his sprint speed. We can't assume he has simply be cause his endurance has improved.
But you make all kinds of negative assumptions and state them as facts, forgone conclusions. At least your myopic hypocrisy is consistent. Sure, Cooper still has the same sprint speed he exhibited at 14 and 15. It’s as silly as saying if Rudisha could have broken 45 he would have. He didn’t run many 400s as he concentrated on his bread and butter event. He very well might have broken 45 if he chose to pursue that as a goal. For all we know, Cooper may never run a serious 400 ever again. What we do know is that if he ever breaks 45 you will provide reams of excuses to downplay and negate the performance. You are contrarian just to be contrarian, while telling yourself you’re being logical.
I am basing my views on what he has shown. Speculation that he will get much faster over the 400 remains mere speculation. There are no performances to support it.
So far he shows he is an exceptional 800 specialist - as Rudisha and Kipketer were. There is nothing he has done that indicates he could also succeed over the 400 (44x). Quite simply, he lacks the sprint speed - which is sub-21 for the 200.
No. You tried to imply Myer’s run wasn’t all that great. When in fact it was terrific. Even better is that you are so wound up you can’t stop haunting the board to do damage control.
I didn't imply anything. I stated his official time with the observation that it is closer to 3:30 than 3:29. .85 of a second counts.
A 3:29 time is not closer to 3:30 then to 3:29.
A 1.99m guy is not closer to guys taller than 2m than to guys shorter than 2m. He just belongs to the 2nd group.
No, he doesn't. He is 1.99, which to anyone with eyes to see is closer to 2m than 1m - a midget. You have no idea.
If you put a 3:29.85 runner on the track against a 3:29 runner and a 3:30 runner who does he finish closer to?
Your stupidity is hurting.
1.99m is closer to 2m then to 1m - what an observation. You got this one absolutely right - how did you do it?
And who has ever said otherwise?
What an unbelievable stupid question, even for your level.
On average his difference in PB to the 3:29 guy is 0.35, to the 3:30 guy it's 0.65.
The only one hurting here is you. A 3:29.85 runner finishes closer to a 3:30 runner than a 3:29 runner - as I have maintained. "3:29" isn't a group of membership, it is an arbitrary measure. What it also requires is that every fraction of a second counts or time doesn't pass. So .85 is closer to 3:30 than 3:29. You are really mumbling in your sleep here. When you wake up you might address the thread subject. On second thoughts - no point.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
He does appear to consciously ignore what you guys have noted about doubling, no races at certain distances for a year or two and so on. That’s rather dishonest. I watched those sprint races on Cooper’s channel and he is most assuredly capable of better times now. But why even risk pulling a hamstring or what have you while racing a 200m sprint event that he hasn’t run in over two years? In the 400m, Cooper might be capable of 45 low this season and eventually sub 45. Why is this hard to accept? He’s an extremely unusual talent.
He is an unusual talent. But so far we see the talent confined to his specialty distance. Nothing yet says it will extend to a much shorter distance. Or a longer one. But that also applied to Rudisha and Kipketer.
You realize to get very fast at a specific distance (his best is the 800), you have to be great at both the over distance and under distance?
You can't just be very good at the 800 without being either good in both the 400 and 1500 or very good in one and decent in the other.
1.99m is closer to 2m then to 1m - what an observation. You got this one absolutely right - how did you do it?
And who has ever said otherwise?
What an unbelievable stupid question, even for your level.
On average his difference in PB to the 3:29 guy is 0.35, to the 3:30 guy it's 0.65.
The only one hurting here is you. A 3:29.85 runner finishes closer to a 3:30 runner than a 3:29 runner - as I have maintained. "3:29" isn't a group of membership, it is an arbitrary measure. What it also requires is that every fraction of a second counts or time doesn't pass. So .85 is closer to 3:30 than 3:29. You are really mumbling in your sleep here. When you wake up you might address the thread subject. On second thoughts - no point.
Myers' time of 3:29.85 is not closer to 3:30 then to 3:29 - because it IS a 3:29 time. You know this and you for yourself use this simplefication of times constantly - without any doubt you are the most dishonest person I have ever "met".
People in this forum really think a sub 3:30 performance from a 19 year old Australian in a virtually solo effort in the national champs in April is worth discussing? Why do you think they think so?
But, if you really think it adds to the discussion in some way to point on the fact that his 3:29 is just the 86th slowest of all the 3:29s (which anybody reading the thread for sure already knows) then you are free to do so:
"3:29, from a 19 year old in a solo effort? Come on, it just was 3:29.85, what's so special..."
I know you can't give an serious reply. You just can't.
He is an unusual talent. But so far we see the talent confined to his specialty distance. Nothing yet says it will extend to a much shorter distance. Or a longer one. But that also applied to Rudisha and Kipketer.
You realize to get very fast at a specific distance (his best is the 800), you have to be great at both the over distance and under distance?
You can't just be very good at the 800 without being either good in both the 400 and 1500 or very good in one and decent in the other.
There should definitely be an “or” between 400m and 1500m. Both of his 400m and mile PRs are soft with the 400m being better as it equates to 3:59. My prediction is that he’ll lean 400/800m, but we’ll have to wait and see.
He is an unusual talent. But so far we see the talent confined to his specialty distance. Nothing yet says it will extend to a much shorter distance. Or a longer one. But that also applied to Rudisha and Kipketer.
You realize to get very fast at a specific distance (his best is the 800), you have to be great at both the over distance and under distance?
You can't just be very good at the 800 without being either good in both the 400 and 1500 or very good in one and decent in the other.
The issue isn't whether he is a "fast" at either under distance or over distance; it is how fast can he be and whether he can even be world-class over any other distance than his specialty.
I think if he goes sub-46 for the 400 he will be doing well but I don't see any indication he could be seriously competitive over the distance, which would require that he has at least Quincy Wilson speed - and Wilson is 2 seconds faster.
No one seems prepared to argue he could be competitive over the 1500.
So far he conforms to the exceptional 800 specialist. That is hardly a controversial claim. What is contentious would be to argue he could successfully double in another event - like Juantorena or Coe did. He might run the odd 400 but it is unlikely he would be seriously competitive over the distance. But neither was Rudisha or most other top 800 runners. It is an incredibly rare double.
1.99m is closer to 2m then to 1m - what an observation. You got this one absolutely right - how did you do it?
And who has ever said otherwise?
What an unbelievable stupid question, even for your level.
On average his difference in PB to the 3:29 guy is 0.35, to the 3:30 guy it's 0.65.
The only one hurting here is you. A 3:29.85 runner finishes closer to a 3:30 runner than a 3:29 runner - as I have maintained. "3:29" isn't a group of membership, it is an arbitrary measure. What it also requires is that every fraction of a second counts or time doesn't pass. So .85 is closer to 3:30 than 3:29. You are really mumbling in your sleep here. When you wake up you might address the thread subject. On second thoughts - no point.
Conveniently ignoring tenths / hundredths. A 3:29.85 a 3:29.
What if the 3:30 runner is 3:30.72. Who does he finish closer too? And what if the other 3:29 runner is 3:29.95? Or 3:29.75.
All of your points lack nuance.
There are more points on points on the clock than 0.00. Once you break any barrier, it’s impossible to be closer to another time because we have an exact measurement of your performance.
3:29.85 is closer to 3:29 because we have an exact measurement. What you are inarticulately trying to explain is rounding. A 3:29.85 can be rounded up to 3:30 by traditional math/time rules. But that’s not track works.
If we want to round, Bolt is a “10 second” 100m runner.
The only one hurting here is you. A 3:29.85 runner finishes closer to a 3:30 runner than a 3:29 runner - as I have maintained. "3:29" isn't a group of membership, it is an arbitrary measure. What it also requires is that every fraction of a second counts or time doesn't pass. So .85 is closer to 3:30 than 3:29. You are really mumbling in your sleep here. When you wake up you might address the thread subject. On second thoughts - no point.
Conveniently ignoring tenths / hundredths. A 3:29.85 a 3:29.
What if the 3:30 runner is 3:30.72. Who does he finish closer too? And what if the other 3:29 runner is 3:29.95? Or 3:29.75.
All of your points lack nuance.
There are more points on points on the clock than 0.00. Once you break any barrier, it’s impossible to be closer to another time because we have an exact measurement of your performance.
3:29.85 is closer to 3:29 because we have an exact measurement. What you are inarticulately trying to explain is rounding. A 3:29.85 can be rounded up to 3:30 by traditional math/time rules. But that’s not track works.
If we want to round, Bolt is a “10 second” 100m runner.
Lacking nuance and myopic are the two best ways to characterize this guy’s “argument.” There’s a reason everyone around the world is aware of the four-minute barrier in the mile. We don’t call a 3:59.99 guy a “closer to 4:00 than 3:59 guy.” We call him a sub-four minute miler. Just as a 3:29.99 1500 man is in a *new category* of sub-3:30 or a 1:39.99 800 would be in the rarified air category of a sub-1:40. I mean, Matt Centrowitz Jr. may have a gold medal, but he never did go sub-3:30 (or sub-13:00, but of course he didn’t have the super shoes at his peak either). Just as Geordie Beamish has never run a sub-8:00 steeple.
This thread was talking about CL’s hypothetical *potential* in both the 400 and 1500. It wasn’t titled a “What have you done for me lately?” thread. It is perfectly reasonable to surmise that a kid who has improved his 800 time by four seconds since he last ran an open 400 and who is closing 200s and 400s in practice faster than he ever has in very relaxed fashion has very likely improved his 400 time by at least a second. At least. Which is why 45.3 is a much more realistic assumption about what he can actually run and why sub-45 as ultimate potential is a perfectly reasonable estimate. Only a charlatan and a hack would point to one data point from age 15 like it’s the upper limit.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.