We also will be doing a live watch praty and reaction show starting 5 minutes before the race (so 1:55 pm ET) and then going on for as long as we need to afterwards:
The LRC recap article reads way too negative imo. She honestly didn't miss by that much. On pace through 800 & ran solid through 1200. Even looked fine @ 1500, before really falling off in the last 100. She could have probably run 4:03-4:04ish optimized. That's basically what the article calls for to have the attempt be more viable. I doubt you were this critical when Kipchoge "failed" in attempt #1. She still broke the WR & showed that there's free time left on the table. We've hit a point where the best women's 1500 runner can hit the time you say you want. This should have been written a bit more optimistic. I get the whole marketing angle with Nike wanting to sell us stuff but you didn't even make that argument.
Kipchoge is a MAN! not a woman.
how can you idiots not get this thru your mind.
a Man broke sub 2, yes. A woman will never break sub4.
low Iq the fact you even try to compare.
This Nike project was a circus.
I guess that's your opinion. She could've ran an optimized 4:03-4:04 yesterday. That's not as far off as some of you are trying to put it.
Fwiw ESPN covered it & their YouTube replay has more than 300k views. They have an article up on their website. T&F doesn't always show up in those places. There are positives from this. I don't get why everyone seems to want to rip it & be so negative about it. I know a lot of people care about women's sports on here -- this event got a lot of eyes on women's distance running. No mention of any of that stuff is an interesting choice.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
What was her actual 1500? If the final 100 was 16.6 then 3:50 at 1209? So that subtends ~3:47.5 for 1500? That ought to be a WR at the least if it was officially timed.
a Man broke sub 2, yes. A woman will never break sub4.
low Iq the fact you even try to compare.
This Nike project was a circus.
I guess that's your opinion. She could've ran an optimized 4:03-4:04 yesterday. That's not as far off as some of you are trying to put it.
Fwiw ESPN covered it & their YouTube replay has more than 300k views. They have an article up on their website. T&F doesn't always show up in those places. There are positives from this. I don't get why everyone seems to want to rip it & be so negative about it. I know a lot of people care about women's sports on here -- this event got a lot of eyes on women's distance running. No mention of any of that stuff is an interesting choice.
"could´ve ran"? Why didn´t you go all in and write "could of"?
Flop. 2.7% off sub 4. That’s not even close. We were sold a gimmick and like the lemmings we are we gobbled it up.
Does anyone believe ANY of the pros are wearing legal (ie : we could buy off the shelf) shoes? Guaranteed they are not the same. They might look similar on the outside, but prototype inside. After every NASCAR race, the winners car is torn down and dissected for compliance. This should be mandatory for track shoes. Hold off on the celebrations until the shoes are taken apart and examined.
Actually, it does. She was never going to get near 4 minutes - if you knew anything about running.
I know a lot more than you about running and I predicted 4:04-4:06
You are an imbecile 😂
You were still wrong. But it didn't take much knowledge to make your guess. I picked 4:06.4. Lucky guess, I suppose. But it's also so what, the goal was 4 minutes. She was never going to make that. Your guess was irrelevant.
I know a lot more than you about running and I predicted 4:04-4:06
You are an imbecile 😂
You were still wrong. But it didn't take much knowledge to make your guess. I picked 4:06.4. Lucky guess, I suppose. But it's also so what, the goal was 4 minutes. She was never going to make that. Your guess was irrelevant.
I wasn't wrong, you dishonest prick. 4:04-4:06 means (not to you because you are ignorant) 4:04.00-4:06.99
So I was right and your hundreds of posts on this are irrelevant. You are irrelevant.
Ironically, this stunt actually convinced me NOT to buy Nikes latest and greatest shoes, since they didn't help at all (the 0.7 second improvement has mostly due to pacers). That's the real failure of this event.
I think she’s probably in not quite as good shape as she was two years ago when she ran the 4:07. So there’s probably a bit larger effect from the stunt conditions.
We’ll see for sure at Pre, where I expect her to win, but not break the world record in the 1500.
Welp, I was wrong about that. Looks like this entire stunt didn’t benefit Kipyegon at all.