Mile WR in jeopardy at the Bowerman Mile?

Tastes Like Chicken wrote:

alanson wrote:

Hocker isn't in the race. No record.

How is that a problem? We already give Hocker credit for times he didn't run, so why shouldn't we give him credit for races he didn't run?

It's the new normal. No one runs, just post your time on LRC. I say I'd run 3:55 based on my Mog Mile. 👍

Athletics clearly peaked in the 80s for you so I’m not sure why you bother hanging around here anymore. Are you interested in doing anything beyond denigrating the performances of current athletes and calculating how many tenths of a second Coe could have saved if he had shaved his balls before a race?

It just never ends with you. Ovett, Coe, and Cram only lost to their competitors when they were injured, were only surpassed by El G and company because of EPO, and now are only slower than the current crop because of super shoes and tracks. It’s amazing how the three greatest talents of all time (now and forever) were all born in the same country in the span of 5 years.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

I don't think a WR is possible but I do think entering the all-time top 10 is. Nobody has touched the top 15 for over 20 years...If the race goes 56/1:52-3 then we could see a time under 3:46.24 which is what is necessary.

The faster the world record is in the mile, the slower I was in my youth. So, I hope you are correct.

The Mog Mile wrote:

Tastes Like Chicken wrote:

How is that a problem? We already give Hocker credit for times he didn't run, so why shouldn't we give him credit for races he didn't run?

It's the new normal. No one runs, just post your time on LRC. I say I'd run 3:55 based on my Mog Mile. 👍

Actually, I like his thinking!!!

The computer jumped. I liked this response.

Athletics hasn't peaked, but it definitely didn't peak in the 1980s were their was only 5 billion people and many countries were at war or in conflict. The talent pool was half or maybe less than that.

Jed Clampett wrote:

jkkldjjendne wrote:

Athletics clearly peaked in the 80s for you so I’m not sure why you bother hanging around here anymore. Are you interested in doing anything beyond denigrating the performances of current athletes and calculating how many tenths of a second Coe could have saved if he had shaved his balls before a race?

It just never ends with you. Ovett, Coe, and Cram only lost to their competitors when they were injured, were only surpassed by El G and company because of EPO, and now are only slower than the current crop because of super shoes and tracks. It’s amazing how the three greatest talents of all time (now and forever) were all born in the same country in the span of 5 years.

The computer jumped. I liked this response.

Respect the Pioneers for one day you too, will be old.

Sorry I was skimming through posts, I see what you are saying.

No chance this year. Jakob will run 3:46, Tim 3:47. Next year however, I expect the WR to go down.

Phil Ken Sebben wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

Goodness! People have short memories. The guy was a bully and always changing the goalposts. Like a broken clock that manges to tell the correct time just twice a day, he managed to get a couple of predictions right over about 10 years.

He rode the Farah 3:28 prediction into dust IIRC.

Yes, lol. He dined out on that one for several years.

Ha, a comedian! Never wrote any of those things.

Which part of 'there was no EPO test in the '90's and only a reliable one from 2005' do you not grasp?

15 of the fastest 18 times ever at 1500m were run between 1995 and 2004. The 2 of the 3 remaining times in that top 18 were run later, by an athlete subsequently banned for EPO use - Kiprop.

Which part of the latest carbon plated/foam enriched spikes 'give 2 % more energy return' do you fail to understand?

Which part of - 'Andrea Vallauri, track designer for Mondo, said the new surface made a far greater difference than most realised. “Every time there is an Olympic Games we try to improve the formulation of the material and Tokyo has been no different,” he said. “The track is very thin, 14mm. But we have added a new element: these rubber granules.

“In the lower layer of the track is this hexagonal design that creates these small pockets of air. They not only provide shock absorption but give some energy return; at the same time a trampoline effect. We have improved this combination and this is why we are seeing the track has improved performance.

“In Rio the track was called WS. This new one is called WSTY, for Tokyo. It’s the latest evolution of the track.”

“It is completely within the rules but it is also what we were asked to provide; two components,” Vallauri said. “To protect the health of the athletes, to avoid trauma, but it should also give them a push. In lab testing we can see the improvement. It is difficult to say exactly but maybe a 1-2% advantage.' - do you not comprehend?

These are 3 facts which you are happy to ignore, make no counter claim against and then make yourself look stupid when mocking someone who points out the 3 obvious facts. Keep on living in denial if it makes you happy.

I'm not saying spikes aren't helping but these numbers are obviously not correct if both the spikes and the tracks give you 1-2% more energy return which should have seen nearly every world record go in Tokyo. Do you not realize how much 2% is that's over 4.1 seconds in the 1500m and .2 secs over 100m, then you have to consider most athletes already prepare to pr for the Olympics. I'll need too see data before considering the spikes help that much because the times we're seeing doesn't show that the spikes and the tracks combined help over 1%.

paris2024hawk wrote:

I'm not saying spikes aren't helping but these numbers are obviously not correct if both the spikes and the tracks give you 1-2% more energy return which should have seen nearly every world record go in Tokyo. Do you not realize how much 2% is that's over 4.1 seconds in the 1500m and .2 secs over 100m, then you have to consider most athletes already prepare to pr for the Olympics. I'll need too see data before considering the spikes help that much because the times we're seeing doesn't show that the spikes and the tracks combined help over 1%.

Not necessarily. Are all championship races in middle and distance events always run at the fastest pace the athletes are capable? No. Many turn out to be tactical. But it will mean that a 3:33 1500m with super spikes and the Tokyo track will feel as easy as maybe a 3:36/3:37 without. Look at some of the split times (the men's 1500 semis in particular) and there are a lot more runners closing faster, all other things being equal, than in previous champs.

Last year we saw times set by Bekele some 15 years ago, and not even approached in recent times, beaten quite convincingly by Cheptegui in the latest Nike spikes. There have also been a slew of world and national records set on the roads since 2019.

What % improvement did we see in Tokyo in the 400m H? Is Warholm really 1.08secs better than Moses best ?

Or has the drop from 46.72 to 45.94 more likely to be as a result of improved athletes or improved technology? I think it is far more down to the latter. The fact that 3 men all broke the old WR of Young's from 25 + years ago, and by some margin, is evidence of this.

I did offer a 1-2% range for shoes and tracks, and this maybe due to the effects being somewhat dependent on the athlete and distance. If we take the lower range of 1% for each, then a 2 % improvement in a 1500m for a 3:28.3 is 4.16 secs. But then again the likes of Jakob have been wearing these new spikes for last 3 seasons now, so their pbs should already have reflected the 1% improvement afforded by the shoes.

If we just focus on the Tokyo track and take 1% improvement, that makes a 3:28.3 worth 3:30.4 on a more typical Mondo track on the circuit. That seems quite reasonable.

arunaround wrote:

Nobody has come within even 3.5 seconds of El Guerrouj’s 3’43.13” mile WR in the 22 years since 1999, the closest was Alan Webb’s 3’46.91” in 2007.

A 3’28” 1500m is not quite enough to translate to a 3’43” mile, much as 15 more seconds may seem enough to cover an additional 109m. Anything’s *possible* of course, but a sub-3’46” is a more realistic aspiration for those two champs.

I don’t think anyone’s made a serious effort to run a fast mike in August this century.