Okay so despite everyone apparently watching the race we still don't have the key splits right.
Yes he runs 23.63 from 1200-1400m and he runs 24.92 from 1300-1500m which are all displayed on the broadcast
His final 300m is 36.82 (3.13.88 at 1200m - displayed on broadcast) and final 400m is in the ballpark of 51.8 because he is 2.58.8 to the eye at 1100m which means more like 2.58.9 electronically).
So obviously this isn't a fast race or a super competitive one, but this is still pretty impressive. Farken is a 1.45.80 800m guy and he's run 1.17.58 for 600m so I would guess he's a mid 48 second 400m runner in a relay which means basic speed wise he would be right around the high 22's for a flying 200m. Irrespective of how slow the race is to drop 23.63 anytime in a 1500m is pretty awesome - I personally haven't seen that before and I have seen a lot of 1500m races in my lifetime both extremely fast and extremely tactical.
For me what's more impressive is that he closed in sub 52 still in cruise mode for the first 100m and he also shut it right down in the last 50m and still ran under 37 seconds for that final 300m. Nobody should get carried away - no he's not a threat to Jakob or Kerr etc - but add him to the list of dudes that, in the off chance a race is super slow through 1000m, could catch a few guys out - the same list Cole Hocker is on. And like Hocker, with these wheels it's not a stretch to say he's right around the top of it.
No need to try and justify why it's either incredible or it's not - take it at face value for what it is. I was impressed and I know what I'm talking about.
How impressed are you that it is off a very pedestrian 3.14 for 1200?
Armstrong will post unscientific rubbish until he either goes hiding or issues vile insults many of which are racist.
Can you see a world championship with the likes of Jacob and Tim running through the 3/4 in 3.14? They could walk that.
I didn't think 2016 Olympics 1500m final would split 1200m, 3:12.00. Things occur. What if both men you mentioned race 3:27.xx in semi-final? I cannot believe we will never see 1200m split in Olympics or W.C. in 2:57.xx to 3:03.xx range again. Both may have egos big enough to attempt to prove they can race final 300m sub-38 after splitting 1200m, 2:57.xx to 3:03.xx. I don't believe J. Ingebrigtsen has a sub-38 in him in a 1500m race split 2:57.xx to 3:03.xx. That stated, I didn't believe John Walker had a sub-38 in him either, 1976 Olympics.
3.03 is considerably faster than 3.14. If runners like Jakob and Tim know there are sprinters in the field they won't run a pedestrian race. Yes - it is possible that there might be a championship 3.50 again but what do you think are the chances of that when the last championship final before Rio at that speed was the 1932 Olympics?
How impressed are you that it is off a very pedestrian 3.14 for 1200?
Very.
How many times in your life have you run 3.14 for 1200m?
How many times in your life have you run 23.6 for 200m?
How many track races of any elite level have you ever run?
I'm going to guess the answer to all of the above is none. So you don't know and conversely are in no position and have zero credibility to comment on this. And congrats you baited me to respond to you but now I get the satisfaction of blocking you knowing this will be the last "conversation" we ever have because it is irrelevant what you reply to this because I won't ever see it. You know nothing about this sport and your "opinions" on anything to do with it are utterly worthless. Worth. Less.
What a seriously stupid and childish response. I merely asked you a question based on the known facts of the race. Have I ever claimed to be an elite 1500m runner? It is they who are the subject, not me. Using your argument that as I am not a top runner I can't discuss running, I guess no one can comment on any work of literature without being a distinguished author, or discuss any question of science without being a Nobel Laureate - and so on. Your personally hostile response coupled with your need to block any response I make shows how extraordinarily insecure you are when faced with a question you don't like. I can understand that insecurity in your case. You might have run quite fast once but you are only an average intellect puffed up into something it isn't.
So -- you didn't notice runners collapsing after a slow 1500m, and now you are suggesting they collapsed "before" the warmup?
You are remarkably dim - or deliberately dishonest. Try both. I suggested 3.14 at the 1200 was a "warm-up". They did not finish the race at that point. What exhausted them was the all-out sprint for the last 300m of the 1500, not the first 1200. If an athlete runs at their maximum for 250m of that distance they will succumb to oxygen debt and lactic acid build-up by the finish - and that would be likely so even if they hadn't run the previous 1200m - as we regularly see in 400m races.
How many times in your life have you run 3.14 for 1200m?
How many times in your life have you run 23.6 for 200m?
How many track races of any elite level have you ever run?
I'm going to guess the answer to all of the above is none. So you don't know and conversely are in no position and have zero credibility to comment on this. And congrats you baited me to respond to you but now I get the satisfaction of blocking you knowing this will be the last "conversation" we ever have because it is irrelevant what you reply to this because I won't ever see it. You know nothing about this sport and your "opinions" on anything to do with it are utterly worthless. Worth. Less.
Armstrong is one of the worst Posters on this board , you hardly ever will have a helpful "conversation" with him.Farken's performance to me is extremely impressive.
What a seriously stupid and childish response. I merely asked you a question based on the known facts of the race. Have I ever claimed to be an elite 1500m runner? It is they who are the subject, not me. Using your argument that as I am not a top runner I can't discuss running, I guess no one can comment on any work of literature without being a distinguished author, or discuss any question of science without being a Nobel Laureate - and so on. Your personally hostile response coupled with your need to block any response I make shows how extraordinarily insecure you are when faced with a question you don't like. I can understand that insecurity in your case. You might have run quite fast once but you are only an average intellect puffed up into something it isn't.
It looks like the same seriously stupid and childish response you gave to the skier.
So -- you didn't notice runners collapsing after a slow 1500m, and now you are suggesting they collapsed "before" the warmup?
You are remarkably dim - or deliberately dishonest. Try both. I suggested 3.14 at the 1200 was a "warm-up". They did not finish the race at that point. What exhausted them was the all-out sprint for the last 300m of the 1500, not the first 1200. If an athlete runs at their maximum for 250m of that distance they will succumb to oxygen debt and lactic acid build-up by the finish - and that would be likely so even if they hadn't run the previous 1200m - as we regularly see in 400m races.
Let's not rule you that maybe you are the remarkably dim and/or dishonest one and simply unable to judge. Everything I said verifiably happened -- there is video evidence.
You said runners don't get exhausted enough to collapse, while now you argue strongly for it.
The question was if you noticed runners collapsing -- something you said doesn't happen anymore for runners.
After you ducked the question two times, I have my answer now.
What a seriously stupid and childish response. I merely asked you a question based on the known facts of the race. Have I ever claimed to be an elite 1500m runner? It is they who are the subject, not me. Using your argument that as I am not a top runner I can't discuss running, I guess no one can comment on any work of literature without being a distinguished author, or discuss any question of science without being a Nobel Laureate - and so on. Your personally hostile response coupled with your need to block any response I make shows how extraordinarily insecure you are when faced with a question you don't like. I can understand that insecurity in your case. You might have run quite fast once but you are only an average intellect puffed up into something it isn't.
It looks like the same seriously stupid and childish response you gave to the skier.
But if you aren't an elite runner you aren't qualified to comment - so he says. I understand that you are a bit upset though, because you showed in that thread you had no idea what you were talking about when said collapse is not evidence of fatigue, and yet you also claim to know athletes are exhausted without any evidence for their said exhaustion.
It looks like the same seriously stupid and childish response you gave to the skier.
But if you aren't an elite runner you aren't qualified to comment - so he says. I understand that you are a bit upset though, because you showed in that thread you had no idea what you were talking about when said collapse is not evidence of fatigue, and yet you also claim to know athletes are exhausted without any evidence for their said exhaustion.
Rekrunner did not say that.
You, however, have contradicted every medical textbook and doctor with your comments.
Armstrong is one of the worst Posters on this board , you hardly ever will have a helpful "conversation" with him.Farken's performance to me is extremely impressive.
Hi, liar soorer sock-puppet.
Deep intellectual response from the letsrun make it up non expert.
What a seriously stupid and childish response. I merely asked you a question based on the known facts of the race. Have I ever claimed to be an elite 1500m runner? It is they who are the subject, not me. Using your argument that as I am not a top runner I can't discuss running, I guess no one can comment on any work of literature without being a distinguished author, or discuss any question of science without being a Nobel Laureate - and so on. Your personally hostile response coupled with your need to block any response I make shows how extraordinarily insecure you are when faced with a question you don't like. I can understand that insecurity in your case. You might have run quite fast once but you are only an average intellect puffed up into something it isn't.
It looks like the same seriously stupid and childish response you gave to the skier.
Armstrong thinks he knows better than every medical text book and doctor.
You are remarkably dim - or deliberately dishonest. Try both. I suggested 3.14 at the 1200 was a "warm-up". They did not finish the race at that point. What exhausted them was the all-out sprint for the last 300m of the 1500, not the first 1200. If an athlete runs at their maximum for 250m of that distance they will succumb to oxygen debt and lactic acid build-up by the finish - and that would be likely so even if they hadn't run the previous 1200m - as we regularly see in 400m races.
Let's not rule you that maybe you are the remarkably dim and/or dishonest one and simply unable to judge. Everything I said verifiably happened -- there is video evidence.
You said runners don't get exhausted enough to collapse, while now you argue strongly for it.
The question was if you noticed runners collapsing -- something you said doesn't happen anymore for runners.
After you ducked the question two times, I have my answer now.
The goal-posts shift - as you always have to do. You claimed the runners collapsed after their "warm-up" of the first 1200. I pointed out the obvious - they didn't collapse then; those that did so did it after after the 300m sprint to the finish of the race. So you were wrong about that.
I previously said that runners collapsing at the end of a md or distance race is a rarity now. That view isn't changed by this race but is reinforced by it. We don't see it often. What it tends to demonstrate is that events where competitors go into sudden oxygen debt may be more likely to see athletes collapse at the finish or otherwise show signs of extreme fatigue. It is still far less observable in top md and distance running than it used to be.