RUPP IS MUCH BETTER THA STEVE PREFONTAINE

pre was competing before the rise of the africans

there emergence at the top of the distance running world coincided with hige drops in time from all the world records...leading anyone capable of rational thought to realize that the elevated the level of competition far above what it had ever been

pre was a bigger fish than rupp in a much smaller pond

id say theyre similar runners but to think that if you put viren in 1996 and gave him the same opportunities and he would have come close to beating geb your out of your mind

id say rupp and pre are similar at this point and much too close to call one "better" than the other

math teacher wrote:

6th is worst than 4th

it is 'worse'

Why doesnt someone just do the simple maths and calculate what percentage pre and rupp were/are off the world record set back in the day for whatever distance in pre's case, and then rupp to bekeles pb's. You can only be as good or better what your up against

...but Pre could whoop Rupp's arse any day.

if he was in eritrean he had been olympic champion, and won the world xc. he wouldnt eat fast food and listen to rap. GO ERITREA!!!! FOR THE GOLD!!

If Rupp wins NCAAs this year--either 5 or 10, as well as cross, while placing in the top 4 or 5 in the Olympics next year, maybe you could place him in the same class as Pre. That would be cool.

Meanwhile, the US has had great runners before, during, and after Pre's era (mills, schull, dellinger, ryun, shorter, virgin, scott, plaatjes, spence, meb--listed because they won or medalled at the olympic or wc level). He ain't the be all and end all.

Im hearing lots about us men distance running, on the womens side have you got anyone apart from kastor?

this is an absolutely stupid argument...so what he didn't improve much in 2 years... he peaked for the olympicsyou could have applied your same argument to someone like rupp or alan webbthey didn't improve in two years, rupp might have been done, of course not eventually everything hits and boom you are a new levelfor two years rupp didn't even come close to his pr's then he suddenly sliced 45 seconds off his 10k pr... we have no idea could have been what pre was building to in the 5k...point is your argument below is retarded

DaveBedfordwannabe wrote:

master of obvious... wrote:

Pre obviously didnt reach his potential so its hard to compare him to all these dudes. he prolly would have won a gold medal for all we know.

Let's see, Prefontaine lowered his 5,000 PR from 13:22 at the age of 21 to 13:21 at the age of 23. In that same period, he lowerd his 2 mile PR from 8:19 to 8:18 and his 3,000 PR from 7:44 to 7:42. Maybe he would have run 13:20 by the time he was 25!

math teacher wrote:

6th is worst than 4th

Worse.

english teacher wrote:

Worse.

You were beat to it.

Shalane Flanagan has set 2 American Records this year already. 8:33 indoors and 14:44 outdoors, and this is before May, so who knows what she's going to be able to do come August. As far as middle distance, the U.S. women aren't that fast. We can put out maybe 2-3 women just under 2:00 in the 800m, and we have yet to have a female get back to the 4:00 range in the 1500m. The longer distances are looking more promising right now. Sure, 14:44 is 20 seconds off the WR, but it's a start and it was ran in April, which is pretty early in the outdoor season and her first 5000m in over a year. Not too shabby. Here are our prospects besides Deena Kastor:

Shalane Flanagan (8:33i, 14:44)

Jen Rhines (14:55, 31:17)

Kara Goucher (31:19)

Blake Russell (15:10, 31:25)

Katie McGregor (sub 31:30)

I'm kind of hoping to see some good 1500m progression from Sara Bei-Hall, but I don't know how well her training is going. She ran some indoor miles in low 4:30's- 4:32.xx, 4:33.xx, but that isn't all that great really. I mean, we have a high school girl who just ran 4:38 outdoors. Here's to hoping though.

[quote]anEconomist wrote:

for two years rupp didn't even come close to his pr's then he suddenly sliced 45 seconds off his 10k pr... we have no idea could have been what pre was building to in the 5k...

[quote]

So you're saying that since Rupp had a breakthrough at the age of 20, Prefontaine could just as easily have had a breakthrough at the age of of 25?

Most people can see the flaw in your comparison. Prefontaine himself had a breakthrough at the age of age of 20 (from 13:39 to 13:30). A lot of college sophomores do that.

Pre would have needed to lower his 13:21 PR by eight seconds just to equal Hildenbrand's 13:13. Anything is possible, but it's far easier to make dramatic improvement as a sophomore in college than as a seasoned world class runner. I'm sure you would find that to be the case if you plotted the age progression for world class runners. The standard deviation would show how unlikely your hypothetical breakthrough for Prefontaine would have been. But it's obvious that statistics are not your strength, otherwise you would not have made such a ridiculous assertion.

yes, statistics are not my strength, you got me therebs- mathematicsms- mathematicsma - economicsphd - financeyour argument was that since person x didn't improve in 2 years it was unlikely he was going to improvei gave a counterexample to prove your statement wrong,ok you want to qualify your statement by saying person x of 24!! years old (he was only 4 months after turning 24) - finecounterexample - mottram slices 17 seconds off his 5k pr when he is 24at 25 (which all know he might be even older) gebreselassie takes 5 seconds off his 5k prat 26 bob kennedy sets his pr in the 5k at 12:58you don't like pre, fine, but don't make dumb arguments

Mills was probably clean, but Clarke?

Huge breakthrough in 1965. Triple by-pass surgery before the age 50......do we detect steroids? Jazy also heart attack before the age of 50. Mile World record in 1965 done with a little synthetic help?

You may have all those degrees, but you write like a 12-year old girl.

You also misrepresented what I said. (A person of your purported education would have refuted the actual statement rather than twisting it to make it sound fallacious.)

I didn't say that Pre wouldn't improve. I said that it was unlikely that he would have improved DRAMATICALLY more from ages 24-25 than he did from 21-24.

A person of your purported intellect would know that picking examples out of the air to fit your theory is mere data mining. You use Craig Mottram because he fits your example. Okay, I can use Ian Stewart as a counter-example. It doesn't prove a damn thing. This is a silly game that no Ph.D. in finance would want to play. Unless, of course, we were to play this game and see who runs out of examples first.

Citing the fact that Bob Kennedy set a PR at 26 to refute my point is, to use your term, "retarded."

Anyone can speculate on what Prefontaine could have done. There's no way to disprove any of it. But we can use statistics to state a probability. We could take a sufficiently large random sample of world class runners who were national standouts at 18 and see their mean progression by age. I think you would find that relatively few of them had the kind of dramatic improvement that you fantasize for Prefontaine at the age of 25. What you hypothesize for Prefontaine would probably fall several standard deviations from the mean progression by age. The farther from the mean, the less likely it is to happen.

I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you. I'm glad you're not my financial adviser.

Natives don't somke weed dumbass. Weed (as in THC) comes from Asia.

I'm not going to spend all day on this point arguing with you.You saidLet's see, Prefontaine lowered his 5,000 PR from 13:22 at the age of 21 to 13:21 at the age of 23. In that same period, he lowerd his 2 mile PR from 8:19 to 8:18 and his 3,000 PR from 7:44 to 7:42. Maybe he would have run 13:20 by the time he was 25!I merely said that the fact he didn't make massive pr gains in the two years after the olympics is not an indication that he wouldn't improve... and I gave some easy counterexamples (in fact the first three I looked up) to show you that it is quite common. Now you want to talk statistics... (especially ones that you conviently make up)... I am willing to bet that if I find the mean and standard deviation of improvement rates and even condition on the fact they only improved by 1 or seconds for two years then pre improving by 8 seconds his 5k would be well within the statistical norm.If you knew anything about finance you would also know that a PhD in finance would never take a job as a lowly financial advisor. A financial advisor, ha, that is child's play crap.

Then why does Goldman Sachs even bother to do financial advising? I'm sure you'd take the job if Michael Dell wanted you to be his financial adviser. The thing is, Michael Dell wouldn't want you, nor would Goldman Sachs.

I didn't say Pre wouldn't improve. How many times do I have to say that? Again, you are twisting my argument to make it sound fallacious, which should be well beneath your intellectual standards.

You give three "convenient examples" of runners who improved at 24, 25, or 26. But they don't relate to what I said about the RATE of improvement slowing as one gets older. They don't even disprove the statement that you deliberately twisted and imputed to me.

You say that I'm "making up" statistics. Here's what you said:

"Now you want to talk statistics... (especially ones that you conviently make up)... "

Okay, can you give me an example of statistics that I have made up? Or is that too difficult for you?

I've consulted for goldman sachs... do you know how ridiculous you sound? Why does gsachs bother to do financial advising? They hardly do - their main money is in ibanking (m&a), underwriting, asset management and trading.

[quote]DaveBedfordwannabe wrote:

Then why does Goldman Sachs even bother to do financial advising? I'm sure you'd take the job if Michael Dell wanted you to be his financial adviser. The thing is, Michael Dell wouldn't want you, nor would Goldman Sachs.

[quote]