Bekele hasn't broken 4 mins in the mile?????

Okay, Bekele's 1600m split from his 2000m indoor world record was 3:54 and his 1700m split was 4:08. It would be impossible for him to have run 6 seconds for the next 9 meters, and then 8 seconds for the next 91 meters.

/thread

Impossible but doable.

the smartest letsrunner wrote:

Stupid comment.

It's certainly not "mathematically" impossible.

That's like me saying it's "mathematically" impossible to drive from New York to Boston in an hour. It's not going to happen, but the reasons it's impossible aren't "mathematical."

Maybe this will help you:

4:00:00 + 49.99 = 4:49.99

Dolt.

Holy crap -- you really need to change your name to "the most idiotic letsrunner". I know Americans are bad at math, but not only do you SUCK at it, you make fun of someone else for getting it RIGHT.

If you cover ANY distance at a certain mean pace, you must NECESSARILY cover all subset of distances shorter than that at a pace equal to or greater than your overall average pace.

You want a rigorous mathematical proof, or will your brain explode if I provide you one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF2r0rNHc1o

Bekele's 3:32 PB in Shanghai

It is ONLY necessary if you assume that Bekele's velocity was a continuous function of time (i.e "if you are lame").

I choose to believe that Bekele IS capable of the instantaneous acceleration necessary to run the 2000m in 4:50 without breaking four minutes to the mile.

Bekele is great. wrote:

It is ONLY necessary if you assume that Bekele's velocity was a continuous function of time (i.e "if you are lame").

I choose to believe that Bekele IS capable of the instantaneous acceleration necessary to run the 2000m in 4:50 without breaking four minutes to the mile.

You mean Bekele is capable of running quicker than 50 sec last 400m after running a 4 flat mile?

Bekele is great. wrote:

It is ONLY necessary if you assume that Bekele's velocity was a continuous function of time (i.e "if you are lame").

I choose to believe that Bekele IS capable of the instantaneous acceleration necessary to run the 2000m in 4:50 without breaking four minutes to the mile.

Your post indicates to me that you do not understand the following concepts:

-continuous functions

-the abbreviation "i.e." (please see

)

-instantaneous

-acceleration

Have a good day!

basic math wrote:

We're not discussing his mile PR. We're talking about whether or not he has completed a mile in under 4 minutes.

This is a ridiculous argument but yes, he has.

The last mile of this 3000m he runs around 3:56ish. Whatever it is is definitely sub 4. End of discussion. Bekele has run completed a mile in under 4. I'm sure there are dozens of races like this where somewhere in the race he does a sub 4.

Can we vote for this as the stupidest thread on LetsRun this year?

BabyRunner wrote:

Can we vote for this as the stupidest thread on LetsRun this year?

Yes, it has my vote.

Where is Ventolin when you need him?

ventolin^3,

3:46 is a good time for the mile, but 7:25.79 is a better time for the 3000m.

3:46 is too slow to be equivalent, for the same reason 49 seconds is too slow.

I saw it live, Correct!! I believe he closed the last 200 in 26+!! -------

old coach man wrote:

He did run 3:54.85 for 1600m en route to his 4:49.99 indoor world best 2000m in 07

Stfu trolls wrote:

How many World XC titles has Geb won? None. Bekele has won 11. How many 10,000m races has Bekele lost that he's finished? None. Geb is ONE of the greatest, but Bekele has accomplished more despite the fact that he's 9 years younger. He hasn't even touched the marathon yet, and there is no reason as to why he won't do better in that too.

posters like you can't taken seriously. You are listing some of the great achievments of Kenenisa Bekele; the achievements of Haile Gebrselassie are totally ignored cy you.

And not running a marathon obviously is much better than setting two world records in the Marathon and some more victorys with super fast times. Now I'm convinced. And 26 world records/world bests from 2000m(i) to Marathon over a span of 15 years also isn't something whitch we should list at all when there is somebody who hasn't even run a marathon at all.

callamazoo wrote:

Holy crap -- you really need to change your name to "the most idiotic letsrunner". I know Americans are bad at math, but not only do you SUCK at it, you make fun of someone else for getting it RIGHT.

If you cover ANY distance at a certain mean pace, you must NECESSARILY cover all subset of distances shorter than that at a pace equal to or greater than your overall average pace.

You want a rigorous mathematical proof, or will your brain explode if I provide you one?

You're trying to like a mathematician, but you're not a very good one. No need for you to waste time on that rigorous proof when it's trivial to see you're wrong, and examples were already mentioned several times. Fast interval -> slow interval -> fast interval. In a situation where your pace forms a symmetrical triangle like that, your average pace over the entire distance will in fact be faster than any sub-interval.