This is the 5 not a marathon. Oh my gosh it will be 70 degrees . Should Rupp even run? He might get heat stroke. These guys are from Africa. They are going to break 13 and go out at a solid pace. Rupp just needs to run with some balls amd go for it. His coach would have in his day and even died once doing it.
Actually, the temp will be mid 70s, but given that the humidity will be in the high 70s, this puts the dew point in the high 60s. This has nothing to do with Rupp or the Africans. Those are not easy conditions for a 5000.
dats funny wrote:
This is the 5 not a marathon. Oh my gosh it will be 70 degrees . Should Rupp even run? He might get heat stroke. These guys are from Africa. They are going to break 13 and go out at a solid pace. Rupp just needs to run with some balls amd go for it. His coach would have in his day and even died once doing it.
killarney wrote:Why would I be looking for a 57? That came from your flawed calculator, not me
are you too dumb to do the most simple thinking ???
57 is not a feasible speed for a 13'10/27'00
therefore either 13'10 or 27'00 is nonsense
even the most witless woud realise the 13'10 is the culprit & shoud be much faster & therefore must be the 57
let me show one last example which even your brain shoud comprehend
1'47.18pb/3'26.00pb ->52.2
you think that was his 400 or 800 ability in 3'26.00pb ???
Although it's funny how you quote Canova as an authority to support your argument, except for when Canova says 13:10 / 27:00 is a reasonable combo, then he can't be trusted. Sort of like how you justify ridiculous things on your calculator but throw out others
learn to read
what part of "canova flip-flops" do you not comprehend ???
1st he says cherono was in 7'23 shape in his 12'48 - very likely
then he went on about "13'10/27'00" nonsense & used to go by his boy kemboi's 13'01/26'30
when i pointed out this absurdity, he has now changed his tune to 12'52/26'30 for kemboi - that's a start but still way off
And if he goes out in 57 / 1:55, then what?
why woud he bother to run a 1500 if all he coud aim for is 3'35 ???
if the 800wr holder ran a 1500, i'd make time in my schedule to watch a possible sub-3'30 not for a 3'35
why woud anyone be interested in seeing a 3'35 ???
Tell me this: what if Rudisha did start training so that he could run the 1500? Let's say, hypothetically, he gets into 3:30 shape, which you agree is better than he can do now, but he manages to keep his 45.15 400 speed. Clearly he'll be even better at the 800 in this case. But how much better?
Ready for it?
1:41.68! Most of a second slower!
With equal speed and improved endurance, Rudisha has gotten slower at the 800! How can you not see the flaw in this calculation???
you really don't think
for a start, if he did all that extra mileage, his 400 woud likely drift out a long way from 45.15, maybe pushing nearer 46
then you use you brain & think
"if he had theoretical 3'27+ with 45.1/1'40.9 when we woud never expect anything better than 8s slower for 3'35 actual, then if trained & got 3'30, we shoud offer maybe 45.75 - 46.0 & that 3'30 shoud no longer be 8s slower than theoretical ( 3'27 v 3'35 ) but maybe 5 or 6s out for 3'24 or 3'25 v 3'30 :
45.75 / 3'24 ->1'40.57
46.00 / 3'25 ->1'41.09
indicating his 800 is not likely to change much at all if shifted to 800/1500"
Which one is wrong, you ask? The 57 is wrong. Ergo the calculator is wrong
can't you think ???
if someone ran 27'00 of a recent 13'20pb
do you seriously believe the implied 61+ speed is correct ???
is just the 61+ wrong or does one of the 5k or 10k have to be "wrong" too ???
wow totally valid and thorough point there
you are too dumb to think so it's waste of time other than tell you to find some remedial classes & then re-read my posts involving 57+/13'10/27'00
While were at it, I asked you which one Rupp is... Given that he's run 50.x at the end of workouts lately, I guess he's the top one? Because he's ain't runnin no 3:32 or 12:51, I can tell you that much...
rupp hasn't run well recently, apart from expected 10k win & getting top 3 in 5k
i haven't thought about what 400 or 1500 or 10k shape he is in currently
Please tell me how, in at least half a dozen good opportunities each, John Cheruiyot Korir and Bernard Kipyego never did better than 13:09 when you claim they were capable of 12:56?
find korir's 5k sb for when he ran 26'52
kipyego ran 13'13 ( not his pb ) in his 26'59 year at somewhere called nobeoka
kindly tell me about this world famous eagerly anticipated meet & race ???
i'm sure when he was given the choice of a zurich or nobeoka he had no hesitation...
You're trying to tell me Hall could run a 59:43 solo in the rain on a hilly course, but couldn't do it on a perfect day with pacers on the track?
what part of track times from track times & road times from road times can you not comprehend ???
Oh, and meanwhile, Kenenisa Bekele's PRs predict a 57:50 half-marathon on your calculator, so don't tell me it's because the track is slower...
eh ???
are even legit iaaf certified road courses as perfectly flat as a track ???
as for kennster, he trains for 5k/10k
why on earth woud you expect a 5k/10k guy to get close to 1/2M potential off just 5k/10k training, similar to rudy for 1500 off 800 training
And how about Mosop's 1:26:47 for 30,000m? Any line of fit seems unreasonable for that.
a gimmicky run at a distance an elite guy runs about once/decade, just to boost eugene meet & give him a shot at an iaaf wr
& his coach canova said he wasn't 100% fit for it carrying an injury into it
his 26'49 & last 10k prior to that 30k was run nearly 4y before
Speaking of weather, I remember Malmo posted an all-time 10000 list, including the weather conditions (at least the temperature). If someone can find that, I'd appreciate it. But also, did he ever do the same thing for the 5000?
SPMBLNPF said:
"NEVER assume that an athlete is simultaneously capable of running their personal bests at a range of distances."
If Mo Farah is in 5k/10k shape, I'd be interested to see what he can do in the 1500 if he focused on that (in consideration of his 3:28.81 just run).
Maybe, bub, you just get a bit less blustery.
First kilometer in 2:31 - looks like they're certainly trying for it.
rojo wrote:
I disagree with your assessment of the field but think you are
under stating the weather.
The race is at 8:55 pm local. The weather.com for 9 pm is as follows:
Temp:
75°
FEELS LIKE:
75°
HUMIDITY:
81%
PRECIP:
40%
WIND:
SW at 4
Is that what weather.com really says rojo?
http://www.weather.com/weather/today/MNXX0001http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=zmw:00000.1.07690&hourly=1&yday=199&weekday=FridayWeighed...measured...found wanting, Rupp's 13:05. Lagat DNF. True not too bad for running his own race, but certainly not a contender like we thought after NY Grand Prix...
I hate to say this but SPMBLNPF might be right when it comes to Monaco. Since it is so close to World Champs, AlSal has been working on Galen's kick, not his overall speed required to run the American record. Given the nature of Monaco, Galen's and Lagat's time will be quick, no doubt but neither is really prepared to run the American record.But, if it wasn't a WC year (not even so much that, it is the close proximity to it that makes tackling a record tricky) I could see Galen setting the AR and Lagat going under 13 again.
SPMBLNPF wrote:
I have stated previously that Bernard Lagat will NEVER break 13 minutes again. This is a cold hard reality. Galen Rupp has a lifetime ceiling of 12:55, which leaves precious little margin for error in breaking 13. Galen is not a phenomenal 5000m runner. He NEVER has been. Otherwise, how could he be only the 6th fastest U.S runner at the distance? Don't give me the mularky about how he simply hasn't had the opportunities to run fast. Don't give me some Ventolin calculator-fueled notions of sub-12:50. It is not going to happen, and I even believe the field may struggle to break 13 minutes here. I am picking the winning time to be 12:56, and it is much more likely to be Rop than Rupp. This is NOT a great field, and Alamirew or Gebremeskel would likely own this group in Monaco. It is going to likely be in the 70-75 degree range and very humid. No sun, of course, but even these weather conditions are not ideal for Galen. I am simply offering the objective analysis which should prepare the unwashed masses for the sobering reality that none of these guys can make a valid run at the U.S. record.
One final point: Lawi Lalang DOES have a chance at sub 13, and I see that the front page mentioned a thread started by somebody who declared about 1.5 years ago that Lalang was superior to Galen Rupp. Well, Lalang will prove it here in Monaco, and the fanboys will realize that Galen's only chance to smell the podium in Moscow is at 10,000m, a sniff which has become rather faint with the presence of Dejen Gebremeskel to strengthen the field, and speaking of sniffs, now let the jock-sniffing fanboys crucify me for being the messenger of truth.
SPMBLNPF wrote:
The 3:50.92 has been used as some sort of indicator by the naive that Galen can run a stupendous 5000m. This has never made sense to the intelligent.
People who don't think with rigor are doing the whole Ventolin thing....look what these two times suggest for 5000m.
Well, this is where the wheat is separated from the chaff in relation to intellectual horsepower.
First, what kind of 10,000m shape was Galen in when he ran 3:50.92i, a time which he will NEVER match outdoors, which is a topic for another thread. OK, I know enough about Galen to know that he was in close to 27:10 shape when he ran that indoor mile. Now, Galen is trying to train for the WC 10000m, and he is indeed working on his finishing speed. Yet, it remains clear that in Monaco Galen will be toeing the line unable to run faster than 3:34 for 1500m. What does this mean? It means that Galen is a runner who is currently capable of running 3:34 and 26:55. Plug those into your machine if you want, or think for yourself, and you will see what Galen is capable of in a 5000m. Galen is trying to do well in the WC 10,000m, which means he is honing his speed, but don't think
for a minute that Galen has improved his ability to time trial a 10,000m. NEVER assume that an athlete is simultaneously capable of running their personal bests at a range of distances.
Your naysayers would be wise to pay attention. Well done.
ventolin^3 wrote:
57 is not a feasible speed for a 13'10/27'00
therefore either 13'10 or 27'00 is nonsense
Or the calculator is nonsense.
even the most witless woud realise the 13'10 is the culprit & should be much faster & therefore must be the 57
Renato didn't...
let me show one last example which even your brain shoud comprehend
1'47.18pb/3'26.00pb ->52.2
you think that was his 400 or 800 ability in 3'26.00pb ???
Irrelevant. I said your calculator is inaccurate, which means showing me more inaccurate lines from your calculator proves nothing.
And if he goes out in 57 / 1:55, then what?
why woud he bother to run a 1500 if all he coud aim for is 3'35 ???
[/quote]Why would a 5000m runner bother to run a 400 if all they could aim for is 52?
If you can't accurately predict 1500s based on 400/800 times, what makes you think you can predict 400s based on 5000/10000 times?
if the 800wr holder ran a 1500, i'd make time in my schedule to watch a possible sub-3'30 not for a 3'35
why woud anyone be interested in seeing a 3'35 ???
Completely irrelevant - you're dodging the question.
you really don't think
for a start, if he did all that extra mileage, his 400 woud likely drift out a long way from 45.15, maybe pushing nearer 46
But let's say
then you use you brain & think
"if he had theoretical 3'27+ with 45.1/1'40.9 when we woud never expect anything better than 8s slower for 3'35 actual, then if trained & got 3'30, we shoud offer maybe 45.75 - 46.0 & that 3'30 shoud no longer be 8s slower than theoretical ( 3'27 v 3'35 ) but maybe 5 or 6s out for 3'24 or 3'25 v 3'30 :
Why is the actual 1500 ability still different from the theoretical when he's actually training for the 1500 now? That's the worst cover-up for your calculator's innacuracy yet...
indicating his 800 is not likely to change much at all if shifted to 800/1500"
Okay then, new scenario, I'll dumb it down even more.
Suppose some new guy, who is not David Rudisha, comes along. He can run the 400 in 44.75 and the 1500 in 3:30.00, and is in shape to run these both at the same time, which are both better than Rudisha or anyone in history.
What's your calculation of his 800 ability?
1:41.30!! He can't even beat Rudisha at the 800! Tell me, how on earth can this guy only run 1:41.30 when he has significantly more speed AND endurance than Rudisha????
if someone ran 27'00 of a recent 13'20pb
do you seriously believe the implied 61+ speed is correct ???
Nope, because I don't believe the calculator is correct.
is just the 61+ wrong or does one of the 5k or 10k have to be "wrong" too ???
Nope, just the 61 is wrong, due to the calculator being wrong.
i haven't thought about what 400 or 1500 or 10k shape he is in currently
Nice dodge
Please tell me how, in at least half a dozen good opportunities each, John Cheruiyot Korir and Bernard Kipyego never did better than 13:09 when you claim they were capable of 12:56?
find korir's 5k sb for when he ran 26'52[/quote]13:19 in 2001, 13:22 in 2003, so probably not much better than 13:09 and certainly not better than the 12:55 you think he should be worth
kipyego ran 13'13 ( not his pb ) in his 26'59 year at somewhere called nobeoka
kindly tell me about this world famous eagerly anticipated meet & race ???
That he took 2nd in a podunk 5K doesn't hurt my case. The burden of proof is on YOU to tell me where he showed sub-13 form. He ran 13:12 2 years before in a race where Kenny B and Mottram went 12:55-6. The next year, he ran 13:20 & 13:22.
what part of track times from track times & road times from road times can you not comprehend ???
Ridiculous dodge of the question. What is a reasonable line of fit that predicts LOWER THAN 59:43 for Hall, since a track is obviously faster than where he ran his half?
a gimmicky run at a distance an elite guy runs about once/decade, just to boost eugene meet & give him a shot at an iaaf wr
Quit dodging the question and give a reasonable line of fit for it - if it bothers you that he wasn't in shape, assume he could have run 1:25:30 in better shape.
killarney wrote:Or the calculator is nonsense
the alternative being a fool who can't use a tool with some commonsense
Irrelevant. I said your calculator is inaccurate, which means showing me more inaccurate lines from your calculator proves nothing
or a fool without any commonsense knowing how to use a tool
If you can't accurately predict 1500s based on 400/800 times, what makes you think you can predict 400s based on 5000/10000 times?
eh ???
it predicts 1500 times just fine
however, like i said if you are too foolish to interpret/analyse the athlete under consideration, why waste anyone's time ???
i asked you that if if someone had a calculator to predict bolt's 800 potential off his 100/200, what on earth relevance woud that be to him ???
Completely irrelevant - you're dodging the question
read the site
"comparable times"
does you seriously think 1'40.9 is same calbre as a 3'30 let alone a 3'35 ???
Why is the actual 1500 ability still different from the theoretical when he's actually training for the 1500 now? That's the worst cover-up for your calculator's innacuracy yet...
can't you read or even think ???
it says "comparable times"
do you think 1'40.9 & even 3'30 are comparable ???
if you do you have no clue about the sport
Okay then, new scenario, I'll dumb it down even more
ah yes, your stock in trade
Suppose some new guy, who is not David Rudisha, comes along. He can run the 400 in 44.75 and the 1500 in 3:30.00, and is in shape to run these both at the same time, which are both better than Rudisha or anyone in history.
What's your calculation of his 800 ability?
1:41.30!! He can't even beat Rudisha at the 800! Tell me, how on earth can this guy only run 1:41.30 when he has significantly more speed AND endurance than Rudisha????
learn to think
he might actually have a 1'41.3 for 800, but read again on the site "comparable" times
do you seriously think 44.75 & 3'30 are same quality as 1'41.3 ???
of course not
it means assuming 44.75 is nearer his limit, that his theoretical for 1500 shoud be much better than 1500
like rudy with likely actual 3'35 & theoretical 3'27
his 800 is likely to be by far his best racing distance
the guy in question woud be just a similar version to rudy but with a better 1500 but unlikely close to his theoretical limit
Nope, because I don't believe the calculator is correct
ask mo or his camp/fans
Nope, just the 61 is wrong, due to the calculator being wrong
only a poor workman blames his tools
Nice dodge
rupp hasn't run 1 race this outdoor season close to his best
there is nothing much to analyse for him
13:19 in 2001, 13:22 in 2003, so probably not much better than 13:09 and certainly not better than the 12:55 you think he should be worth
no
you have no clue about his 5k ability that year
i asked you for his 5k sb for guidance
That he took 2nd in a podunk 5K doesn't hurt my case. The burden of proof is on YOU to tell me where he showed sub-13 form. He ran 13:12 2 years before in a race where Kenny B and Mottram went 12:55-6. The next year, he ran 13:20 & 13:22
he ran a nothing time in a nothing race
tell me about the elite calibre pacing of say 7'45 & 10'20 he got in that race & how well he followed it ???
find his zurich/monaco/rome/oslo 5k same year when he ran 26'59
Ridiculous dodge of the question. What is a reasonable line of fit that predicts LOWER THAN 59:43 for Hall, since a track is obviously faster than where he ran his half?
how many times do you have to be told ???
road times off road times ???
i have not looked up anything on hall for possible track form at the time
just my gut feeling is that anyone running 59+ shoud be capable of a low-27 at the time on a track & if i wanted to look for a track line of fit for him at the time, i'd look at lines with that in as prelims
what is the problem ???
Quit dodging the question and give a reasonable line of fit for it - if it bothers you that he wasn't in shape, assume he could have run 1:25:30 in better shape.
a race he ran once in his life when injured
i don't assume anything for what he couda run for it if he had been fully fit & run it a good few times in that year to learn his limits for the distance
1:25'30 maya been far too slow
Montesquieu wrote:
Speaking of weather, I remember Malmo posted an all-time 10000 list, including the weather conditions (at least the temperature). If someone can find that, I'd appreciate it. But also, did he ever do the same thing for the 5000?
Graph of average temps for top 10>50 times, plus scatter data. All color coded.