Duane Solomon 600m WORLD RECORD ATTEMPT Saturday 3/29

ventolin^3 wrote:

i was being generous offering him 1'41.7 on that unknown track with dodgy timing

all in, i highly doubt he wouda broken 1'42 in a perfect race on a "known" famous track like a zurich/oslo/brussels/etc

as for his relay leg, he clocked 45.7 which with normal 0.7s conversion is worth 46.4

offer him few tenths for the stumble & it's more like 46-flat

even with a stumble, it was still a flying start

as for best distance, it certainly wasn't 1k, therefore 900m is unlikely

800 was his best distance

Still deluded. You are the only person who has even suggested it was not a 400m track. There has never been any claims by anyone that the track was anything but 400m. It would have been measured and checked for ratification by the IAAF. The head of IAAF statistics actually lived in Florence at the time and was present in the crowd the evening of the WR.

The only debate was on the failure of the official timing. The back up cell gave 1:41.71 and the consensus of the hand timers was 1:41.6.

Anyone can time the video on Youtube and get something around 1:41.5.

Whatever the exact time it was definitely below 1:42 and on an old 400m track.

What can also not be questioned is that he ran an extra 2-2.5m on the third bend which equates to at least 0.2 and more like 0.3.

So it was worth more like 1:41.4.

As for the 400m relay, it was a 45.6 leg in which he took the baton 1m up, then stumbled through the start/finish line and was some 4m down on the guy he had been ahead of by 15m into the leg. There's your 0.7 conversion time lost. He also eased up the last few strides costing him 0.1.

The fact he had solo won the 800m in 1:44.0 90 mins earlier would also be worth a couple of tenths off in your world.

And may I remind you of the time you said Coe was in 45.2 shape that season.....

"for this topic, his hypothetical open 400 was ~ 45.2 ( meaning no other specific training for 400 that year, but just running a season of 400s that year, a time of ~ 45.2 woud not have been a surprise )

in a slow 1500/mile he'd have slaughtered just about any guy in history over the last lap as he was bringing low-45 speed to the last lap"

This was here, in case you had forgotten....

I think Coe was most probably capable of 45.5 and 1:41.4 that week in 81, which is reflected in the 45.6 leg and 1:41.7 performances he actually run, and probably faster still over 800 later that season had he chased the record.

So he was certainly capable of sub 1:13 for 600m and 2:11 low in the 1000m, had he had a few efforts at that event or had he not run a solo 3:31 a few nights before his 2:12.1 in Oslo.

Peer Mediator wrote:What a grovelling and embarrassing request

if you offer description, state it

if you can't, don't waste my time

drivel...

i want to know how bodo "impeded" him on last lap

if you have how much wide Ryun had to run, offer it

no

it's your nonsense about claiming that time is unquestioned

a nothing meet where guys came to like a magnet after coe & aouita running an astonsishing 13'04 in his 1st serious 5k

i doubt even he thought he woud break 13'10, but 13'04 was nonsense

see aouita & caballo who came back from years of nothing & runs 1'44.88 in '84 !!!

yeah

like no one has ever questioned rieti's distance

why on earth if rieti is perpetually questioned woudn't we question other tracks ???

just like rieti

so ???

he also a surveyor & sent the survey report to iaaf ???

more rubbish

the back-up cell obviously wasn't ratified, so how can the original be ratified ???

& if you had a clue, you woud know ht was not acceptable post-'80

cruz & his manager had a point questioning it, especially in '84

no question about koln clocking

youtube clockings don't count

there are examples of youtube clockings being wrong

there was lotta speculation about a steve scott race who's youtube clocking didn't correlate with official time

certainly a 1'42-flat but that nonsense track with questionable distance invalidates it

see aouita

more like 1'41.5 & i reckon the track was in region of 2m +/lap short all on the bends, meaning a 1'42-flat basic

2m+/lap from analysing aouita's nonsensical 13'04 when no one expected better than 13'10 beforehand

nonsense

he still had forward momentum even with stumble

instead of 0.7s on top of 45.7 she shoud be offered more like 0.4s for an open 46.0

& why i offer him 45.7 for a rested 400

i am ventolin^3 not ventolin

don't attribute something to me i didn't write

no

45.7 for speed but his 800 in a perfect race on a proper, unquestioned track no better than 1'42.0 in a perfect race

utter drivel

he ran 8 more 800s that year & 1'45.4 was his best !!!

even in oslo where he split 1'44.5 in his 1kwr, the meet promoter asked coe to change his requested 800 to a 1k as he knew there was no chance of coe beating that "1'41.73"

if the oslo meet promoter didn't think he coud break the 800wr again, i doubt anyone else woud either & coe didn't in 8 more 800s in '81

highly doubtful

45,7 speed is not quick enough no matter how fast your 800

& noah probably 2'10-high if he hadn't run a 3'29.1 less than 48 hours before & not had a suicidal 49-high opener for his 1k

John Kipkurgat

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_600no.htm

What could he have run 600m in Vent?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3636677

You are crazy

ventolin^3 wrote:

however, a 44.00 guy, especially if afro-american appears to run that 44.00 off more "natural talent" than other ethnics

For all the racism I see on here yours is among the worst. You probably don't even see it. You assume all "afro-american" [sic] are the same and succeed off of natural talent while the other people work hard. How degrading and disgusting.

ventolin^3 wrote:

And may I remind you of the time you said Coe was in 45.2 shape that season.....

"for this topic...

i am ventolin^3 not ventolin

don't attribute something to me i didn't write

Yes, because we all believe you never post or have posted under other names...

Don't make us laugh. Everyone on here knows that you were formerly Ventolin2 and before that Ventolin and before that Eldrick. It doesn't take a genius to work out that 'Someone had to..' and other posters are also you.

You fail to answer any of Peer Mediator's points.

You have yet to provide just one source which questions the validity of the Florence track.

The IAAF ratified the time and if they wanted to they could have ratified it as 1:41.6 ht.

The claim that Rieti was a short track was proved wrong after Ovett set his WR there. It was measured many times and proven to be accurate.

Coe was down to run an 800 in Oslo, and it was going to be a WR attempt, but after the draining run of 3:31 solo earlier in the week and with a blister on his foot he told them he wasn't in the form to go for it. Instead they persuaded him to have a crack at the much weaker 1000m record, to which he obliged at the last moment.

That isn't the same as saying he never thought he could run any faster over 800.

This is truly sad. Guys - Ventolin is clearly not mentally capable of logic or rational thought.

I propose a boycott on replying/addressing anything he says. It is just isn't worth it.

the 113 is probably a running start. so a 114 would be in the ball park.

of course johnny grey could run 141. when he ran lots of 142 in sub optimal ways.

but no way grey goes 44 low, more like 44 very high.

and a mid 45 is probably what he could deliver most of the time.

of course any 45x guy with a 142 has a shot at the 600m WR.

coe was a 46 high guy on average but anyone who's doing the 1500 can surely drop a second plus in their 400 if they went only for speed.

these are all no brainers.

however insane vertolin may be, his calculations are spot on the great majority of the time. he's called some real good ones in the past.

i mean he just extrapolates from the data from many past performances, and adjusts for the conditions.

what's the big deal about that?

So... again, I'll ask: what did Solomon end up running?

longjack wrote:

his calculations are spot on the great majority of the time.

Definitely... and backed up by deep hard mathematics like the well known Euler-Gauss-Newton-Riemann-Wiles-Perelman theorem, that a ??:??.00 time for a specific distance exactly is worth also a ??:??.00 time for the double distance. This theorem was new for me until last week, but since good old venty has stated it as hard mathematics, for sure I'm totally convinced about his accuracy.

But for sure you are free to believe what ever you want. But maybe you just try to think a little bit rational about some of his statements.

Or: Firenze track must have been short - mainly because Aouita has run a 13:04,78 and not the 13:10 which all thought was his maximum he is capable! I have no idea from which source people could have estimated his potential at all, since he has not raced the distance seriously before and since he was a pure middle distance runner the year before. But for sure, 13:10 was posible, 13:04 not. LA track probably also was short.

Post the ryun dusseldorf video you greedy motherfvcker

still waiting wrote:

Post the ryun dusseldorf video you greedy motherfvcker

Hi still waiting!

Very convincingly. I see you want the video to be on YouTube? A good and rational idea would be that YOU post the video - I wait for it. Btw, nice speech which you have. Where have you learned that?

cbenson4 wrote:

So... again, I'll ask: what did Solomon end up running?

I told everyone already, 1'14. Read the damn thread

longjack wrote:

however insane vertolin may be, his calculations are spot on the great majority of the time. he's called some real good ones in the past.

i mean he just extrapolates from the data from many past performances, and adjusts for the conditions.

what's the big deal about that?

I've always enjoyed reading your insightful statements and have respect for comments, but I have to say you are way off the mark here.

Ventolin's playing with numbers are rarely spot on. Most of the time they are off and he always finds away to justify or explain why they were off. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, and on the rare occasions he has been close to his predictions, he broadcasts it to all and sundry and then rests on his laurels for the next 6 months.

In any case most of his calculations are based on athletes who have long since retired, which makes it basically impossible for him to prove, but equally impossible for others to disprove his nonsense. In this catch 22 situation he can claim a success for his extrapolations.

I mean, do you really believe that he is spot on saying Ryun was a 1:40, 3:24, 3:41 athlete 47 years ago?

the idea so and so could go 140 off in comparison to the actual 144 is very far fetched. however, a guy like ryan is far fetched in the first place.

what the heck was he doing? not racing the 8 more, setting the WR with negative splits, running 4 minute pace for the majority of his races and finishing with 51-52 or dirt or what ever?

you can ask any top coach, what time they would have expected out of ryan if you coached him and they'll all say 141 for 800m and WR for the 1500 no doubt (under 326).

at the end of the day, for my money ryan at 142 in he 800m today is a given. And a 346 mile is a given. i really can't say much more because i don't know his real 400 speed and i see no evidence that ryan could follow a rabbit.

if ryan could follow the rabbit, then i'd have to give him the 141 and 326.

talent wise, like others, i put ryan at #1., well, well beyond and above the epo era fakes.