Did you even graduate highschool? Open up your calculator and divide 2.42 (which is the difference between Komen's time and ElG's time) by 3, see what you get. Embarrassing.
The stopwatch and not your calculator says El G was 2.42 seconds slower than Komen. That isnt 0.81secs, as was claimed.
Where can I buy such a talking stopwatch? This was claimed?
The stopwatch and not your calculator says El G was 2.42 seconds slower than Komen. That isnt 0.81secs, as was claimed.
Where can I buy such a talking stopwatch? This was claimed?
I corrected that post because, as I said, I did not notice the claim was 0.81 "per kilometre" and not for the full distance. Are you similarly going to argue that Jakob is "close" to El G's 1500 record based on the fact that his 500m splits were less than a second slower than El G's? BS.
The stopwatch and not your calculator says El G was 2.42 seconds slower than Komen. That isnt 0.81secs, as was claimed.
Ah so the problem is not your inability to do 2nd grade calculations, it's actually your illiteracy - the person said 0.81s per km.
I didn't observe it because it is irrelevant. To prove that irrelevance, explain how the differential "per km" brings him any closer over the full distance (which is the only differential that matters), where he was 2.42 secs slower?
Are you similarly going to argue that Jakob is "close" to El G's 1500 record based on the fact that his 500m splits were less than a second slower than El G's? BS.
J. Ingebrigtsen is 1.1% behind the 1500m WR, a distance he races regularly.
H. El G was 0.55% behind the 3000m WR in his one and only - badly paced - attempt at the record.
racing often and trying to break records is not the same. Besides he only raced 1500m two times last year outdoor besides championships, both low 3.29 races
Did you even graduate highschool? Open up your calculator and divide 2.42 (which is the difference between Komen's time and ElG's time) by 3, see what you get. Embarrassing.
I didn't read the fatuous distinction "per kilometre" because it is irrelevant. It is no more relevant than saying he was only 0.081 secs slower per 100 metres or even 0.0081secs per metre. So ph*qing what. It looks closer but the end result is the same. El G was 2.42 secs slower over the full distance - which is nowhere near Komen's record. Dividing that time differential by 3 is meaningless and makes him no closer to a record he couldn't break.
How is that idiots like you always have such enormous egos?
racing often and trying to break records is not the same. Besides he only raced 1500m two times last year outdoor besides championships, both low 3.29 races
El G has raced the 3000m outdoors against the clock ONCE. During his full career.
Ah so the problem is not your inability to do 2nd grade calculations, it's actually your illiteracy - the person said 0.81s per km.
I didn't observe it because it is irrelevant. To prove that irrelevance, explain how the differential "per km" brings him any closer over the full distance (which is the only differential that matters), where he was 2.42 secs slower?
All those teachers who tought you % obviously failed badly.
2.42 seconds in a 100m are the same for you than 2.42 seconds in a 10000m?
Are you similarly going to argue that Jakob is "close" to El G's 1500 record based on the fact that his 500m splits were less than a second slower than El G's? BS.
J. Ingebrigtsen is 1.1% behind the 1500m WR, a distance he races regularly.
H. El G was 0.55% behind the 3000m WR in his one and only - badly paced - attempt at the record.
Percentages? Meaningless twaddle. Both runners were/are more than two seconds off the world marks.
I didn't read the fatuous distinction "per kilometre" because it is irrelevant. It is no more relevant than saying he was only 0.081 secs slower per 100 metres or even 0.0081secs per metre. So ph*qing what. It looks closer but the end result is the same. El G was 2.42 secs slower over the full distance - which is nowhere near Komen's record. Dividing that time differential by 3 is meaningless and makes him no closer to a record he couldn't break.
How is that idiots like you always have such enormous egos?
I didn't observe it because it is irrelevant. To prove that irrelevance, explain how the differential "per km" brings him any closer over the full distance (which is the only differential that matters), where he was 2.42 secs slower?
All those teachers who tought you % obviously failed badly.
2.42 seconds in a 100m are the same for you than 2.42 seconds in a 10000m?
It is only your stupidity that causes you to think I have said that.
All your terribly inaccurate and completely unlogical posts are weak compared to this acting, again and again claiming someone has said this or that which he never did.