Outdoor 51.61/1.54.61 in 2024, so 51.14 now could mean at least a sub 1:54, that has to be the first aim. Will be interesting to see what Trev sets the pace lights for on Sunday.
"at least sub 1.54"?
I'm not sure that's the "at least" scenario here - that's the season dream target. And again, if she did that I have zero doubts she would be the fastest woman over two laps to have ever lived that ran the performance clean (ie. the WR holder)
I had to look at that phrase a few times as well.
Certainly is not in line with the Keely Equation which projects a best-effort 1:54-low based upon today's 400 pr race.
If you're talking sub-1:54, then essentially you're talking a WR attempt.
Never say never . . . but seems way beyond reach for an 800 season opener.
And, what has to be the aim on Sunday is holding off Werro and winning the race.
After seeing Audrey run away from everyone in Rabat then seeing Hodgkinson today, Keely will be the pre-race favorite . . . but not a given she will cross the line first.
Would be very happy to see a winning time in the 1:55s; ecstatic if one or both broke into the 1:54s so early in the season;
I'm not sure that's the "at least" scenario here - that's the season dream target. And again, if she did that I have zero doubts she would be the fastest woman over two laps to have ever lived that ran the performance clean (ie. the WR holder)
I had to look at that phrase a few times as well.
Certainly is not in line with the Keely Equation which projects a best-effort 1:54-low based upon today's 400 pr race.
If you're talking sub-1:54, then essentially you're talking a WR attempt.
Never say never . . . but seems way beyond reach for an 800 season opener.
And, what has to be the aim on Sunday is holding off Werro and winning the race.
After seeing Audrey run away from everyone in Rabat then seeing Hodgkinson today, Keely will be the pre-race favorite . . . but not a given she will cross the line first.
Would be very happy to see a winning time in the 1:55s; ecstatic if one or both broke into the 1:54s so early in the season;
Is your precious Keely Equation the only game in town? You didn't even get your figures right. 51.49/1.54.87 is not double add 12. It's double add 11.89 and it's indoors which we know has no correlation to outdoors. Her outdoor 2024 51.61/1.54.61 is double add 11.39 secs. Is that any less valid a projection than yours?
Is your precious Keely Equation the only game in town? You didn't even get your figures right. 51.49/1.54.87 is not double add 12. It's double add 11.89 and it's indoors which we know has no correlation to outdoors. Her outdoor 2024 51.61/1.54.61 is double add 11.39 secs. Is that any less valid a projection than yours?
This is what happens when a new concept is presented which runs counter to current orthodoxy. Some don't understand it, become defensive, attack it, deny it. The term for this phenomenon is "cognitive dissonance", resulting in personal attacks as exemplified above.
The Keely Equation is a very simple arithmetic formula explained in post #1 of this thread.
Her 51.14/400 does indeed project a 1:54.28 as the fastest 800 race she could run right now if she went all-out today in Rome in a time-trial 800.
Best case, under same conditions which likely will not be replicated in Stockholm. Thus, not expecting a 1:54.28 perfect race on Sunday. Stockholm may very well become tactical midway thru after the rabbit steps aside. And Keely may not even win. She'll be tested by Werro.
Thus, not expecting Keely to reach her projected current ceiling -- 1:54.28 per KE -- but believe her floor is so high a 1:55-something seems reasonable, a time incredibly fast for so early in the season. A sub-1:55 by anyone in this race would be remarkable.
I only use KE as an upper-limit projection for what may be possible for her. All based upon her two pr races back in March. Which is why I am not about to submit the formula to Mathematica Principia. Does not pass anyone's rules of scientific rigor.
Just a fun exercise to see where Keely's outer limits might lie -- which even she suggests could be sub-50 and sub-4:00 along with a WR. As well, her coach, believes she is capable of cracking into the 1:52s before she retires.
And, based upon the formula, if Keely does run a 50.5/400 or some relay leg equivalent, we get an 800 result of 1:53.0. If her 51.46 indoors does translate to a 50.46 outdoors, then we have a woman who may be in 1:52-point shape -- thus the title of this thread.
Think this is all rubbish? That's fine. Follow your own formula or instincts or beliefs regarding what is the limit of human potential in this event, or any other event for that matter.
Just be aware, when you use declarative phrases such as "we know", "that's impossible", "this is what will happen," "that's not gonna happen," or any other verbage insinuating you have gained privileged knowledge of the future -- and/or devolve into using ad hominem attacks -- you will have identified yourself as someone experiencing cognitive dissonance -- and the ridicule which follows.
Is your precious Keely Equation the only game in town? You didn't even get your figures right. 51.49/1.54.87 is not double add 12. It's double add 11.89 and it's indoors which we know has no correlation to outdoors. Her outdoor 2024 51.61/1.54.61 is double add 11.39 secs. Is that any less valid a projection than yours?
This is what happens when a new concept is presented which runs counter to current orthodoxy. Some don't understand it, become defensive, attack it, deny it. The term for this phenomenon is "cognitive dissonance", resulting in personal attacks as exemplified above.
The Keely Equation is a very simple arithmetic formula explained in post #1 of this thread.
Her 51.14/400 does indeed project a 1:54.28 as the fastest 800 race she could run right now if she went all-out today in Rome in a time-trial 800.
Best case, under same conditions which likely will not be replicated in Stockholm. Thus, not expecting a 1:54.28 perfect race on Sunday. Stockholm may very well become tactical midway thru after the rabbit steps aside. And Keely may not even win. She'll be tested by Werro.
Thus, not expecting Keely to reach her projected current ceiling -- 1:54.28 per KE -- but believe her floor is so high a 1:55-something seems reasonable, a time incredibly fast for so early in the season. A sub-1:55 by anyone in this race would be remarkable.
I only use KE as an upper-limit projection for what may be possible for her. All based upon her two pr races back in March. Which is why I am not about to submit the formula to Mathematica Principia. Does not pass anyone's rules of scientific rigor.
Just a fun exercise to see where Keely's outer limits might lie -- which even she suggests could be sub-50 and sub-4:00 along with a WR. As well, her coach, believes she is capable of cracking into the 1:52s before she retires.
And, based upon the formula, if Keely does run a 50.5/400 or some relay leg equivalent, we get an 800 result of 1:53.0. If her 51.46 indoors does translate to a 50.46 outdoors, then we have a woman who may be in 1:52-point shape -- thus the title of this thread.
Think this is all rubbish? That's fine. Follow your own formula or instincts or beliefs regarding what is the limit of human potential in this event, or any other event for that matter.
Just be aware, when you use declarative phrases such as "we know", "that's impossible", "this is what will happen," "that's not gonna happen," or any other verbage insinuating you have gained privileged knowledge of the future -- and/or devolve into using ad hominem attacks -- you will have identified yourself as someone experiencing cognitive dissonance -- and the ridicule which follows.
Personal attack? Cognitive Dissonance? Just for suggesting that your formula might not be the only game in town. You've got a bit of a thin skin haven't you.
Is your precious Keely Equation the only game in town? You didn't even get your figures right. 51.49/1.54.87 is not double add 12. It's double add 11.89 and it's indoors which we know has no correlation to outdoors. Her outdoor 2024 51.61/1.54.61 is double add 11.39 secs. Is that any less valid a projection than yours?
This is what happens when a new concept is presented which runs counter to current orthodoxy. Some don't understand it, become defensive, attack it, deny it. The term for this phenomenon is "cognitive dissonance", resulting in personal attacks as exemplified above.
The Keely Equation is a very simple arithmetic formula explained in post #1 of this thread.
Her 51.14/400 does indeed project a 1:54.28 as the fastest 800 race she could run right now if she went all-out today in Rome in a time-trial 800.
Best case, under same conditions which likely will not be replicated in Stockholm. Thus, not expecting a 1:54.28 perfect race on Sunday. Stockholm may very well become tactical midway thru after the rabbit steps aside. And Keely may not even win. She'll be tested by Werro.
Thus, not expecting Keely to reach her projected current ceiling -- 1:54.28 per KE -- but believe her floor is so high a 1:55-something seems reasonable, a time incredibly fast for so early in the season. A sub-1:55 by anyone in this race would be remarkable.
I only use KE as an upper-limit projection for what may be possible for her. All based upon her two pr races back in March. Which is why I am not about to submit the formula to Mathematica Principia. Does not pass anyone's rules of scientific rigor.
Just a fun exercise to see where Keely's outer limits might lie -- which even she suggests could be sub-50 and sub-4:00 along with a WR. As well, her coach, believes she is capable of cracking into the 1:52s before she retires.
And, based upon the formula, if Keely does run a 50.5/400 or some relay leg equivalent, we get an 800 result of 1:53.0. If her 51.46 indoors does translate to a 50.46 outdoors, then we have a woman who may be in 1:52-point shape -- thus the title of this thread.
Think this is all rubbish? That's fine. Follow your own formula or instincts or beliefs regarding what is the limit of human potential in this event, or any other event for that matter.
Just be aware, when you use declarative phrases such as "we know", "that's impossible", "this is what will happen," "that's not gonna happen," or any other verbage insinuating you have gained privileged knowledge of the future -- and/or devolve into using ad hominem attacks -- you will have identified yourself as someone experiencing cognitive dissonance -- and the ridicule which follows.
This is all very speculative. Your special formula suggests she *might* be in shape to run a second or so off the WR. That may be true or not. But as a point of comparison, five men have *already* run within one second of the 800 WR in the last three years, and it’s not a given that any of them will take down Rudisha’s record.
It’s lazy to say, well, anything’s possible! Be precise! I’d say there’s a 50% chance that the men’s WR goes down in the next three years and there’s only about a 10% chance that Keely gets the women’s WR. Which is still pretty impressive, considering that there is a 99% chance that the current holder was a part of a state-sponsored doping program.