Peter Snell 800 WR on Grass

moron

you are drivelling

show faulty premise

put up or shut up !

Some of you are wondering why I act like I do. Part of it may be because I have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome . I also suffer from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder .

ventolin^2 wrote:

Some of you are wondering why I act like I do. Part of it may be because I have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

. I also suffer from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

.

Yes, and you also appear to have Tourette's Syndrome.

MAPIV wrote:

ventolin^2 wrote:

Some of you are wondering why I act like I do. Part of it may be because I have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

. I also suffer from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

.

Yes, and you also appear to have Tourette's Syndrome.

Guess I´ll have to kill you someday, moron. Not a difficult thing to do.

To answer your question, venty little boy, you start with conjecture regarding the benefits of even pace which may be inflated. Then you jump to the ostensible benefits of an artificial track which again are as inflated as your head. Then you start orgasming over wabbits and you mix up the ingredients into some sort of amalgam we could term wabbit stew and before you know it nobody can recognize what it is. Well, think next time before you start nonchalantly placing number upon number, regardless of the swelling you experience in your loins over it.

MAPIV wrote:

To answer your question, venty little boy, you start with conjecture regarding the benefits of even pace which may be inflated. Then you jump to the ostensible benefits of an artificial track which again are as inflated as your head. Then you start orgasming over wabbits and you mix up the ingredients into some sort of amalgam we could term wabbit stew and before you know it nobody can recognize what it is. Well, think next time before you start nonchalantly placing number upon number, regardless of the swelling you experience in your loins over it.

I have yet to have my diapers changed this week. Forgive me. I must call in my Nurse this afternoon.

moron

"may be inflated"

i suggest you look up ramzi's 3'29-flat or coe's 3'31.9 or kennster v geb 10k in '03, & tell us what you feel wouda been their times with even pace ???

eh ??

i ran on dirt & on synthetic in the '70s & my times were 1s+/lap different

you've got another poster here who ran on both saying 1s/lap may be even an underestimate

tell us your experience of dirt v synthetic from '60s & '70s boy

moron

there was no mention of a wabbit at all with ryun

just that the race had been run from even pace from gun-to-tape with same wabbit, with unnecessary need to mention wabbit dropping out at bell, same as modern wabbits - this was keino - wr holder for 3k ( a komenesque solo 7'39 on dirt ) & ex for 5k - he couda taken ryun to 1100 in 2'34/2'35 - it didn't even need to be discussed !

12:10 ventolin^2

f*** of troll

located IP of imposter and all who dare question me

Must kill them

Must kill

ventolin^2 wrote:

i ran on dirt & on synthetic in the '70s & my times were 1s+/lap different

My diapers itch

I forgot

Ryun ran WR on CINDERS and asphalt/synthetic,

Snell on GRASS. None of WRs set on "dirt."

I am a moron.

ventolin^2 wrote:

i ran on dirt & on synthetic in the '70s & my times were 1s+/lap different

Well, you are giving anecdotal evidence based on your limp-dick running. ventolin, you know you cannot predicate speculation about world-class athletes on your sorry ass. Remember, that one second for you is probably a half second for a world class athlete. Your limp-dick doesn't work as a tool in conversion for world class athletes.

If you don't believe Cordner Nelson's words on the condition of the track, then why do you have such faith in the time given in T&FN when he was the editor?

So you just cherry pick which fits in with your views!

"The Milers" was a T&FN publication, and most of what lies within is taken directly from the pages of T&FN. P.330~ "...Ryun's last three-fourths mile was in about 2:48.7,..." Which equates to 2:47.8 for 1200m.

NO! You can't admit that even with your ludicrous 1 sec conversion, a 55.6 (56.6 - 1) first 400m is par for the course for a 3:48 miler. A 3:48 Miler would not slow to 60 secs on the last lap in a 2:51(- 3 secs) 3/4, let alone a 2:54.

Very few WR's are run with efficient average lap times.

If running a 55.6 first 440 and slowing to a last 440 of 59.6 (58.6) and a 3:54(3:50) finish shows that he was capable of 3:48, then other athletes would have been capable of much faster times too.

Coe's 3:29.7 began with a 54.0 first 400. That's 2 sec below a perfect 56.0, but he still managed to run the last lap in 55.3. So that must give him 3:27 ability,

Kipchirchir-Komen's 3:29 in '06 started with a 52.6 and finished with a 56.6.

Completely wrong. He ran a 57.8 last lap in his 1st WR and 56.9 in his 2nd.

Not only do you resort to hyperbole, but you are a hypocrite and historically inaccurate with your statistics.

I could resort to name calling at this point, but can't be bothered to lower myself to your lowly station.

MAPIV wrote:Well, you are giving anecdotal evidence based on your limp-dick running. ventolin, you know you cannot predicate speculation about world-class athletes on your sorry ass. Remember, that one second for you is probably a half second for a world class athlete. Your limp-dick doesn't work as a tool in conversion for world class athletes.

moron

ole1/2miler guy was a class runner back in '60s & definitely around elite

if you are too stoopid to understand his appraisal then it's your handicap

as for my own abilities, idiot, i said

1s+/lap

learn to read moron

If Kipketer ran 48 for the first 400 what were the first pair of 200 splits?

23.1, 25.3 (48.4), 25.8 (1:14.2), 27.0

ventolin, your problem is that it is too easy to just shuffle numbers around, and you just nonchalantly knock off seconds for wabbits, surfaces, pacing, etc. It is a wonderful exercise in arithmetical masturbation, I am sure, but it tends to soil your loins and muddy the waters, so to speak, without any precise calibration and assurance of accuracy beyond your vehemence, which does not persuade the rigorous thinker with penetrating insight. So, venty boy, it is nice that you're getting use out of your abacus, but the truth is ever elusive for you.

no

moron

the concept was elucidated numerically by a very smart poster on t&f called asterix in the "7% solution" topic

if you are are an ignorant moron & don't know about it, that's your problem

moron

canvass any elite '60's/'70s runner - you already got 1 who did it admirably on this thread

you offered nothing

what does a 52s opener for a 3'29.1 indicate for an even paced ???

that's

drivel

you offer nothing boy

MAPIV wrote:

To answer your question, venty little boy, you start with conjecture regarding the benefits of even pace which may be inflated. Then you jump to the ostensible benefits of an artificial track which again are as inflated as your head. Then you start orgasming over wabbits and you mix up the ingredients into some sort of amalgam we could term wabbit stew and before you know it nobody can recognize what it is. Well, think next time before you start nonchalantly placing number upon number, regardless of the swelling you experience in your loins over it.

Very well put. He always does exactly that!

Of course people from the cinder era will claim they would have been 1 sec faster a lap on synthetic, to make themselves look like they were better than those that followed. For all those claiming a 1sec conversion there are just as many who can see that this is far too much.

On a poor cinder track, or a wet one then perhaps 1 sec a lap in a 10k race would be appropriate. But that would not be the case on a well kept track for just 2 or 4 laps. And it certainly wouldn't be the case in a 400m flat race, or else the guys in the late '60's were all as fast as Michael Johnson 30 years later. Though I'm sure Ventolin will claim exactly that!

A good example to show it isn't worth 1 sec a lap is Seb Coe in 1980. He ran 3 x 800m in quick succession to prepare for Moscow.

He ran 1:45.41 on 26th May, 1:44.98 on June 5th & 1:44.7 on June 7th.

The middle run, 1:44.98, was on an old cinder track at Loughborough.

At the time AW wrote:

"Coe was the chief victim of the facilities, for on a synthetic track he MIGHT well have broken his own UK all-comers record of 1:44.0 (1:43.97). As it was, he recorded....a brilliant run in the circumstances, bearing in mind also that he had cool, windy conditions to contend with".

The entire second lap was solo and he won by 5.4 seconds. 90 minutes later he ran a 46.4 relay leg.

The writer had the sense to realise it was worth "about" a second faster (over 2 laps). But according to Ventolin, this would be worth 1:42.9 on the basis of the track alone (faster if you take his wind conversion into account too). He then runs his fastest ever relay leg of 45.4 (46.4 - 1.0 for cinders to synthetic) an hour and a half later!?

While I don't doubt Coe could have run a solo 1:42 in 1980, why on Earth would he want to do it in a piddly University meeting in Hull in early June? It was merely worthy of a good 1:44.0 early season workout and nothing more.

Ventolin is obviously a child (or should that be troll) of the '60's, and looks back upon the period with rose tinted spectacles. He'd have us believe that the stars from that decade were better than anything that followed for 30 years until his fellow buddy Kenyans arrived on the scene in the late '90's.

ventolin^2 wrote:

what does a 52s opener for a 3'29.1 indicate for an even paced ???

Duh!!

Are you being serious? That merely reinforces the fact that Ramzi was on EPO in 2006, two years before he was caught.