This is the greatest apparate world record of all time. Caught on video, too!
This is the greatest apparate world record of all time. Caught on video, too!
Well duh wrote:
Rfvfvfvbggbg wrote:There is one way to objectively figure this out: Look at the numbers. The greatest percentage difference from the world record time (or distance) to the closest competitor would be the greatest performance. So the 5000 men's record will be out because the percentage difference from Bekele to Geb is minimal. My guess is Radcliffe has a shot at having the greatest performance of all time.
I hate when people suggest solutions to questions like this then don't bother to implement them.
Rounded to the nearest 1/100th of a percent
100m: Bolt over Gay: 1.15% (but also a 0.9 wind reading faster for Bolt)
200m: Bolt over Blake: 0.36%
400m: Johnson over Reynolds: 0.25%
800m: Rudisha over Kipketer: 0.2%
1500m: El-G over Lagat: 0.17%
Mile: El-G over Ngeny: 0.12%
3000m: Komen over El-G: 0.55%
3000m SC: Shaheen over Kipruto: 0.00% (actually 0.0022% if anyone was interested)
5000m: Bekele over Geb: 0.27%
10000m: Bekele over Geb : 0.33%
Half Marathon: Tadese over Wanjiru: 0.29%
Marathon: Kimetto over Mutai: 0.22% (0.35% over the previous WR as Mutai was in the same race as Kimetto, again if anyone was interested)
110m HH: Merritt over Robles:0.55%
400m h: Young over Moses: 0.51%
HJ: Sotomayer over Barshim: 0.82%
PV: Bubka over Tarasov: 0.1.32% (1.49 using his 6.14m at altitude)
LJ : Powell over Beamon: 0.56%
TJ: Edwards over Harrison :1.11%
Shot: Barnes over Timmerman: 0.26%
Discus: Schult over Alenka: 0.27%
HT: Syedikh over Litvinov : 0.81%
Jav: Zelezny over Parviainen: 5.8%
Deca: Eaton over Sebrle: 0.14% (though also subjective to point scale)
Womens: (at this point it's much quicker to just type distance and percent, if you care to look up the next-best feel free but the numbers are right)
100m: 1.43% (0.28% if we use Flo-Jos #2 (not absurdly wind-aided) time)
200m: 1.31%
400m: 0.82%
800m: 0.13%
1500m: 0.22% (0.64% between the two fastest non-Chinese times)
Mile: 1.21%
3000m: 1.25%
3000m SC: 1.44%
5000m: 0.2%
10000m: 1.24%
Half Marathon: 0.87%
Marathon: 2.4%
110m HH: 0.33%
400m h: 0.15%
HJ: 0.48%
PV: 2.85%
LJ: 0.4%
TJ: 0.71%
Shot: 0.8%
Dicus: 3%
Jav: 0.4%
Hep: 3.68%
So what does this tell us? Probably not much. 1 is further confirmation of the distance bias on LR.
The best indication that can be taken from them is the higher the number, the longer they are to stand. It doesn't control for how often it is contested or luck or other factors (but with 3% in women's discus and a stupid 5.8% in men's Jav, we can see that situational luck can (but not always) play a big role in an earth-shattering WR)
Women's marathon was one of the strongest, but was she competing with men? (I honestly can't remember but the fact that she was sounds familiar, and besides maybe the half I know this to not be the case of any other. If she was competing with men, that no doubt affected the performance).
It does help stifle the people who try to argue how hard x distance at y pace would be vs another distance (for reference, 2 miles (Komen over Geb) is 0.52% so they are pretty comparable, and saying "conversions have him at 7:55.xx" are nullified because by using this form of comparison we negate distance-to-distance conversion, i.e. Geb's 8:01.08 is good for a 7:58.05 by Purdy)).
Great, however, is a term that pretty much by definition necessitates opinion and/or qualitative measures, such as situation (Rudisha's 800m, for example, was run in an Olympic final leading the whole way, while the women's 5000m, exact same percent difference, was a rabbited affair. Rudy's 800m seems greater taken at face value).
So essentially the best thing to take away is that this is a question that people will have differing opinions about because there isn't a right or wrong answer. So fine, debate it, but don't get worked up.
As for my 2 cents, I've always looked at Komen's as a mark that is just unreal, especially the way he ran it, but as a distance runner I'm biased. Bolt's difference is jaw-dropping. And the greatest for me will probably always be Eaton's, because I was in the stands for it.
Great analysis on current WR performances. Just 1 point. Wasn't Coe's 1:41.73 WR 34 years ago a 1.65% improvement on the next best at the time, Juantorena's 1:43.44?
If so, that would put him light years ahead at the distance for the time.
Mr. Obvious wrote:Hitting the board right is part of the event. You can't state that a jump is "better" by adjusting it for doing something wrong in that part
you clearly are not very clued up about jumpers
toe-sand is the 1st topic they discuss in analysing their jumps & in fact their main discussion topic
you did note that edwards was 11cm behind in his 18.29 & 15cm behind in his 18.43 & teddy's 11cm over
none of these 3 jumps was nailed & teddy's a foul
Fleeting Visit wrote:Wasn't Coe's 1:41.73 WR 34 years ago a 1.65% improvement on the next best at the time, Juantorena's 1:43.44?
If so, that would put him light years ahead at the distance for the time
on paper it was huge improvement
however, circumstances have to be examined
coe's was in a low key, virtually unknown meet which wasn't even widely televised showing how low key meet was, as all coe's international track races of note were televised
he was rested, had fantastic pacing & the timing broke down for a veritable eternity & that makes it dubious for accuracy
caballo's wr was run in a championship - world student games
he maya had to run prelims, so not rested
there wouda been no pacer in a championship race
in addition, the temperatures for that meet were 100F !!!
caballo wouda been well below 1'43 in a rested, paced effort in 70F temperatures on that day
Definitely Radcliffe.
radcliffedoppppppppedup wrote:
the OP is talking about CLEAN records.
and yeah I'm going with komen but not his 3000m but two mile. sub 4 minute mile back to back twice is something that man might never be able to achieve again.
hey dumbazz, everybody takes vitamins and supplements, even your mom. as far as steroids, even junior high kids have access to them. steroid usage proves that one human has more desire to be the best in the world because they are risking their own health. if they want to risk theur own health then that's their own prerogative. since steroids are available to everyone and their dog, they are not cheating in any way shape or form. if they were only available to certain people then that would be different. and again you cant even sit down and differentiate what type of vitamin should or should not be allowed. you are incapable of seeing the grey area. hate to break it to you, but the rest of the world does not have your exact same opinion on what type of vitamin is a clean vitamin. legalize it all and sit back and enjoy watching people run fast times. im sure you drank some banana juice or took a vitamin C pill once in your life. remember that before you judge others.
ventolin^3 wrote:
Fleeting Visit wrote:Wasn't Coe's 1:41.73 WR 34 years ago a 1.65% improvement on the next best at the time, Juantorena's 1:43.44?If so, that would put him light years ahead at the distance for the time
on paper it was huge improvement
however, circumstances have to be examined
coe's was in a low key, virtually unknown meet which wasn't even widely televised showing how low key meet was, as all coe's international track races of note were televised
he was rested, had fantastic pacing & the timing broke down for a veritable eternity & that makes it dubious for accuracy
You are still slanting everything in a clearly anti Coe biased Ventolin.
The fact Coe ran his WR in a low key meet, which was televised (there are at least 2 versions I've seen ~ BBC and Italian tv), and that the timing broke down is completely irrelevant to the point the previous poster made. Any one can go on Youtube and time the race. There were meet hand time keepers there who got 1:41.6 and that could have been ratified as the time by the IAAF. That still makes it >1.71 sec faster than anyone else at the time. The IAAF looked at the back up electronic cell timing after the competition and decided that it was reliable enough to ratify it as 1:41.73. Were you privy to that process? No, thought not, so your thoughts on the subject are irrelevant.
Yes he was fairly rested, but it was still his 4th run in a week, which apparently is not rested for the likes of Cruz, who should have been dead in Koln for his 1:41.77 after his 4th race in a week. So more contradictions from you.
If having someone draft you from 200 to 400 is fantastic pacing, then most 800 runners have had that. It wasn't so fantastic when Konchellah failed to move aside at the bell and Coe had to run 40m wide on a bend to pass him, thus costing him 0.2.
ventolin^3 wrote:
caballo's wr was run in a championship - world student games
he maya had to run prelims, so not rested
there wouda been no pacer in a championship race
in addition, the temperatures for that meet were 100F !!!
caballo wouda been well below 1'43 in a rested, paced effort in 70F temperatures on that day
The fact Juantorena was over 2 secs ahead of the next guy, and looking at rest of names in race, it was a pretty weak field. Rudisha and Cruz managed to run much faster in far better fields off more in depth rounds.
You don't seem to understand the concept that athletes train to use rounds and other races in close proximity to build them to a peak. This obviously wouldn't be the case for 10k runners, but for 800 runners a few rounds, as long as the athlete is in peak condition, will make him sharper in the final.
If running rounds weakens an athlete's chance of a best time, then why have so many WR at 100 and 200 been set in Championships, where the 100 runners run 4 races in 2 or 3 days, usually the semi and final within a few hours of each other. You are out of touch with what real elite runners can do.
You have a habit of 'bigging up' an athlete by always referring to the temp or wind, or size of field, etc. Did you pull that 100F temp out of your backside? Please share the provenance of this claim (blatant rubbish!).
The max temp reached in Sofia on the 21.8.1977 was 24 C, which is mid 70's.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/LBSF/1977/8/21/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Sofia&req_state=&req_statename=Bulgaria&reqdb.zip=00000&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=15614&MR=1The fact that the 800 final was at 18:00, would strongly suggest that the temp by then would have dropped further from the max temp recorded that day. You have previously given the wrong temp for Rudisha's WR race in London and Ryun's run in LA. Historical data has proven this to be the case. I presume the temp for Coe in Firenze was perfect for 800m running?
To suggest that Juantorena would have been 0.5 faster if rested, paced perfectly, cool temp etc, is completely heresay. Just as when Rudisha ran 1:40.91 in London. I don't believe he would have been 0.5 faster in a non Olympic final that day.
What's more Juantorena had several other well paced races in cooler conditions that year (World Cup, Zurich, to name 2), yet never run any faster. I think he had the potential to run 1:43.0, but this thread is about ACTUAL WORLD RECORDS, not fantasy ones.
Your constant contradictions, exaggerations and blatant biased is becoming more and more obvious to a wider audience. Keep up the good work!
The only know impact altitude has on any track event is it hampers distance running because the air is thinner. Well, guess what, sprinters/jumpers have to breathe air too. Though it is not as big a factor as distance, it it still more of a detriment to performance than a known aid.
There is no evidence of any sort that altitude helps make someone faster. It's just a myth.
You're welcome for this lesson in physics.
Hard to believe that Yiannis 24 hour record will ever be broken.