What will it take for a new mile WR?

rekrunner wrote:

So, in your lexicon, "faith" equates to "fact" and not "superstition"? That is interesting and does seem to explain a great deal.

There are non-religious ways to reduce ambiguity and uncertainty, to help us avoid being in this intellectually helpless position to have to choose to believe.

Some of these techniques have been used to help us understand why the sun appears to rise, from the viewpoint of an observer on earth, and the cycles between night and day, and the contour of the surface of the earth.

It is obvious that you cannot grasp the meaning of the words you bandy about. That is fact. I don't have to suggest it is faith, which is what you do when you encounter the obvious. Ironically, it is you who seek refuge in religious thinking when you encounter facts you are unable to accept (like doping) by labeling them as faith. Your idiocy is of a sophisticated kind but it is still idiocy. That, too, is obvious and fact. Faith has nothing to do with it.

I've noticed the same pattern in all threads you participate in.

It would seem that many posters find the sum of your contributions to any topic to be of little value, and your autonomous reflex is to personally attack their intelligence, which only reinforces this finding.

Meanwhile, while you play with words, I have grasped and mastered the meaning of numbers.

rekrunner wrote:

I've noticed the same pattern in all threads you participate in.

It would seem that many posters find the sum of your contributions to any topic to be of little value, and your autonomous reflex is to personally attack their intelligence, which only reinforces this finding.

Meanwhile, while you play with words, I have grasped and mastered the meaning of numbers.

And, by contrast, posters are unanimously in favour of your contributions? The recurrent phrase here, of a thread again "rekrunnered", seems to have passed you by. I am surprised that you feel the need to appeal to popular opinion to bolster your position. Yes, you have a certain thing for numbers - and in that respect I am reminded of the expression "lies, damned lies, and statistics" - but words are crucial to the expression of concepts and there you clearly struggle. Verbally, you are a hobby jogger.

("Autonomous reflex"? Well, yes, but I think you mean "automatic". You're welcome.)

Sorry. The word I was going for was "autonomic".

I was not appealing to popular opinion, but noticing a consistent pattern with a high correlation.

My position, when I express one, is bolstered by data and references. I do not require nor seek popular opinion.

When a specific conclusion is consistently presented without any data and/or references, this is what I call a statement of faith.

This can only be cured by providing the missing supporting data and/or references.

I often wonder if the repetitiveness indicates an unspoken insecurity in the belief, as if repeating it often enough will eventually escalate it from faith to fact.

As I indicated before, there are accepted ways to reduce the identified ambiguities and uncertainties, even in the presence of many unknowns.

Persisting in attacking my intelligence is not one of them.

rekrunner wrote:

Sorry. The word I was going for was "autonomic".

I was not appealing to popular opinion, but noticing a consistent pattern with a high correlation.

My position, when I express one, is bolstered by data and references. I do not require nor seek popular opinion.

When a specific conclusion is consistently presented without any data and/or references, this is what I call a statement of faith.

This can only be cured by providing the missing supporting data and/or references.

I often wonder if the repetitiveness indicates an unspoken insecurity in the belief, as if repeating it often enough will eventually escalate it from faith to fact.

As I indicated before, there are accepted ways to reduce the identified ambiguities and uncertainties, even in the presence of many unknowns.

Persisting in attacking my intelligence is not one of them.

If you were a runner I am picking your specialty would be the ultra marathon; no speed but you can plod on forever.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Jakob will break it. He will have about 10 opportunities in his home meet, injuries permitting.

It's also slightly weaker than the 1500 WR. Crammie himself reckoned El G should have ran 3:41/3:42.

I don't agree it's a weaker record than the 1500. 17secs is an expected differential. A 3.26 man couldn't - and didn't - run faster than 3.43.

Jakob won't get near it (or the 1500 time). He doesn't have the basic speed. I doubt he could break 50secs for 1 lap.

Lastly, only doping will enable anyone to beat any world record today. I wouldn't give a cent that any record is clean.

The mile is a slightly weaker record, based on the usual conversion of multiplying the 1500m by 1.08 to get an equivalent mile time: 3:42.5 in this case, but I agree with you that Jacob doesn’t have a chance of getting near it. Not unless the latest Nike Vaporfly spike gives a similar advantage as it’s trainer cousin does. That’s the only way EL G’s highly likely doped records will be beaten by any of the current crop.

The Nike spikes used last year by Muir, Hasan, Brazier and a few others, seemed to enable them to reach times they hadn’t looked able to approach previously.

Armstronglivs wrote:

was cram clean? wrote:

Steve Cram ran 3:46.32 with a 53.18 final lap in 1985. He was obviously capable of 3:44 (even faster, perhaps), and he said as much himself. Unless you think he was dirty, it shouldn't be hard too imagine someone clean running 3:43 thirty five years later.

It isn't obvious he was capable of 3.44. You might as well say everyone is capable of running way faster than their best, and the El G was equally capable of 3.41. There is a very big difference between 3.46xx and 3.43.

EL G was paced/drafted to almost 1500m, iirc, and his 4 laps were very evenly paced, ranging from something like 55.5 to 56.5. He wasn’t capable of more than perhaps a few tenths off that time.

Cram’s run was far less evenly distributed; hi first 2 laps were a little slow, at 57.2 and 57.3, but then the third lap dropped considerably to 58.6, which is what enabled him to run the last lap in such a fast 53.2. Evened put a bit, and he was definitely capable of 3:45.0 that night.

Had Cram had better splits than 57.2, 57.3, 58.6, 53.2, he was certainly capable of 3:45 that night in Oslo, probably sub 3:45.

He mentioned at the end of 85 that He felt Aouita was also capable of such a time.

Coe had said straight after his 3:47 WR in 81, that he saved himself for a hone straight kick, and had he ‘gone for it’ from the bell , he’d have run 3:46 mid. His race too was off some wide ranging and inefficient splits- 55.3, 58.0, 58.6, 55.4.

Coe also subsequently believed he was capable of a sub 3:45 given right pace and circumstances. I’d tend to agree and think all 3 of Cram, Aouita and Coe were capable of at least 3:45 flat in their best form.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If you were a runner I am picking your specialty would be the ultra marathon; no speed but you can plod on forever.

My best events were 400m - mile. Good guess though.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If you were a runner I am picking your specialty would be the ultra marathon; no speed but you can plod on forever.

My best events were 400m - mile. Good guess though.

But still at ultra speed. Must have been fun trailing the field by the straight.

Deanouk wrote:

Had Cram had better splits than 57.2, 57.3, 58.6, 53.2, he was certainly capable of 3:45 that night in Oslo, probably sub 3:45.

He mentioned at the end of 85 that He felt Aouita was also capable of such a time.

Coe had said straight after his 3:47 WR in 81, that he saved himself for a hone straight kick, and had he ‘gone for it’ from the bell , he’d have run 3:46 mid. His race too was off some wide ranging and inefficient splits- 55.3, 58.0, 58.6, 55.4.

Coe also subsequently believed he was capable of a sub 3:45 given right pace and circumstances. I’d tend to agree and think all 3 of Cram, Aouita and Coe were capable of at least 3:45 flat in their best form.

And if any of them were clean it suggests that doping has taken at least 2 seconds off the wr. Sounds about right but I think 3 secs may be more likely.

Aouita - the same who as a coach told his Australian athletes they had to dope if they wished to succeed. Narrows the field above yet further. So 3.45 is probably just as likely to be doped.

Armstronglivs wrote:

But still at ultra speed. Must have been fun trailing the field by the straight.

Your personal attacks have shifted from attacking my intelligence, to attacking my performance -- attacks which are as unfounded as your simple ideas about doping and elite performance.

You are showing your class.

Armstronglivs wrote:

And if any of them were clean it suggests that doping has taken at least 2 seconds off the wr. Sounds about right but I think 3 secs may be more likely.

This uses a technique I like to call "confirmation bias", although other terms would equally apply, assuming for argument's sake that doping could take 2-3 seconds off the WR: "affirming the consequent", "abductive reasoning", "fallacy of the single cause", not to mention a failure to understand "necessity and sufficiency".

Armstronglivs wrote:

Aouita - the same who as a coach told his Australian athletes they had to dope if they wished to succeed. Narrows the field above yet further. So 3.45 is probably just as likely to be doped.

Note the fastest Australian miler was Mottram, and 1500m was Gregson -- both of which were slower than Cram, Coe, and Ovett.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But still at ultra speed. Must have been fun trailing the field by the straight.

Your personal attacks have shifted from attacking my intelligence, to attacking my performance -- attacks which are as unfounded as your simple ideas about doping and elite performance.

You are showing your class.

If you performed well on the track it would certainly contrast with your skills in argument. But I doubt it. No one who is any good is both a 400m runner and a miler. Your undoubtedly modest pr's will show that.

But that is beside the point, because your demonstrably modest intelligence failed to grasp that I simply used ultra-running as a metaphor for your pedestrian intellectual abilities.

was cram clean? wrote:

That's speaking the truth wrote:

No kidding...I would agree. All people need to do is think a minute and understand what country is the current 1500/mile WR holder from, and what time period these two records were set in. ?

Steve Cram ran 3:46.32 with a 53.18 final lap in 1985. He was obviously capable of 3:44 (even faster, perhaps), and he said as much himself. Unless you think he was dirty, it shouldn't be hard too imagine someone clean running 3:43 thirty five years later.

Yes. I asked Cram about his thoughts on this subject. It was a slightly awkward converstation, but I gleaned what information I required from him at the time.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And if any of them were clean it suggests that doping has taken at least 2 seconds off the wr. Sounds about right but I think 3 secs may be more likely.

This uses a technique I like to call "confirmation bias", although other terms would equally apply, assuming for argument's sake that doping could take 2-3 seconds off the WR: "affirming the consequent", "abductive reasoning", "fallacy of the single cause", not to mention a failure to understand "necessity and sufficiency".

Armstronglivs wrote:

Aouita - the same who as a coach told his Australian athletes they had to dope if they wished to succeed. Narrows the field above yet further. So 3.45 is probably just as likely to be doped.

Note the fastest Australian miler was Mottram, and 1500m was Gregson -- both of which were slower than Cram, Coe, and Ovett.

As usual, you fail to grasp the point. I didn't say the Australians doped but that Aouita was trying to persuade them they should. They got rid of him. In case you don't grasp the obvious yet again, it argues pretty strongly that in advocating doping he was a doper himself, as the fastest of his generation. There clearly isn't the same evidence for Cram, Ovett and Coe, but the possibility of their doping also can't be ruled out. They were all much the same level of athlete as Aouita.

The rest of your comment is mostly gibberish but it gave off the odor of doping denial, with your consistent view that doping does not enhance performance. But to remain unintelligible is your modus operandi. No one ever really knows what you are saying. I have come to suspect you don't really know, either.

yes wrote:

was cram clean? wrote:

Steve Cram ran 3:46.32 with a 53.18 final lap in 1985. He was obviously capable of 3:44 (even faster, perhaps), and he said as much himself. Unless you think he was dirty, it shouldn't be hard too imagine someone clean running 3:43 thirty five years later.

Yes. I asked Cram about his thoughts on this subject. It was a slightly awkward converstation, but I gleaned what information I required from him at the time.

I am sure it was an awkward conversation.

Slightly awkward, but he was quite willing to answer every question I asked and more.

Your drug obsession is a form of madness we don't all share.