You obviously can't count. It is more than 5 minutes.
You said 6 minutes, but 5 is correct.
Your problem with such calculations: you don't know how to put it into your calculator.
It was over 5 minutes but I can trust you to miss the point being made which is that women runners today are considerably faster than one of the greatest marathon runners in history, who another poster claim he was doped. Nothing to say about that? Obviously over your tiny head.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Your problem with such calculations: you don't know how to put it into your calculator.
Haile Gebrselassie: 2:03:59
Mosinet Geremew: 2:04:00
For Dumb Geremew is 1 minute slower.
Still using your unregistered names. Don't want to be recognized by your registered handle? I can see why.
I didn't make the point you claim. I was saying that the fastest women marathon runners today are way faster than Bikila was. But a substantive point as distinct from stupid pedantry is above your pay grade.
Still using your unregistered names. Don't want to be recognized by your registered handle? I can see why.
I didn't make the point you claim. I was saying that the fastest women marathon runners today are way faster than Bikila was. But a substantive point as distinct from stupid pedantry is above your pay grade.
How fast do you think they would be running marathons if they were barefoot running over cobbled streets?...
Still using your unregistered names. Don't want to be recognized by your registered handle? I can see why.
I didn't make the point you claim. I was saying that the fastest women marathon runners today are way faster than Bikila was. But a substantive point as distinct from stupid pedantry is above your pay grade.
How fast do you think they would be running marathons if they were barefoot running over cobbled streets?...
All the best runners in his era were using running shoes. Rome was the only marathon where he ran in bare feet. It was also his fastest race at that time - cobblestones and all. He improved in 4 years but so did everyone else so it wasn't the shoes - or just the shoes. Women today aren't running on trampolines. But they are doping. Like the top guys are. But they are better responders.
How fast do you think they would be running marathons if they were barefoot running over cobbled streets?...
All the best runners in his era were using running shoes. Rome was the only marathon where he ran in bare feet. It was also his fastest race at that time - cobblestones and all. He improved in 4 years but so did everyone else so it wasn't the shoes - or just the shoes. Women today aren't running on trampolines. But they are doping. Like the top guys are. But they are better responders.
Rome was not the only barefoot marathon. Bikila competed in the 1961 Athens Classical Marathon barefoot.
But why compare his barefoot Rome time to the women, and not his Tokyo time, clad in Pumas?
We shouldn't be debating between 5 minutes or 6 minutes, but just 2 minutes and 15 seconds.
What is the value of comparing the women's record to Bikila's second best time? Shouldn't we compare Rome to the women's second best times then? That is 58 seconds. This is all before correcting for things like temperature (Rome 1960 was 73° F and Tokyo 1964 was 68° F, versus 2022 Chicago 45° F and 2024 51° F in October), humidity, course flatness and surface, pacemaking, water/fuel stops, etc. Rome was so late to avoid higher heat, that the runners ran by torch light.
Interestingly, in Tokyo, Bikila lost a week of training, having his appendix removed about 5 weeks before the Olympics.
Still using your unregistered names. Don't want to be recognized by your registered handle? I can see why.
I didn't make the point you claim. I was saying that the fastest women marathon runners today are way faster than Bikila was. But a substantive point as distinct from stupid pedantry is above your pay grade.
You exactly made the point I'm adressing. You said 6 minutes, correct is 5 minutes. For you, Geremew is 1 minute slower than Gebrselassie.
All the best runners in his era were using running shoes. Rome was the only marathon where he ran in bare feet. It was also his fastest race at that time - cobblestones and all. He improved in 4 years but so did everyone else so it wasn't the shoes - or just the shoes. Women today aren't running on trampolines. But they are doping. Like the top guys are. But they are better responders.
We shouldn't be debating between 5 minutes or 6 minutes, but just 2 minutes and 15 seconds.
It's not a debate. His 6 minutes were wrong. As almost always when he presents some "facts" - he is wrong. Almost always.
All the best runners in his era were using running shoes. Rome was the only marathon where he ran in bare feet. It was also his fastest race at that time - cobblestones and all. He improved in 4 years but so did everyone else so it wasn't the shoes - or just the shoes. Women today aren't running on trampolines. But they are doping. Like the top guys are. But they are better responders.
What is the value of comparing the women's record to Bikila's second best time? Shouldn't we compare Rome to the women's second best times then? That is 58 seconds. This is all before correcting for things like temperature (Rome 1960 was 73° F and Tokyo 1964 was 68° F, versus 2022 Chicago 45° F and 2024 51° F in October), humidity, course flatness and surface, pacemaking, water/fuel stops, etc. Rome was so late to avoid higher heat, that the runners ran by torch light.
No need to go in such detail.
If you want to compare two groups regarding a specific characteristic where one of the groups has a significant "advantage" compared to the other, for sure it might differ for two individuals of the two groups. Depends on the size of the "advantage".
Elefants are heavier than squirrels - and this holds true for any two individuals of the two groups, because the "advantage" is so big.
Men can run faster than women. The "advantage" for men is around 10% - and this for sure is not big enough that the two groups don't overlap. This also holds true if you reduce the groups in size (say the top 1000 - or 5000).
The best in the group without the advantage can top the worst in the group with the advantage. Even Armstronk is aware of this.
Still using your unregistered names. Don't want to be recognized by your registered handle? I can see why.
I didn't make the point you claim. I was saying that the fastest women marathon runners today are way faster than Bikila was. But a substantive point as distinct from stupid pedantry is above your pay grade.
You exactly made the point I'm adressing. You said 6 minutes, correct is 5 minutes. For you, Geremew is 1 minute slower than Gebrselassie.
2:09 plus 6 minutes is 2:15. But only to a blockhead are the seconds crucial to this point. Yet you show your stupidity by omitting them when they show it was actually more than 5 minutes. But the essential point is as I said below.
"I was saying that the fastest women marathon runners today are way faster than Bikila was. But a substantive point as distinct from stupid pedantry is above your pay grade."
All the best runners in his era were using running shoes. Rome was the only marathon where he ran in bare feet. It was also his fastest race at that time - cobblestones and all. He improved in 4 years but so did everyone else so it wasn't the shoes - or just the shoes. Women today aren't running on trampolines. But they are doping. Like the top guys are. But they are better responders.
Rome was not the only barefoot marathon. Bikila competed in the 1961 Athens Classical Marathon barefoot.
But why compare his barefoot Rome time to the women, and not his Tokyo time, clad in Pumas?
We shouldn't be debating between 5 minutes or 6 minutes, but just 2 minutes and 15 seconds.
What is the value of comparing the women's record to Bikila's second best time? Shouldn't we compare Rome to the women's second best times then? That is 58 seconds. This is all before correcting for things like temperature (Rome 1960 was 73° F and Tokyo 1964 was 68° F, versus 2022 Chicago 45° F and 2024 51° F in October), humidity, course flatness and surface, pacemaking, water/fuel stops, etc. Rome was so late to avoid higher heat, that the runners ran by torch light.
Interestingly, in Tokyo, Bikila lost a week of training, having his appendix removed about 5 weeks before the Olympics.
There is nothing that shows shoes gave him a 3 minute improvement in the marathon. His barefoot win in Rome was a then world's best. The Rome and Tokyo races were 4 years apart and he had used shoes previously without making that jump in performance. Zola Budd set world records in the '80s in bare feet.
The point I was making is that as an Olympic champion in 1960 and the then fastest ever marathon runner he was way slower than women marathon runners today - the fastest of whom we now know was doping. His competitors were all wearing shoes. So we know it wasn't shoes that enable women to run far faster than he ever did. It is the usual reason: drugs.
There is nothing that shows shoes gave him a 3 minute improvement in the marathon. His barefoot win in Rome was a then world's best. The Rome and Tokyo races were 4 years apart and he had used shoes previously without making that jump in performance. Zola Budd set world records in the '80s in bare feet.
The point I was making is that as an Olympic champion in 1960 and the then fastest ever marathon runner he was way slower than women marathon runners today - the fastest of whom we now know was doping. His competitors were all wearing shoes. So we know it wasn't shoes that enable women to run far faster than he ever did. It is the usual reason: drugs.
Where do you reckon the 3 minutes came from then? Your usual reason: drugs?
Again, what is the value of any point by comparing the women from 65 years later to his second best time?
You exactly made the point I'm adressing. You said 6 minutes, correct is 5 minutes. For you, Geremew is 1 minute slower than Gebrselassie.
2:09 plus 6 minutes is 2:15. But only to a blockhead are the seconds crucial to this point. Yet you show your stupidity by omitting them when they show it was actually more than 5 minutes. But the essential point is as I said below.
For YOU NOW the seconds are important (more than 5 minutes).
You said 6 minutes (without mentioning seconds). That's wrong, it's 5 minutes. Now you bring seconds into the game - because you can't admit to be wrong (which you are almost always - a pure fact).
There is nothing that shows shoes gave him a 3 minute improvement in the marathon. His barefoot win in Rome was a then world's best. The Rome and Tokyo races were 4 years apart and he had used shoes previously without making that jump in performance. Zola Budd set world records in the '80s in bare feet.
The point I was making is that as an Olympic champion in 1960 and the then fastest ever marathon runner he was way slower than women marathon runners today - the fastest of whom we now know was doping. His competitors were all wearing shoes. So we know it wasn't shoes that enable women to run far faster than he ever did. It is the usual reason: drugs.
Why are you so silent about the source of Bikila's 3-minute improvement after donning Puma shoes? If it wasn't the shoes, was it the usual reason, drugs? What else could it be? I want to hear your reasoned analysis.
To hammer home just how pointless the point you were making is, even by 1960's standards, before the end of the decade, Bikila's 2:15:16 in Rome would place him outside the top-30, and with his 1964 2:12:11 would be relegate him to #8 fastest athlete.
By the end of 1985, Bikila's 1964 Tokyo performance ranks him #187 fastest athlete, and his 1960 world best Rome performance would fail to place him in the top 500.
What do you reckon explains this massive fall in the rankings, just before the EPO-era? The usual reason? Steroids? Amphetamines?
What is the intellectual value of picking such a demonstrably poor performance for comparison?
There is nothing that shows shoes gave him a 3 minute improvement in the marathon. His barefoot win in Rome was a then world's best. The Rome and Tokyo races were 4 years apart and he had used shoes previously without making that jump in performance. Zola Budd set world records in the '80s in bare feet.
The point I was making is that as an Olympic champion in 1960 and the then fastest ever marathon runner he was way slower than women marathon runners today - the fastest of whom we now know was doping. His competitors were all wearing shoes. So we know it wasn't shoes that enable women to run far faster than he ever did. It is the usual reason: drugs.
Where do you reckon the 3 minutes came from then? Your usual reason: drugs?
Again, what is the value of any point by comparing the women from 65 years later to his second best time?
In the early '60s drugs were not known to be used in distance running. The kind of drugs available today - which are being developed continuously - were not then in existence. It was a different sport. His improvement in 4 years was impressive but not dubious. The second place-getter in Tokyo wasn't far off his winning time in Rome. Improvements were occurring throughout the sport during that period, when there was no EPO available and blood doping had yet to be used in running.
My essential point is that Bikila was a gifted athlete who trained hard with high mileage, the kind of training used by athletes today. Yet he was still significantly slower than the fastest women today. That is drugs.
You exactly made the point I'm adressing. You said 6 minutes, correct is 5 minutes. For you, Geremew is 1 minute slower than Gebrselassie.
2:09 plus 6 minutes is 2:15. But only to a blockhead are the seconds crucial to this point. Yet you show your stupidity by omitting them when they show it was actually more than 5 minutes. But the essential point is as I said below.
"I was saying that the fastest women marathon runners today are way faster than Bikila was. But a substantive point as distinct from stupid pedantry is above your pay grade."
You keep proving that.
Stupid pedantry is your middle name. You even deny that Jakob is a 3:26 man. You show your stupidity every day.
2:09 plus 6 minutes is 2:15. But only to a blockhead are the seconds crucial to this point. Yet you show your stupidity by omitting them when they show it was actually more than 5 minutes. But the essential point is as I said below.
For YOU NOW the seconds are important (more than 5 minutes).
You said 6 minutes (without mentioning seconds). That's wrong, it's 5 minutes. Now you bring seconds into the game - because you can't admit to be wrong (which you are almost always - a pure fact).
You are the one who brought seconds into the game - but then discounted them to say "5 minutes" - but are too dim to realize that. But you mostly show how petty you are when you avoid the point being addressed that as an Olympic champion Bikila was much slower than the fastest doped women today. You avoid uncomfortable fact or are simply to thick to grasp anything more complex than mere numbers.