Shannon Rowbury Sub 4 in Paris?

wineturtle wrote:

Slaney was 4:00xx or better before Ruth was so I did not include her in the since list. As usual you picked a nit most folks would have understood.

Let us talk of Rowbury not nuanced interpertations of a posters possible range of meanings picking one possibility at the extreme, strawmanning it and giving a dig to a fellow fan.

Fellowsip is its own reward.

You VERY clearly stated that those were the only American woman who hae run under 4:00 since Ruth. Slaney ran sub 4:00 10 years after Ruth did. Doesn't matter if she did it the year before. That's not nitpicking, that's you not knowing. It's not like i called you out on some technicality, this is clear as day and not a nitpick. this is also very relevant, because Ruth made it sound like no one has been competitive since she was, which is ridiculous.

Regardless of whether Slaney was on drugs....there's nothing to say any other 4:00 women weren't either, especially ones from that time period when drugs were legal in the US track and field system.

Was that before or after he found Jesus?

Pete wrote:

Nope, she didn't break 4. Very close though:

1 Maryam Yusuf Jamal BRN 3:59.99 20

2 Shannon Rowbury USA 4:00.33 16

3 Daniela Yordanova BUL 4:02.40 14

4 Sarah Jamieson AUS 4:02.94 12

5 Viola Kibiwot KEN 4:04.17 10

6 Irene Jelagat KEN 4:04.59 8

7 Gelete Burka ETH 4:05.25 6

8 Stephanie Twell GBR 4:05.83 4

9 Malindi Elmore CAN 4:07.07 3

10 Iryna Lishchynska UKR 4:08.05 3

11 Hilary Stellingwerff CAN 4:14.97 3

Malindi Elmore misses OG A by o.o7

trying the range of 800s with 3'59.0 fixed

2'03 ->~ 59.1 , 5'23.8 , 8'16.5 , 14'10.2 , 29'21.9

2'02 ->~ 58.0 , 5'25.0 , 8'20.6 , 14'22.2 , 29'59.6

2'01 ->~ 57.0 , 5'26.1 , 8'24.8 , 14'34.1 , 30'37.3

2'00 ->~ 55.9 , 5'27.3 , 8'28.9 , 14'46.1 , 31'15.1

looking at lines of fit & using commonsense, anything above 2'00 as a current pb looks nonsense ( the 2'02 line is ~ paula radcliffe's '02 track potential )

1'59.5 ->~ 55.4 , 5'27.8 , 8'31.0 , 14'52.1 , 31'33.9

1'59.0 ->~ 54.9 , 5'28.4 , 8'33.1 , 14'58.1 , 31'52.8

1'58.5 ->~ 54.4 , 5'29.0 , 8'35.1 , 15'04.0 , 32'11.6

1'58.0 ->~ 53.8 , 5'29.5 , 8'37.2 , 15'10.0 , 32'30.5

1'57.5 ->~ 53.3 , 5'30.1 , 8'39.3 , 15'16.0 , 32'49.4

1'57.0 ->~ 52.8 , 5'30.7 , 8'41.3 , 15'22.0 , 33'08.2

1'56.5 ->~ 52.2 , 5'31.3 , 8'43.4 , 15'28.0 , 33'27.1

1'56.0 ->~ 51.7 , 5'31.8 , 8'45.5 , 15'34.0 , 33'46.0

1'55.5 ->~ 51.2 , 5'32.4 , 8'47.5 , 15'40.0 , 34;04.8

1'55.0 ->~ 50.7 , 5'33.0 , 8'49.6 , 15'45.9 , 34'23.7

using an experienced eye, i'd put a reasonable guess of her current 800 ability at ~ 1'58.5 +/- 0.5

that's what he coud potentially run for 400m - 10k off 1'42.8/3'25.5

no one is saying he wouda run his 5k & 10k to that potential as he may not have "lasted" the 5 or 10k distance "perfectly" off his mainly 1500 training ( it's almost 100% certain he woudn't ), but the point is, if he stepped onto the line in '97 for a 5k or 10k ,that's his predicted limit - it is a completely different limit for 5 or 10k if he'd stepped onto the line for a 5 or 10k in '03 or '04

ventolin have you ever heard of a track and field news poster named eldrick or might that be you? he does the same thing when someone runs a certain time he tries to figure out what the athlete would do at other distances.

J.R. wrote:

2008 1500 indoor world championships

3:57.71 - Yelena Soboleva Valencia - also 3:58.05

3:59.41 - Yuliya Fomenko - set pace to last 200m

3:59.75 - Gelete Burka ETH

3:59.79 - Maryam Yusuf Jamal

Russian 1500 results

NO CHANCE, wejo you idiot!

wow- you people have a lot of spare time. This should be called. Running dorks.com

3:59.42 Tatiana Tomashova - 1st Russian Championships

2006 european champion - 3:56.91

2005 world champion

2004 olympic silver

Reading comprehension problem on your part. Do you really think that the poster did not know about Slaney? [In fact, since Mary ran 4:00.xx IMMEDIATELY AFTER Ruth ran 4:00.10 (I think .10 was the fraction), your comment borders on silly.]Given that fact, the next thing for you to do is to see if there is a reasonable way to parse the comment, which there obviously is. After that, all you are after is being a pain in the neck. If you really had something to add you could do it nicely: 'Of course, we know that Mary ran 4:00 or better both before and after Ruth...

[quote]26mi235 wrote:

Ruth Wysocki did not run 1500m under 4 minutes.

Reading comprehension problems again? I even gave Ruth's time; do not get confused by someone(else)'s locution.

american women sub 4 wrote:

[quote]26mi235 wrote:

Ruth Wysocki did not run 1500m under 4 minutes.