Ventolin - with all due respect you're an utter prick. Please get lost.
Ventolin - with all due respect you're an utter prick. Please get lost.
He is also known to make up "personalities" to "debate" with him. It's weird.
Ventolin^whocares, let's hear it: two times correctly predicting a SUBSEQUENT third using your little calculator. I'm waiting for all of the examples!
the smartest letsrunner wrote:This quote right here really sums up the running genius of ventolin^3
idiot
they are vertebrates with same physiological/biochemical processes
are are you so f***ing stoopid you believe horses don't use the krebs cycle ???
Your calculator, even parameterized with a runner's results from longer and shorter distance than the distance being modeled, by definition makes assumptions about the runner's performance between those distances. It is not an unbiased predictor, nor the divining prophet that you seem to see it as, turning to it blindly in every. single. thread
this is complete f***ing drivel
you don't have a clue about science
using 2 parameters is one of the foundations of science
get a science education idiot
That is to say, since you don't seem to get this point, that two different 3:30 1500 runners might get to 12:45 differently, and certainly might get to an unknown result for 3000 differently
you complete f***ing idiot
we are assuming they get to 3'30 & 12'45 in their best possible race at even pace off same training
can't your numbskull comprehend this ??
if they both do, there shoud be no significant difference in their 3k time
Your assumption that there are no pertinent differences between swimming, athletics and equestrian
(seriously?) is preposterous
idiot
no differences between vertebrates in fluids
provide some hard refutation
Energy is utilized far differently in a swimming event (where for a number of reasons positive splits are the norm in WRs)
moron
you have no clue about swimming
evans held the 400wr for 15+y off -ve splits
100m events have a dive which skews the eveness for 50m/100m, but it is no different to running for events over 400m
and is obviously utilized differently by horses
imbecile
you have no f***ing clue at all
evened out on flat tracks, there is no difference
look up what 1'33/1'59 implies for 1 1/2 miles
All this to say it's no surprise you STILL haven't produced one example of your little calculator working to predict times prospectively
complete f***ing moron
it's off-season
we only have prior to work on
idiot
look up
1/18/2011 12:35PM
Your post above makes it clear that this failure is because you didn't understand the simple question:
Where x
f***ing idiotyou are describing kindergarden drivelyou don't have a clue about mathsyou are an idiot without any f***ing clue whatsoever of anything being talked aboutf*** off & don't waste my time
Bryn_R wrote:Ventolin - with all due respect you're an utter prick. Please get lost.
thank you
but with no respect
f*** off
the smartest letsrunner wrote:He is also known to make up "personalities" to "debate" with him. It's weird
no
moron
Ventolin^whocares, let's hear it: two times correctly predicting a SUBSEQUENT third using your little calculator. I'm waiting for all of the examples!
little pissant,
what exactly have you offered to this thread ?
let's see :
guy is a 5k runner & has 1'50/3'40 ability currently, he desperately wants to know what he coud do for 5k in his upcoming big circuit race
what are you going to tell him, moron ?
give him a number...
the smartest letsrunner wrote:
To say that a fit Webb could not break an AR is to say that a HYPOTHETICAL fit Webb could not break any of the EXISTING ARs.
Your early misinterpretation ('huh-huh-huh he DID break an AR before') was either deliberate or dumb, or maybe both.
I'm pretty confident both my french and english grammar is better than yours in any language.
What if I said:
"Pre couldn't break the 5k WR, but he did set the American Record." Does that sentence make sense? Of course it does, even though that doesn't have anything to do with the future, or current records.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth, and conveniently didn't address it when I pointed that (and your other factual errors) out in my previous post. I imagine you'll continue to ignore that. Good show.
You're like the little kid who can't stand to be told he's wrong and throws a tantrum. Rather amusing.
grammar are*
DocLove wrote:
[quote]I Am Fleetfoot wrote:
I watched Haile try at Boston Indoor Games in 2003 he failed - Webb aint doing it boys !'
No shit, Watson
Thank you Doctwatson !
Haha oh man this was entertaining. I love how Ventolin^3 responded in EXACTLY the way he was predicted to (a totaly tantrum), we should make a Letsrun tantrum calculator to predict who will flip out. We may even be able to use science to make it more accurate lol
Webb would need to lower his 1500/mile PR's by at least 3 seconds, being that he is more speed-oriented than Komen. And his 5k PR would need to be at least 20-25 seconds faster. Or he could just get as juiced as Komen was. No way that Komen was clean, especially if El G wasn't able to take down the 3k WR.
ventolin^3 wrote:
little pissant,
what exactly have you offered to this thread ?
let's see :
guy is a 5k runner & has 1'50/3'40 ability currently, he desperately wants to know what he coud do for 5k in his upcoming big circuit race
what are you going to tell him, moron ?
give him a number...
Now, now. There's no need to call names just because you're losing a fight.
There are a number of ways I would help assess your hypothetical runner's fitness. Most of them would be based on his workouts, previous races, period of the season, etc. Basically, I would do anything EXCEPT use your little calculator, which has been widely discredited.
iran2day wrote:
Haha oh man this was entertaining. I love how Ventolin^3 responded in EXACTLY the way he was predicted to (a totaly tantrum), we should make a Letsrun tantrum calculator to predict who will flip out. We may even be able to use science to make it more accurate lol
+1
Maybe he can apply his little calculator and actually predict something CORRECTLY for a change.
kartelite wrote:
I'm pretty confident both my french and english grammar is better than yours in any language.
HAHAHAHAHAHA: You're pretty confident that both your French and English grammar *IS* better than mine?
I know you tried to correct yourself later (but were still wrong), but when you can't even form a grammatically correct sentence in BRAGGING about your grammar (a sad activity in and of itself, even for you), you're really done.
ventolin^3 wrote:
they are vertebrates with same physiological/biochemical processes
are are you so f***ing stoopid you believe horses don't use the krebs cycle ???
It's easy to see why you have failed to understand your calculator's flaws or demonstrate its accuracy.
ventolin^3 wrote:
this is complete f***ing drivel
you don't have a clue about science
using 2 parameters is one of the foundations of science
get a science education idiot
I have one. I model things far more complicated than this every single day. Using two parameters isn't the problem. Obviously. Using a poor model to draw conclusions from them is.
ventolin^3 wrote:
moron
you have no clue about swimming
evans held the 400wr for 15+y off -ve splits
100m events have a dive which skews the eveness for 50m/100m, but it is no different to running for events over 400m
Wrong again. You must be old and out of it if that is the example you cherrypick. Look at the CURRENT WRs, not the one exception, which has been smashed anyway. Swimming splits look nothing like running splits (and I don't mean just the first lap).
No shock that you've failed, yet again:
Where x
the smartest letsrunner wrote:There are a number of ways I would help assess your hypothetical runner's fitness
moron
best way to assess a runner is thru the clockings they produce
Most of them would be based on his workouts, previous races, period of the season, etc
idiot
we are talking finished article ready to race
all the training has been done
Basically, I would do anything EXCEPT use your little calculator, which has been widely discredited.
moron
i want to know :
what are you going to tell this 1'50/3'40 guy he can run for 5k
put up or shut up
the smartest letsrunner wrote:It's easy to see why you have failed to understand your calculator's flaws or demonstrate its accuracy
moron
are you saying horse's don't use glycolysis or the kreb's cycle ??
I have one. I model things far more complicated than this every single day. Using two parameters isn't the problem. Obviously. Using a poor model to draw conclusions from them is
f***ing idiot
you clearly haven't a clue about anything scientific
Wrong again. You must be old and out of it if that is the example you cherrypick. Look at the CURRENT WRs, not the one exception, which has been smashed anyway. Swimming splits look nothing like running splits (and I don't mean just the first lap)
moron
evan's 400wr was considered the greatest wr in history by many pundits
you clearly haven't a clue about swimming
ditance swimming records are fast initial/last 100m & even pace for remainder
No shock that you've failed, yet again:
Where x
this is driveltell me moron, what woud you tell a 3'30/12'40 guy he coud run for 3k ???
ventolin^3 wrote:
moron
i want to know :
what are you going to tell this 1'50/3'40 guy he can run for 5k
put up or shut up
idiot
we are talking finished article ready to race
all the training has been done
Hahahahaha extrapolating a 1'50" 800 and a 3'40" to a 5000 time? I hope you have more than your little horse calculator to go on.
Yes, obviously the training has been done. I would like to know about it.
In case you missed what I said clearly before: "Basically, I would do anything EXCEPT use your little calculator, which has been widely discredited."
It's so cute that you keep calling me names. As many, many, many others have pointed out, the more desperate you become in your many losing arguments, the more vile the tantrum you throw.
Ventolin^3,
Shouldn't you be paying the Brojos for all the advertising you do for your calculator on here?
ventolin^3 wrote:
moron
are you saying horse's don't use glycolysis or the kreb's cycle ??
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Wrong.
Don't be obtuse. Of course they do. However, individuals vary within species and between activities in glycolysis, and certainly species differ.
ventolin^3 wrote:
f***ing idiot
you clearly haven't a clue about anything scientific
Well, it's how I make my living, and I happen to make a very, very good living, while you are trying to supplement yours by flogging a horse calculator online.
ventolin^3 wrote:
you clearly haven't a clue about swimming
Here's a clue: velocity falls off FAR faster in swimming than in running. Just off the top of my head...
Running:
800 1'41"
1600 3:25"
Swimming
200 1'42"
400 3'40"
But your horsie calculator doesn't capture this. And you blithely state that it's all the same.
You're too easy. I await your next name-calling tantrum, which I will easily refute.
Typo, obviously...
Here's a clue: velocity falls off FAR faster in running in running. Just off the top of my head, using events of very comparable durations. (You can exclude the sprints if you want - your calculator's weakness still holds.
Running:
400 43"
800 1'41"
1600 3:43"
Swimming
100 46"
200 1'42"
400 3'40"
But your horsie calculator doesn't capture this. And you blithely state that it's all the same.
For christ's sake, get it through your head. Comparing velocities between events, a runner with a roughly 1:2.2 ratio (as in the WRs) is clearly quite solid moving up between these distances, whereas a swimmer with the same ratio is comparatively weak. It is simply in defiance of reason to use the same formula in completely different sports to extrapolate from representative performances.
You're too easy. I await your next name-calling tantrum, which I will easily refute.