Ventolin, whose last lap is more impressive, lagats or farahs? My personal opinion is Lagats as it was in route to a 355 last mile. But Farah shows some serious speed with that 50.89 400. Also, what do you think Lagat could run for a 400 right now judging from that 54s last lap?
i haven't seen bernie's race yet ( difficult to get impressed in such a slow race despite fast last mile )
i'll have to look at it later, but based on general consensus that he's maybe found a fraction of basic speed, i'd go with prelim of
51.0 / 1'47.8 ->
3'31.99
4'48.67
7'25.72
12'49.59
26'51.68
( ignore the 10k as he only trains for 5k/1500 )
i think he's close to mo's speed ( which i still believe is much closer to 51.0 than 50.0 ), but you'd have to give mo the edge
I think Farah's last quarter was far more impressive.
I don't think Gebrewhit, Jelian etc have problems
with a last mile of 3:55 off of a jog.
Bernie in 12:49 kind of like shape?!??!
No way, 12;54 at best. How does you grinder come up with this?!?!?!?!?
'factor in that it was listed as a 350y track or ~ 320m, it wouda been much tighter than a standard 400 track worth probably about 1/2s handicap for 800m meaning his time woud be in region of
~ 1'42.0 - 1'42.5'
He didn't look like a 1:42xx runner in the 72 trials what happened there?
do some research before spouting nonsense
he's talking very confidently about breaking his 12'53pb if he gets the right pace
& i doubt he's thinking about shaving a tenth or 2 off it but demolishing it
a 12'49 woud still only get him about 6th on the 5k list for past 1y & that doesn't include mo/rupp who haven't chased the clock, so don't delude yourself it's any special clocking, especially for a guy of this quality
ukathleticscoach wrote:
'factor in that it was listed as a 350y track or ~ 320m, it wouda been much tighter than a standard 400 track worth probably about 1/2s handicap for 800m meaning his time woud be in region of
~ 1'42.0 - 1'42.5'
He didn't look like a 1:42xx runner in the 72 trials what happened there?
seeing as he retired end-'65 i suspect you are dreaming
Lagat is a notorious bragger. I don't think he can brake
12:55.
ventolin^3 wrote:
smallrunner4life wrote:so Mo could definitely run sub 49.5 for an open 400, of course as long as he works on his start out of blocks. Sub 49 for sure with a ~35m rolling start.i'm not even sure about 50-flat let alone 49.5
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=1373258&thread=1373258Hicham said 49-50 seconds for 400m and 1:45 for 800m. I then asked his coach the same questions-he said he has run 48 for 400m
mo is not going to have anywhere close to hicham's speed otherwise with his far better endurance ( 26'46 ) he woud also be threatening 3'26
I wouldnt be surprised at all if Hicham did 26'46 at his peak, if he attempted a 10000.
ElG would have been the first sub-26 guy in the world (aided by doping though!!!)
He didn't look like a 1:42xx runner in the 72 trials what happened there?[/quote]
seeing as he retired end-'65 i suspect you are dreaming[/quote]
Thought you were talking about Ryun
yyy wrote:
the only one being able to go 1:42 in the 60s was Snell.
he ran 1:44.3 on grass which is worth 1.43 sec per lap
(Mondo track) leaving him with approximately 1:41.5.
solo!!
Where on earth did you pluck the figure of 1.43 per laps conversion from grass to mondo? Rofl.
According to some of you old guys all the best runners were in the 60s and their times were superior to everyone since, or at least until the late 90s. This is such an exaggeration its quite funny.
There is going to be some differential between improvement in track surfaces, but this alone doesn't make Snell a 1:41.5 man in 62 or Ryun a 3:24 man in 67. You forget that there are improvements in training techniques, nutrition, physiology, shoes, etc. These will all account for some improvements in later generations. Its called evolution.
By saying that Snell is a 1:41 man and Ryun a 3:24 one, then you are also saying that they would have been at least a second faster still with improvements in those other areas. That leaves them way above all the athletes that came after them in the following 40 years, and we haven't even touched on the use of peds by some of them.
The idea that guys in the 60s were that much more advanced or talented than those that followed just doesnt ring true.
Athletes adapt to their environment. Those running regularly on dirt would be used to it and their bodies adjusted to it. If you take same athlete and put him on synthetic, he's going to take a while to adjust and the improvements would be smaller than a lot of people think. If you take someone who trains all the time on synthetic and then put him on dirt, his performance will drop, quite alot, because he isn't used to it. If you take a 1:46 guy of today and make him train and run on good dirt for a year or so, then his body will adapt to the new conditions and his times will get pretty close to where he was on dirt, all other things being equal.
In order to run 1:41.5 you've still got to move your legs quick enough to do so, never mind what surface it is on. Snell didnt have the 400 ability to get down to that time on any surface. And his 3:54 MILE doesnt make up for it in the endurance stakes either.
Reality please wrote:According to some of you old guys all the best runners were in the 60s and their times were superior to everyone since, or at least until the late 90s. This is such an exaggeration its quite funny
no
guys like snell, ryun, keino, hayes, hines, tommie smith, evans & of course beamon ( who's jump converts to an at worst 8.65 for sea-level with 0 wind & probably nearer 8.70 ) were talents comparable to or better than anyone we have seen since - at least until bolt/tyson/blake/mj came along for the sprints - certainly sprinters like hayes weren't definitely bettered until this millenium
There is going to be some differential between improvement in track surfaces, but this alone doesn't make Snell a 1:41.5 man in 62 or Ryun a 3:24 man in 67
i give snell a 1'42.5 - 1'43.0
ryun stays at 3'24 & probably 1'40-flat
You forget that there are improvements in training techniques, nutrition, physiology, shoes, etc. These will all account for some improvements in later generations. Its called evolution
you forget the talent base
if the later generations don't have the talent level of the prior ones, improvement in training techniques/equipment/nutrition/etc still may not be enough for them to surpass them
By saying that Snell is a 1:41 man and Ryun a 3:24 one, then you are also saying that they would have been at least a second faster still with improvements in those other areas. That leaves them way above all the athletes that came after them in the following 40 years, and we haven't even touched on the use of peds by some of them
learn again
the talent of latter generations is not necessarily as good as former
for instance - unto late '70s, the standard of 1500 & 5k/10k running was rubbish compared to '60s with only bayi anywhere close to ryun/keino/snell but still inferior
the 5k/10k was a joke & only until rono came along did we have a guy comparable to clarke
The idea that guys in the 60s were that much more advanced or talented than those that followed just doesnt ring true
you clearly haven't a clue about the '60s guys
Athletes adapt to their environment. Those running regularly on dirt would be used to it and their bodies adjusted to it. If you take same athlete and put him on synthetic, he's going to take a while to adjust and the improvements would be smaller than a lot of people think. If you take someone who trains all the time on synthetic and then put him on dirt, his performance will drop, quite alot, because he isn't used to it. If you take a 1:46 guy of today and make him train and run on good dirt for a year or so, then his body will adapt to the new conditions and his times will get pretty close to where he was on dirt, all other things being equal
utter nonsense
what was doubell's dirt-track pb before he ran 1'44.3wr ???
what was kiprugut's dirt-track pb before he almost front-ran the win in same race in 1'44.5 off a suicidal start of 24-flat ???
what was keino's dirt-track 1500pb before he ran 3'34.9 ???
elite guys put on synthetics from dirt ran outstanding new pbs or even wrs
In order to run 1:41.5 you've still got to move your legs quick enough to do so, never mind what surface it is on
see doubell
& he was no snell
Snell didnt have the 400 ability to get down to that time on any surface. And his 3:54 MILE doesnt make up for it in the endurance stakes either
that's nonsense
snell probably had about mid/high-46 speed on a synthetic
his 400 split is listed as 50.5, which was probably high-49 on a synthetic, which he said was too fast but he still held on to smash the wr
mid/high-46 is plenty fast enough to have run a 1'42.0 - 1'42.5 with his mile wr endurance to hold on
qwerty12345 wrote:
Nope, can you?
There are probably several mile/1500 types that can go around 51 at the end of a 14:10 5k. And I'd bet Gebrhiwet and Alamirew.
Ari pekka_ wrote:I wouldnt be surprised at all if Hicham did 26'46 at his peak, if he attempted a 10000.
no chance
at his 3'26wr peak, even if his endurance lasted "perfectly" to 10k off 1500 training, he woudn't have been close to 27
prelim line of fit for him then is
47.6 / 1'42.8 ->
2'11.6
3'25.7
4'42.2
7'19.9
12'48.1
27'11.2
assuming you run 7:29 and 12:48, your grinder can only come with 27:11. Utter nonsense. study the sport b4 you post.
learn something.
eh ???
where do you come up with rubbish like 7'29/12'48 -> 27'11 ???
7'29 / 12'48 ->26'29.4
go look up a guy called tergat
oops typo. Meant 7:19 from your response to Ari-Pekka.
Nevertheless your grinder is off.
you are clueless about the sport
name one sub-3'30 guy who ever went 27'30 in same season
ventolin^3 wrote:
Ari pekka_ wrote:I wouldnt be surprised at all if Hicham did 26'46 at his peak, if he attempted a 10000.no chance
at his 3'26wr peak, even if his endurance lasted "perfectly" to 10k off 1500 training, he woudn't have been close to 27
prelim line of fit for him then is
47.6 / 1'42.8 ->
2'11.6
3'25.7
4'42.2
7'19.9
12'48.1
27'11.2
Still 100% sure that Hicham would go below 27. Likely 26.30-40ish.
You likely overestimate his speed, and the fact that he was extremely economical at 1500/mile pace, and a aerobic runner type. He would also be able to do below 1 hour for the half marathon with specific preparation.