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.
So you have nothing to say about the point that Bikila was considerably slower than the top women today, even though he trained just as hard. Brainless goes with pedantry in your case.
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?
His "demonstrably poor performance" in 1960 was a world's best as well as being an Olympic gold medal performance. You are truly ridiculous. But what you avoid is addressing the point of why he was so much slower - even 4 years later at Tokyo - than the fastest women today, when he easily trained as hard and when we know many of the best runners today are doping, including the present women's world record-holder.
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.
Your ignorance of doping in sport is no excuse. I know doping is clandestine and exists and has existed in sport, also in the '60s, and long before. As far back as the St. Louis 1904 Olympic marathon, runners were taking strichnine sulfate. It should go without saying that doping has existed non-stop since then, except for doping deniers like yourself.
You have still failed to suggest any reasons for Bikila's 3-minute improvement between Rome 1960 and Tokyo 1964. If it was not shoes, and not doping, then how is it even possible for a runner to improve by 3 WHOLE MINUTES on what was a "WORLD BEST"? This is an intelligence test and you have already failed twice, just in this thread. Care to fail again? In baseball, three strikes and your out.
His "demonstrably poor performance" in 1960 was a world's best as well as being an Olympic gold medal performance. You are truly ridiculous. But what you avoid is addressing the point of why he was so much slower - even 4 years later at Tokyo - than the fastest women today, when he easily trained as hard and when we know many of the best runners today are doping, including the present women's world record-holder.
And yet, Bikila was able to beat his 1960 world's best by THREE WHOLE MINUTES!!! How is that even possible if it not from the shoes or drugs? Your silence is deafening.
Once again, your ignorance is simply no excuse. As everyone else can see, I did not avoid addressing the point of why Bikila was slower than women some 60+ years later. Quite the opposite of avoiding to address it, I addressed it head on, saying there must by a half a dozen reasons, if not a dozen or more, why women are faster today, than a time in 1960, which is demonstrably slow, by both Bikila's and 1960s' standards: things like temperature, humidity, wind, race strategy, differences in training preparation, amateruism versus professionalism, advances in shoe technology (or simply wearing shoes), cumulative race course elevation/descent, pacemakers, water/fueling during the race, etc., just to non-exhaustively name a few.
If you want to speculate and hypothesize that a drug exists that can make any distance runner run the marathon faster than their best, I remain prepared to evaluate all of the supporting marathon performance data you can provide.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
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?
His "demonstrably poor performance" in 1960 was a world's best as well as being an Olympic gold medal performance. You are truly ridiculous. But what you avoid is addressing the point of why he was so much slower - even 4 years later at Tokyo - than the fastest women today, when he easily trained as hard and when we know many of the best runners today are doping, including the present women's world record-holder.
The simple answer is that the East African women runners of today are using much better peds than were likely available to Bilike. He didn't have access to EPO, and he might not have had access to blood doping, at least not in 1960 (his much faster performance in 1964 could be explained by him having started blood doping).
And of course, you deny the difference that shoes, nutrition, training refinements make. The fact that he could run faster than everybody else in 1960 barefoot, shows how little advantage the shoes back then gave, and may even have been a disadvantage.
Even in the unlikely event that he wasn't being given the best peds available in 1960, it was well-known back then that all the East African distance runners were consuming a herbal plant called the Ethiopian Yam, which is now classified as a ped.
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.
I just check the respective times and see that your 6 minutes are wrong. 5 minutes is correct.
For you 2:03:59 is a minute faster than 2:04:00. This is the level of all your "calculations".
If a number is involved, you fail. Always, ALWAYS. Do you know why?
Not saying you are much better when no number is involved...
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.
Your ignorance of doping in sport is no excuse. I know doping is clandestine and exists and has existed in sport, also in the '60s, and long before. As far back as the St. Louis 1904 Olympic marathon, runners were taking strichnine sulfate. It should go without saying that doping has existed non-stop since then, except for doping deniers like yourself.
You have still failed to suggest any reasons for Bikila's 3-minute improvement between Rome 1960 and Tokyo 1964. If it was not shoes, and not doping, then how is it even possible for a runner to improve by 3 WHOLE MINUTES on what was a "WORLD BEST"? This is an intelligence test and you have already failed twice, just in this thread. Care to fail again? In baseball, three strikes and your out.
So why are runners not using strychnine (a poison) today? Care to explain the drugs being used by marathon runners in 1960? EPO hadn't been developed as a drug and there are no known examples of blood-doping by distance runners then. And if they were using drugs why were they so much slower than women runners today? Were they so lacking in talent or did drugs have no effect (as you usually argue). I think you've had your 3 strikes.
The world mile record improved 4 seconds between 1954 and 1958. It wasn't shoes or drugs. Yet the marathon record couldn't improve 3 minutes in 4 years unless it was shoes or drugs. Bikila wasn't the only runner who improved by that degree in those years - and they all wore shoes. So what drugs were they on - and why would their supposed doping make them far slower than the fastest women today, despite training as hard? Your doping denial makes you reason like an idiot.