No proof, no links. This guy actually knows nothing. Complete moron. A very jealous moron.
I actually don’t think anything he’s posted is unreasonable or inaccurate. It’s simply based on limited information.
CL ran that low 22 two years ago when his 400 PR was a full second slower than his 46.3 PR last year and almost two seconds slower with the mostly 48s he ran all season two years ago.
Moreover, all we know is that the 21.8 w a running start was a “workout PR.” We don’t know what CL was actually capable of on the day fresh, rested, in a much better lane, and with competition. We have no clue. It’s incomplete information, but he certainly wasn’t “all out.”
So everyone is guessing. I stand by my thoughts that CL is capable of 21.5-21.8, right now without focusing exclusively on trying to work on his 100/200 “PRs.”
I actually don’t think anything he’s posted is unreasonable or inaccurate. It’s simply based on limited information.
CL ran that low 22 two years ago when his 400 PR was a full second slower than his 46.3 PR last year and almost two seconds slower with the mostly 48s he ran all season two years ago.
Moreover, all we know is that the 21.8 w a running start was a “workout PR.” We don’t know what CL was actually capable of on the day fresh, rested, in a much better lane, and with competition. We have no clue. It’s incomplete information, but he certainly wasn’t “all out.”
So everyone is guessing. I stand by my thoughts that CL is capable of 21.5-21.8, right now without focusing exclusively on trying to work on his 100/200 “PRs.”
You're a bit slow. They are simply further examples that no one can count their chickens, no matter how much they are favoured to win. That applied to those athletes just the same as it applies to Lutkenhaus.
Don't attack me for your failure to stay on topic. Your examples are irrelevant to the subject of this thread. If you continue attacking me and or going off topic, you will be reported.
You aren't being attacked, you're being shown that you can't understand an argument. The examples I gave are very relevant to the point I was responding to about Lutkenhaus. Claims that a runner has "gold for the taking" has been shown to be false with examples of other favorites who have failed to win when it was similarly there "for the taking".
You missed the point. Of course. Nothing is anyone's "for the taking" unless they actually take it. Often they don't. Jakob in Paris.
You’re a weird Kiwi w an axe to grind for some reason man. Jakob in what, the 1500? 5000? 10,000? Jakob hasn’t taken anything lately. Hocker took him down in the 1500 at the Olympics and then won 5000 gold last year at the WC. Where was Jakob?
I will take the other side of that bet and say Jakob’s best form is in the rear view mirror. He maxed out his body for a lot of years, and it’s very unlikely he’ll come back all the way from that Achilles surgery.
If you can’t look at that CL video and see that he was neither fresh nor all out nor in a competitive race situation from a good lane, then you are more disingenuous than I previously thought. Was the coach’s prescription for the day to warmup, do drills, then run an all out 200 from lane 5 with some teammates who get a head start? Is CL training exclusively to be the best 200/400 runner he can be?
He simply ripped a fast 200 at the end of an 800 workout, very controlled, which I’m sure gave him a ton of confidence. I’m sure CL in his mind knows he can run 45.xx for 400 this year if he cared to. I’m absolutely certain your “sprinting opinion” is completely worthless to him.
You haven't understood what I was saying. Jakob was the favorite in the Paris 1500. He failed to medal in his main event. Hocker failed to qualify for the 1500 final in the last wc because he ran like an idiot. He was also the favorite for the US indoors 1500 title and finished out of the places. This says that nothing is certain in sports and not when it is claimed that "the gold is his for the taking", as it has been for Lutkenhaus. He may take it. He may not.
He ran 46.30 at 16 the same day as a 1:47 and five months before running 1:42.27, so who in their right mind would not think he is a sub-46 runner now at 17 with faster workouts??
And if he is a sub-46 guy and runs 21.8 in a workout, by what stretch of the imagination could he not run mid 21 or better FAT right now? He hasn't done it yet because they don't race him at 200m indoors before a world indoor championship. I would bet that he will run at least one 400m outdoors, so we'll see. We may well also see a sub-4 this year. No one knows what will happen in any world indoor race that is physical with Europeans in the mix, but with Josh Hoey injured, there's no one with his current ability in the field.
21.8 is only 22-mid out of the blocks. Nothing about that says he can carve a full second off that. You understand nothing about sprints if you think that is feasible.
It has been well established that in a sprint the difference between a flying 100m and from the blocks is around 0.8 of a second. This has been demonstrated in relay times. It will be similar over 200m, which is also a sprint.
Earlier in the thread you wrote, "21.8 flying start is 22.3 from blocks."
You were never good with numbers. Or words. Or anything.
The conversion was based on a relay performance by Tommie Smith, the 200 winner at Mexico, whose time was 19.86. You know nothing about sports. Or anything.
But you avoid the fact that Lutkenhaus's rolling start time means he's a lot slower than that time, whether 22.3 at best or more likely 22.6 FAT.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Earlier in the thread you wrote, "21.8 flying start is 22.3 from blocks."
You were never good with numbers. Or words. Or anything.
The conversion was based on a relay performance by Tommie Smith, the 200 winner at Mexico, whose time was 19.86. You know nothing about sports. Or anything.
But you avoid the fact that Lutkenhaus's rolling start time means he's a lot slower than that time, whether 22.3 at best or more likely 22.6 FAT.
Moron, you claimed 0.5 and 0.8 were the standard conversion. Which one is it?
Earlier in the thread you wrote, "21.8 flying start is 22.3 from blocks."
You were never good with numbers. Or words. Or anything.
The conversion was based on a relay performance by Tommie Smith, the 200 winner at Mexico, whose time was 19.86. You know nothing about sports. Or anything.
But you avoid the fact that Lutkenhaus's rolling start time means he's a lot slower than that time, whether 22.3 at best or more likely 22.6 FAT.
It’s silly to try to say he’s a lot slower than a time he did in a workout.
400m in 55.8 200m in 26.3 300m in 38.9 200m in 25.3 200m in 24.8 200m in 24.6 200m in 21.8
He’s AT LEAST a second faster. I’ve done similar workouts.
The conversion was based on a relay performance by Tommie Smith, the 200 winner at Mexico, whose time was 19.86. You know nothing about sports. Or anything.
But you avoid the fact that Lutkenhaus's rolling start time means he's a lot slower than that time, whether 22.3 at best or more likely 22.6 FAT.
Moron, you claimed 0.5 and 0.8 were the standard conversion. Which one is it?
I know more about this sport than you ever will.
All conversions are estimates. They aren't exact and the same for all. What can easily be estimated is your lack of intelligence. So what do you estimate 21.8 rolling start to be FAT, which is the point and not your trivial nit-picking?
The conversion was based on a relay performance by Tommie Smith, the 200 winner at Mexico, whose time was 19.86. You know nothing about sports. Or anything.
But you avoid the fact that Lutkenhaus's rolling start time means he's a lot slower than that time, whether 22.3 at best or more likely 22.6 FAT.
It’s silly to try to say he’s a lot slower than a time he did in a workout.
400m in 55.8 200m in 26.3 300m in 38.9 200m in 25.3 200m in 24.8 200m in 24.6 200m in 21.8
He’s AT LEAST a second faster. I’ve done similar workouts.
You aren't a world class runner. Your experiences aren't indicative. He may be faster but sprint times aren't subject to the same diminution in performance as distance times will be through fatigue. He was pleased with his 21.8. There is no suggestion that he was slower because of his work out or that he even claimed he would be faster. Your argument presupposes that if a md runner ran 21-flat rolling start in a work-out they would also be a full second faster - 20-flat. Nope.
If he ran the equivalent of 22-mid FAT in a work out I would concede he could probably run sub-22, 21-high FAT. But nothing suggests 21.5 FAT or faster.
It’s silly to try to say he’s a lot slower than a time he did in a workout.
400m in 55.8 200m in 26.3 300m in 38.9 200m in 25.3 200m in 24.8 200m in 24.6 200m in 21.8
He’s AT LEAST a second faster. I’ve done similar workouts.
You aren't a world class runner. Your experiences aren't indicative. He may be faster but sprint times aren't subject to the same diminution in performance as distance times will be through fatigue. He was pleased with his 21.8. There is no suggestion that he was slower because of his work out or that he even claimed he would be faster. Your argument presupposes that if a md runner ran 21-flat rolling start in a work-out they would also be a full second faster - 20-flat. Nope.
If he ran the equivalent of 22-mid FAT in a work out I would concede he could probably run sub-22, 21-high FAT. But nothing suggests 21.5 FAT or faster.
I wasn’t a world class runner. But I was a national class runner. A lot closer to Cooper than you are to me, I would bet.
You are speaking on something you literally have no lived experience in.
“He was pleased with his 21.8. There is no suggestion that he was slower because of his work out or that he even claimed he would be faster.”
He was pleased because he closed his workout strong. The same way he would be pleased with 47.5 at the end of a workout or 1:49, neither would be PRs, but both could be strong indications of fitness depending on the workout.
You aren't a world class runner. Your experiences aren't indicative. He may be faster but sprint times aren't subject to the same diminution in performance as distance times will be through fatigue. He was pleased with his 21.8. There is no suggestion that he was slower because of his work out or that he even claimed he would be faster. Your argument presupposes that if a md runner ran 21-flat rolling start in a work-out they would also be a full second faster - 20-flat. Nope.
If he ran the equivalent of 22-mid FAT in a work out I would concede he could probably run sub-22, 21-high FAT. But nothing suggests 21.5 FAT or faster.
I wasn’t a world class runner. But I was a national class runner. A lot closer to Cooper than you are to me, I would bet.
You are speaking on something you literally have no lived experience in.
“He was pleased with his 21.8. There is no suggestion that he was slower because of his work out or that he even claimed he would be faster.”
He was pleased because he closed his workout strong. The same way he would be pleased with 47.5 at the end of a workout or 1:49, neither would be PRs, but both could be strong indications of fitness depending on the workout.
That is your interpretation of why he was pleased with 21.8. He didn't say that. Nor is a 200 comparable to a good 400 or 800 time at the end of a workout, as those are both subject to endurance requirements and fatigue in a way the 200, as a sprint, isn't. But even if he "finished strong", as you say, that doesn't indicate how much faster he might be - he has yet to run below 22-secs - and it certainly doesn't suggest he could run 20.8 flying start, as you claim.
You’re a weird Kiwi w an axe to grind for some reason man. Jakob in what, the 1500? 5000? 10,000? Jakob hasn’t taken anything lately. Hocker took him down in the 1500 at the Olympics and then won 5000 gold last year at the WC. Where was Jakob?
I will take the other side of that bet and say Jakob’s best form is in the rear view mirror. He maxed out his body for a lot of years, and it’s very unlikely he’ll come back all the way from that Achilles surgery.
If you can’t look at that CL video and see that he was neither fresh nor all out nor in a competitive race situation from a good lane, then you are more disingenuous than I previously thought. Was the coach’s prescription for the day to warmup, do drills, then run an all out 200 from lane 5 with some teammates who get a head start? Is CL training exclusively to be the best 200/400 runner he can be?
He simply ripped a fast 200 at the end of an 800 workout, very controlled, which I’m sure gave him a ton of confidence. I’m sure CL in his mind knows he can run 45.xx for 400 this year if he cared to. I’m absolutely certain your “sprinting opinion” is completely worthless to him.
You haven't understood what I was saying. Jakob was the favorite in the Paris 1500. He failed to medal in his main event. Hocker failed to qualify for the 1500 final in the last wc because he ran like an idiot. He was also the favorite for the US indoors 1500 title and finished out of the places. This says that nothing is certain in sports and not when it is claimed that "the gold is his for the taking", as it has been for Lutkenhaus. He may take it. He may not.
Ok, my apologies, I thought you were referring to Jakob in the upcoming world track championships, but they aren’t in Paris (cycling is).
Still disingenuous though man. I take your overall point, but Hocker doesn’t prioritize indoor. He’s ALWAYS much fitter outdoor. And he did make a technical mistake, but, of course he responded strongly by taking gold in his not-primary event.
You just don’t have as much information from that CL workout as you think you do. It’s obvious the way you are responding to everyone. Just because CL felt great about it and noted it as a PR doesn’t tell us anything. The guy seldom runs the 200, as his one and only official time tells us, a time that was run when his 400 PR was over a second slower than it is currently. You don’t have enough information to confidently and categorically state that CL isn’t capable of running 21.5. You just don’t. I think that’s exactly what he’s capable of. Pretty close. And I think he knows it.
We will see. He’s still very young and inexperienced.
A flying 200 at the end of a workout is a flying 200 at the end of the workout. I don't think it says much in terms of what he can do in a 200m race. As a mid-mid-distance runner I could routinely run 23.5 in a flying 200 at the end of workouts, but my 100m best FAT was 11.9 something. I dont think my 100 time indicated much about what I could do in a flying 200 in an 800m workout, and I dont think my 200m intervals would say much about what I could do in the flat 100m. The flying 200m also typically didn't really tell me much about my 800m fitness - whether i was in 1:51 shape or 1:55 shape, my flying 200s would typically be in the mid 23s
A flying 200 at the end of a workout is a flying 200 at the end of the workout. I don't think it says much in terms of what he can do in a 200m race. As a mid-mid-distance runner I could routinely run 23.5 in a flying 200 at the end of workouts, but my 100m best FAT was 11.9 something. I dont think my 100 time indicated much about what I could do in a flying 200 in an 800m workout, and I dont think my 200m intervals would say much about what I could do in the flat 100m. The flying 200m also typically didn't really tell me much about my 800m fitness - whether i was in 1:51 shape or 1:55 shape, my flying 200s would typically be in the mid 23s
If you’ve read all my posts, you’d know we are saying the same thing. Especially your first two sentences which are exactly correct. We don’t have enough information to confidently opine. All I can see is that he was very controlled on not completely fresh legs and not all out through the line in lane one. Truly, this flying 200 neither tells us what’s he capable of nor what he isn’t capable of. I just find references to his one-and-only 200 race in 22-low two years ago as a reference point to be silly.
You aren't a world class runner. Your experiences aren't indicative. He may be faster but sprint times aren't subject to the same diminution in performance as distance times will be through fatigue. He was pleased with his 21.8. There is no suggestion that he was slower because of his work out or that he even claimed he would be faster. Your argument presupposes that if a md runner ran 21-flat rolling start in a work-out they would also be a full second faster - 20-flat. Nope.
If he ran the equivalent of 22-mid FAT in a work out I would concede he could probably run sub-22, 21-high FAT. But nothing suggests 21.5 FAT or faster.
I wasn’t a world class runner. But I was a national class runner. A lot closer to Cooper than you are to me, I would bet.
You are speaking on something you literally have no lived experience in.
“He was pleased with his 21.8. There is no suggestion that he was slower because of his work out or that he even claimed he would be faster.”
He was pleased because he closed his workout strong. The same way he would be pleased with 47.5 at the end of a workout or 1:49, neither would be PRs, but both could be strong indications of fitness depending on the workout.
I wasn’t a world class runner. But I was a national class runner. A lot closer to Cooper than you are to me, I would bet.
You are speaking on something you literally have no lived experience in.
“He was pleased with his 21.8. There is no suggestion that he was slower because of his work out or that he even claimed he would be faster.”
He was pleased because he closed his workout strong. The same way he would be pleased with 47.5 at the end of a workout or 1:49, neither would be PRs, but both could be strong indications of fitness depending on the workout.
That is your interpretation of why he was pleased with 21.8. He didn't say that. Nor is a 200 comparable to a good 400 or 800 time at the end of a workout, as those are both subject to endurance requirements and fatigue in a way the 200, as a sprint, isn't. But even if he "finished strong", as you say, that doesn't indicate how much faster he might be - he has yet to run below 22-secs - and it certainly doesn't suggest he could run 20.8 flying start, as you claim.
Silly again.
Yeah, an 800m at the end is a signal of endurance, but a 200m at the end is subject to lactic acid buffering.
For him to run a 200m PR after 1500m work at ~800m pace, he would have had to buffer out all lactic.
1. Anyone who pays attention just knows this. Bolt splitting 8.6, Carl splitting 8.9, etc. Try following the sport before you yap.
2. There was an analysis of 100m PBs and best 100m anchor splits for a set of elite runners. 0.8-0.9s difference, with very little variation.
(Finally, do you think Cooper accelerates as well as an 100m sprinter? If his block start only adds 1.0s to a flying time that will be very good for him.)
No proof, no links. This guy actually knows nothing. Complete moron. A very jealous moron.