Laura Muir 5000m in 14:49.12!! INDOORS

abraham chebii wrote:

jjjjjj wrote:

a 12 second drop in the 1500m from age 20 to 23 at that level is astonishing. No non-doped woman has ever run 3:55 before. Laura Muir did not exactly look like she had the potential to be an all-time great when she ran 4:07 at 20.

... Muir has become an all-time great three years after being nothing special, even adjusting for her age....

Only someone from the UK would think there's nothing to see here.

Of course the athlete who ran the fastest time in the world last year is "astonishing", "astounding", "incredible", whatever other descriptor adequately denotes the reaction to the pinnacle performance by the entire human race in a given year.

What about this progression? One year older than Laura Muir,

2016-43.03

2015-43.48

2014-44.38

2013.45.09

2012-46.43

I hope he is clean but he might not be.

Looking at that clip, if she ran like that in a Russian or Polish or Bulgarian or Belarusian or Kazakhstani or Ukrainian uniform we would all be screaming "dirty doper."

Funnily enough she looks a lot like a university student that did work experience at my Father's construction company about 10 years ago (part of her civil engineering practical requirements). I'm pretty sure that she broke off her relationship and ran off to France to be a nun (true story).

calculo wrote:

kalhsruhe coming up

at their peak, i'd expect obiri to beat young pasty-face, but it woud be close

i think the sprite, if she ignores obiri like a an assumed heroine of her's in paula was, like with gunning it from bang, pasty-face coud go

8'24

( someone try the lines of fit for 3k from page or so before )

( demolishing pavey's surprisingly impressive NR of 8'31 )

& worth probably 8'18 outdoors

she really is capable currently of running fastest ever western world 3k...

bump

8'26+ was far from ideal run

she had to run wide most of last bend to pass some lapped gals costing her at least an 8'25+

also, no drafting at all for her in 1st km

splits not ideal for her at : ~ 2'50 / 2'50/ 2'46 with a blistering 61+ kick including passing lapped gals

if she'd got her perfectly even paced race with drafting in 1st km as well & no wide running, she certainly wouda got her 8'24 & perhaps even 8'22/8'23

either her 5k endurance is a little better than the 14'40 I estimated &/or her basic speed is quicker than estimated indoor 55-flat ( or 1'57/3'56 indoors )

Calculo are we looking at the first woman who will break 14 in the 5000m?

leyton wrote:

Calculo are we looking at the first woman who will break 14 in the 5000m?

How would he know?

Trainspotting 3

Had to come straight to the last page, short on time.

Has it been fully established yet with irrefutable evidence by the LR experts that she's a drug cheat?

jjjjjj wrote:

... Laura Muir did not exactly look like she had the potential to be an all-time great when she ran 4:07 at 20.

... Muir has become an all-time great three years after being nothing special, even adjusting for her age. ...

Less than a year after taking her on at age 19 her coach, Andy Young, DM'd a friend on Twitter to say he had a girl on his hands with the speed of Kelly Holmes and the endurance of Paula Radcliffe.

Why would he say that about a girl with a PB of 4:07? Clearly he knew then that she's a huge talent and wasn't yet meeting her potential at that time. Laura herself has recently said it took her a while to learn how to really push herself in training and get the best out of herself.

So, maybe she was really a 4:03/4:04 lass at age 20? Would 4:04 -> 4:00 -> 3:58 -> 3:55 be more to your liking? :p

Haha, classic, how to turn a 4:07 in to a 4:03.

By any chance wrote:

4:07 -> 3:55 is not equivalent to 3:38 -> 3:26. It would be more like 3:41 -> 3:30 (taking into account the quicker times for men). She ran that 4;07 at 20. She ran 3:55 at 23. Seems like reasonable progression.

4:07 -> 3:55 is nothing like a male going 3:38-3:26.

A woman has run 5 seconds faster than Muir, so this is like saying there is a male that could run 3:21. Even with all the drugs in the world no man has ever walked the earth that could run 3:21.

In terms of percentage:

4:07 -> 3:55 = 4.9%

Equalising men's and women's world records:

4:07= 3:41

So 4.9% improvement:

3:41 -> 3:30

Do we think that an improvement from 3:41 to 3:30 across 4 years (from a teen to an adult) is impossible? Does Letsrun believe that all 3:30 runners are born running 3:30? That there is no possibility of improvement past the time you ran in your freshman year? 5% improvements are impossible?

I think Letsrun is stupid.

Lets not run but complain .com wrote:

Do we think that an improvement from 3:41 to 3:30 across 4 years (from a teen to an adult) is impossible? Does Letsrun believe that all 3:30 runners are born running 3:30? That there is no possibility of improvement past the time you ran in your freshman year? 5% improvements are impossible?

LetsRun thinks all top-class senior athletes were teen prodigies.

LetsRun thinks that all athletes should develop and progress at the same rate.

LetsRun doesn't think it possible that something just clicks in an athlete's mentality and/or approach to training/racing.

They're very wrong on all three counts.

El Classico. wrote:

Haha, classic, how to turn a 4:07 in to a 4:03.

So, you subscribe to the view that runners are getting 100% out of themselves throughout their careers, even at a young age?

Big Mistake wrote:

El Classico. wrote:

Haha, classic, how to turn a 4:07 in to a 4:03.

So, you subscribe to the view that runners are getting 100% out of themselves throughout their careers, even at a young age?

WTF does that have to with a post that turns a 4:07 in to a 4:03?

Anyway, it should be reduced to 4:00 because she had a headache on the day she ran 4:07 and there was a wind and she ran a couple of the bends wide and she had a reduced warm up because she got held up in traffic and they had to hang around getting cold at the start because they were behind schedule and...where does it end?

El Classico. wrote:

WTF does that have to with a post that turns a 4:07 in to a 4:03?

Everything.

The poster was saying that maybe she was capable of more at age 20. Perhaps the reason why her coach was talking her up so much to others despite her 'only' having a 4:07 PB?

If that's true she wouldn't be the first athlete (and won't be the last) who isn't getting the most out of herself at a given age due to whatever factors.

Big Mistake wrote:

El Classico. wrote:

WTF does that have to with a post that turns a 4:07 in to a 4:03?

Everything.

The poster was saying that maybe she was capable of more at age 20. Perhaps the reason why her coach was talking her up so much to others despite her 'only' having a 4:07 PB?

If that's true she wouldn't be the first athlete (and won't be the last) who isn't getting the most out of herself at a given age due to whatever factors.

So WTF does that have to do with "So, you subscribe to the view that runners are getting 100% out of themselves throughout their careers, even at a young age?" and "a post that turns a 4:07 in to a 4:03". FMD.

She has never shown Kelly Holmes speed or until now any semblance of Paula Radcliffe endurance.

jjjjj wrote:

She has never shown Kelly Holmes speed or until now any semblance of Paula Radcliffe endurance.

Really? She's 2.7 seconds quicker than Kelly at 1500 and has 3 times run faster than Kelly ever did at the distance.

leyton wrote:

Calculo are we looking at the first woman who will break 14 in the 5000m?

no

ayana couda run 13'57/13'58 in her rio 10k shape

this wee lass coud run 14'25 outdoors this year, but 5k is far from her best distance

calculo wrote:

leyton wrote:

Calculo are we looking at the first woman who will break 14 in the 5000m?

no

ayana couda run 13'57/13'58 in her rio 10k shape

this wee lass coud run 14'25 outdoors this year, but 5k is far from her best distance

28s is a big drop when you are running at the limit unless you are doping.