Nijel Amos 1:41.89!

Deanouk wrote:

fast track Rieti wrote:

little bit more research:

Nixon Kiprotich - 1992 silver medalist 800m - has raced also three times in Rieti. Big surprise that all three resulted in a seasons best?

These were the only athletes I have checked.

You can do the same with Monaco and other tracks for specific individuals!

Kiprop ran 7 times at Monaco and set season bests on 5 occasions.

Kiplagat ran 3 times at Monaco over 1500m and set season bests on all 3 occasions.

Amos has run 800m at Monaco 4 times and all 4 were season bests.

Yes, Monaco has seen super fast times from many athletes, much more as expected (the 2019 season is not over, so Amos has 3 SB from Monaco at the moment). Same as Rieti.

Why do you choose to list examples from Monaco? Why not Cagliari? Seville? Helsinki? New York?

Some runners who have set on most (or all) occasions a SB while running in Rieti: Rudisha, Kipketer, Mulaudzi, Bungei, Tanui (8 times out of 10), Kiprotich, Barbosa. There are many more. But that's completely normal for you, right? Alone 4 lifetime PBs in Coe's sub 3:30 - but that's also no argument that Rieti has seen more fast times as expected, correct? Dozens and dozens of runners who have set some lifetime PB in Rieti, that's normal for any track, correct? Steve Cram's comment - Cram is talking nonsense, correct? Number 3 on the list of sub 1:45 performances (behind Zurich and Monaco!) despite only relatively thin fields and an existance only from the early 1980s until 2015 and no other occasions like Championships on the track - nothing special, correct? 6 of the 30 fastest 800m times in history - nothing special, because the current WR was set somewhere else, correct? 8 WRs over 7 distances (2 still standing) from a very late positioned 2nd rate meeting - that's what we all would expect, correct? But for sure the field events can't take some advantage from this very late (perfectly positioned, for sure) date in the calendar - makes just sense, correct? Coe running something like 2.5 seconds faster than on all his Zurich performances including in his best years - just normal, correct? Ovett running faster than in Koblenz while in best shape and beeing drafted almost the full race, despite very windy conditions and far from his best, everybody expected this from Ovett, correct? You would argue exactly like that also when Coe and Ovett would not have set their PB in Rieti, correct?

JRinaldi wrote:

Top 10 tracks x sub 1:45 performances - Zürich leading the way

1 224 Zürich Switzerland 1.41.24 Wilson Kipketer DEN 13-08-1997

2 169 Monaco France 1.41.89 Nijel Amos BOT 12-07-2019

3 121 Rieti Italy 1.41.01 David Rudisha KEN 29-08-2010

4 116 Bruxelles Belgium 1.42.20 Wilson Kipketer DEN 22-08-1997

5 98 Roma Italy 1.42.79 Wilson Kipketer DEN 07-07-1999

6 96 Nairobi Kenya 1.42.12 David Rudisha KEN 23-06-2012

7 94 London Great Britain 1.40.91 David Rudisha KEN 09-08-2012

8 94 Oslo Norway 1.42.04 David Rudisha KEN 04-06-2010

9 77 Lausanne Switzerland 1.42.61 Wilson Kipketer DEN 02-07-1997

10 76 Berlin Germany 1.41.09 David Rudisha KEN 22-08-2010

http://www.ericr.nl/m800/trackcnt.html

It's a statistic for the town, not the track.

From the same website:

Any discussion is sure to fail if the "opinion" of one of the debaters is fixid before and the only goal is to support the own "opinion".

Deanouk wrote:

JRinaldi wrote:

Top 10 tracks x sub 1:45 performances - Zürich leading the way

1 224 Zürich Switzerland 1.41.24 Wilson Kipketer DEN 13-08-1997

2 169 Monaco France 1.41.89 Nijel Amos BOT 12-07-2019

3 121 Rieti Italy 1.41.01 David Rudisha KEN 29-08-2010

4 116 Bruxelles Belgium 1.42.20 Wilson Kipketer DEN 22-08-1997

5 98 Roma Italy 1.42.79 Wilson Kipketer DEN 07-07-1999

6 96 Nairobi Kenya 1.42.12 David Rudisha KEN 23-06-2012

7 94 London Great Britain 1.40.91 David Rudisha KEN 09-08-2012

8 94 Oslo Norway 1.42.04 David Rudisha KEN 04-06-2010

9 77 Lausanne Switzerland 1.42.61 Wilson Kipketer DEN 02-07-1997

10 76 Berlin Germany 1.41.09 David Rudisha KEN 22-08-2010

http://www.ericr.nl/m800/trackcnt.html

Thanks for that input, coach!

Proves that if Rieti is no more special than Zurich and Monaco (a fairly recent addition to the calendar) for 800m running.

Someone seems to be very happy about the "input" - regardless how useless this "input" is. ..

No need to thank someone for this completely unhelpful statistics. Number of sub 1:45 times achieved in specific townes? But why asking critical questions when the statistics seems to confirm the own point of view?

Deleting performances from championships, indoors, b-races and others, the statistic will look more like that:

170 Zurich

144 Monaco

117 Rieti

112 Brussels

88 Oslo

76 Rome

71 Berlin

67 Lausanne

59 Köln

52 Nairobi - various trials, meetings...

49 London - several meetings

32 Stockholm

24 Nice

13 Helsinki

Someone who claims Rieti has had the same deep fields as Zurich, Brussels, Monaco is either stoopid or a liar.

The last Rieti meeting was in 2015, it started in the late 1970s

The number of sub 1:45 times from Monaco is astonishing, the meeting exists only since 1988.

Rieti to have more sub 1:45 times than Brussels, which exists longer and has much deeper fields - is equally astonishing. Zurich has had great 800s since the early 1970s and for many years was by far the biggest meet with some special focus on the 800m - not surprising that it still has the most sub 1:45 times.

Compare Rieti to Oslo, Rome, Berlin...

Someone who does any listed argument aside like it's worth nothing is just a fool. If we question Monaco times we also have to question Rieti times.

super fast track Rieti wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

Thanks for that input, coach!

Proves that if Rieti is no more special than Zurich and Monaco (a fairly recent addition to the calendar) for 800m running.

Someone seems to be very happy about the "input" - regardless how useless this "input" is. ..

No need to thank someone for this completely unhelpful statistics. Number of sub 1:45 times achieved in specific townes? But why asking critical questions when the statistics seems to confirm the own point of view?

.

Of course, there are several tracks used for international competitions in Zurich and Brussels and it is totally unfair to add their number of sub 1:45s together. LOL.

Do you know that all those tracks have been dug up and resurfaced several times? Maybe you need to build that fact into your data.

Zurich meets have always been in the Letzigrund, but there have probably been 3 or 4 different surface incarnations on that track. Same for Rieti, Brussels, Oslo, etc.

Monaco has been a relatively new venue for international competition, maybe since mid 90's, but it has consistently thrown up the fastest races of each year in the middle distances in terms of depth since around 2010, which coincided with it being resurfaced.

Rieti produced fast times too, but usually for a few athletes that were already record breakers. There was never the same level of fast times in terms of sheer numbers as we have seen in Monaco in the last decade.

As usual you didn't get the point at all. What are you talking at all about new surface and so on?

The initial list which you were so happy about listed any times achieved in THE TOWN? Do you get this? Not just the times achieved in the specific meet, but also from WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS and so on.

I have removed times achieved at World Champs and something like this. I have removed times which were achieved in a 2nd race in the same evening - do you understand this? It's really not that hard (but very difficult when someone is not interested in understanding). The list now shows the number of times achieved in the A-race at the Weltklasse meet, the Van Damme meet and so on...

The Monaco meet has not started in the mid 1990s but in 1988, as I have already written.

The number of super fast times achieved in Rieti is just astonishing, as anybody knows who is not blinded by some ideology.

But someone who still claims that Rieti has had the same lineups as Zurich, Brussels... obviously is blinded.

You will not accept this easy facts as you have shown so deeply in this thread. PBs galore. SBs galore (don't come with your wrong numbers again). Most super fast 800m-times of any meeting. World records galore. A small 2nd rate meeting at the very latest date in the calendar. All worth just nothing for you. Only because Coe and Ovett have set lifetime PBs in Rieti. That's the only reason why you defend against any logic.

Maybe if you could write in grammatically accurate sentences then other posters might be able to follow your cryptic clues.

The point still remains. There have been more fast times over 800m set at Zurich and Monoco than Rieti, even with your massaging the stats. You also keep repeating stats for 800m, which is but 1 event, when if you look at the 1500m the stats are even more heavily stacked against your argument.

I can't help you if you're too obtuse to understand the significance of re-laying the surface of the track.

Aouita88 wrote:

Maybe if you could write in grammatically accurate sentences then other posters might be able to follow your cryptic clues.

The point still remains. There have been more fast times over 800m set at Zurich and Monoco than Rieti, even with your massaging the stats. You also keep repeating stats for 800m, which is but 1 event, when if you look at the 1500m the stats are even more heavily stacked against your argument.

I can't help you if you're too obtuse to understand the significance of re-laying the surface of the track.

I have not written any "cryptic clues". Sorry that English is not my language.

Massaging the stats? So you still think it's fair to add times from World Championhips when we are talking about the different MEETINGS? You think it's helpful to compare two races from Zurich with one race from Rieti? You think it's irrelevant that Zurich exists much longer than Rieti? You still think that Rieti has had the same deep fields than Zurich, Brussels...

Your point about the re-laying of some tracks just was completely out of context. I don't know if it was because you really didn't understand the corrected (much more useful) list or because you don't want to understand.

So you still think the number of fast times from Rieti is completely normal, right? (because the effect is not that extreme in the 1500m than in the 800m? Have you checked all the distances from Monaco?) You have never heard half of the field in Coe's PB race, but you think the meet is on a par to Zurich, right? Steve Cram is just talking nonsense when he is just astonished about his 2nd fastest time ever ("after a couple of light nights"), correct? All listed points in this thread are just completely nonsense, correct?

No, they are not nonsense. They are all strong arguments for the theory that Rieti has seen times which are not at all expected for such a meet. Same than the super fast times from Monaco (not only, Monaco has seen many fast times before) after a new track was built.

Someone who constantly claims that the Monaco times are much faster than they would have been on a "normal" track but denies something similar for Rieti times is a fool.

Sorry for the grammatically completely inaccurate sentences. It might be new for you, but English is not the only language in the world. But if you'd just be honest, the points addressed were not that complicable that you couldn't understand them even when written in bad English. At least if you had some interest to understand. But you don't have. You know very well why.

For sure you can make fun of some "cryptic clues". But you're just showing your own ignorance. Any point I made was clearly and understandably written.

When comparing some tracks (more accurately: some stadiums with maybe not the exact same track surface for the whole time) than it's obvious that a statistics which lists any time achieved in the TOWN is not helpful (for example London, with CP and the Olympic stadium). It's also not helpful when Zürich and others often have had two races in one meeting and the statistics lists all the achieved times.

I have made it clear that I have removed such times from the list to have a more meaningful list. This is not "massaging the stats" at all - it's the attempt to have a more meaningful statistics, nothing more. You could have got this without any additional explanation - if you were not fixed to your "opinion" before. You know your reasoning before any stats are presented: the times achieved at the Rieti track are not special (because they just CAN'T).

But you are wrong. Any argument which was presented strongly supports the idea that indeed those times are special. It IS just remarkable that William Tanui has raced 10 times in Rieti and has set 8 times a seasonal best (800m or 1500m) on this occasions. Something similar for many other athletes. This is obvious for anybody who is just open minded and not completely fixed because of some childish defense of specific runners.

The times achieved in Monaco especially in the middle distances strongly give the impression that the track must be special in some way. It's not possible for us to find out if that is indeed the case.

The absolute same is true for Rieti. There are so many (not just a few, as you constantly claim) examples which support this statement. I will not list all of them again, since it's clear that you are not able to accept them, regardless how clear they are.

Rieti usually has had not those mass finishes as Monaco - easily explainable by the fact it's a 2nd (at best) rate meeting.

We just can speculate about the reasons for the astonishing times we have seen from Monaco (especially in the last decade, but not only) and also for the astonishing times which were reported year after year for three decades from this small meeting close to Rome with always only a few hundred spectators.

For me, the most likely explanation is that any times from both Monaco and Rieti are just "regular" and might have been benefited from good conditions in combination with some "psychological" effect: athletes see the times from others and get a boost or something like that. Monaco on many occasions probably also has had the best pacemaking and the deepest fields of the year.

I've done now with this. All the points made here were clear understandable for anybody who wants to understand. You can now respond with your usual "lol" or trying to ridicule the points, the sentences or whatever. Or you can think about it. This was my last post, since I'm tired to argue with people who have no interest in the facts.