Cole Hocker will have a hard time beating Sam Ruthe

Athletes are not grouped by the second as you and your friends like to think. They are grouped by the actual time they ran.

But if you like to lop .94secs off Hocker's mile time - you don't count it - then I think I shall do the same for Ingebrigtsen and and El G. Good enough for the goose good enough for the gander. That would make them "3:42" runners.

So, you wouldn't say that Roger Bannister was a sub-4 miler? If sub-4, then surely it is reasonable to say 3:59 miler, right? So, Cole Hocker is a sub-3:46 miler by any definition. Does that not make him a 3:45 miler? And of course his 1500 conversion, which includes a slowdown (x1.08) is 3:44.26. He ran 3:45.94 indoors with no one close to him. That'll come down a lot if he races a fit Jakob in a paced mile outdoors.

Bannister is sub-4. 3:59.9 would be enough to say that. But he isn't a "3:59" miler. Why not? Because all it takes is a hundredth of a second to be sub-4. So hundreths count. All of them. By that measure he isn't a "3:59" miler. That is merely a casual and misleading approximation. In the context of this discussion the fractions are important. (His 3:59.4 makes him closer to 3:59 than Hocker is to 3:45. Also, Bannister's 3:58.8 doesn't make him a 3:58 miler. That was Landy.)

Hocker is sub-3:46. Correct. But he isn't therefore a "3:45" miler. That is a misleading approximation. Times in this sport are not approximate. .94 secs shows that. Because of that .94 secs he is thus closer by far to being a "3:46" miler than a "3:45" miler.

His 1500 conversion suggests what he might be capable over the mile. But he hasn't run it. So his best mile time remains barely under 3:46. That makes him substantially behind Jakob and a long way from El G over this distance.

Athletes are definitely grouped by the second.

Go to the site's homepage. At the top it says "Hocker 3:45".

Cope and seethe, dumbo.

What fans choose to do here doesn't change his time. 3:45.94. Barely under 3:46.

That's hilarious. 5 downvotes in response to nothing posted. The IQ level here is in freefall.

And it was your best post in this thread - by far.

You even edited the post: T.

I accurately pitched to the IQ level of those who couldn't tell nothing had been posted. Join that club.

what are you talking about? Thats exactly how everyone says it. If your PR is 3:45.XX and someone asks you what is your PR, LITERALLY everyone says 3:45. the tenths dont matter when discussing mile PRs

the 100 is different, when people ask PR, you will say 9.95 or 9.93, because those hundreths really matter, they dont in the mile.

by your point a 2:20:38.95 marathoner isnt a 2:20 marathoner? No one would say 2:21 here.

Your best post, even edited: T!

If just more posts of yours could be that good: T.

They are, Dumb. By almost everybody in this forum (including yourself). Almost any athlete is doing it.

You have done it yourself many times in this forum.

You are by far the most dishonest person I have ever discoverd.

You're the one who says it right here. Only someone who's run 3:45.00 is a 3:45 runner.

Therefore, those who run 3:44.99 are 3:44 runners, and those who run 3:45.01 are 3:46 runners - according to you.

Dumb himself gives middle distance times almost always exact only to the full second.

Armstrong in 1 Ruthe thread:

"You're comparing an 18 year old who was 3 seconds slower than a 16 year old. So age makes no difference?"

"Not equalling. Ryun ran that at 17; Ruthe has run the equivalent of 3:31 (indoors) at a year younger. On far less training."

"Ruthe's "much more sensible training" is 40-60mpw. That is typical schoolboy training. But no other 16 year old schoolboys are running 3:48 on so little."

"He is 8 seconds faster than Jakob was at the same age. So how much faster will he be than 3:26x and 3:43x?"

In another

"So he has no advantage over them there. Yet they aren't running 2:17."

"He (Snell) ran 1:44 on grass in '62."

"Katir went from 3:36 to 3:28."

"I said in an earlier post that a clean athlete who can run 3:38 today could be running sub-3:30 if doped"

"He might have run faster with ideal training in late '64 but he was still breaking world records - as 2:16 was."

"Question: could he one day be 8 seconds faster than Ingebrigtsen's current best of 3:43x for the mile and 3:26x for the 1500?"

"4:07 at 16 is simply not in the same class as 3:38 for the 1500 at the same age"

I can easily find hundreds of more examples. He is nothing more then a dishonest psychopatic liar.

A running store I frequented in the early 2000s had a signed photo of Paul McMullen. Underneath his signature, he wrote “3:55 miler.” His PR was 3:55.84.

lol, true

Army’s job is to derail threads, sow diacord, and spew hate against the US. Par for the course for his ilk. You can bet his crappy Brooklyn walk-up stinks to high heaven. He and his ilk are contrarian just to be contrarian, so Army can’t help it. Self-deceptive to the end, that’s him.

You have the IQ of a jellyfish.

What people say here means nothing. It doesn't change anyone's time. But it can misrepresent it. 100ths do matter. Even in a mile or they wouldn't be included in the recorded time.

An athlete who runs 3:45.94 is .94 away from being a "3:45" runner. That is misleading. Hocker is barely a sub 3:46 runner. Deal with it.