Quincey - Greatest 400 ever

Time for more popcorn, keep it going guys.

Daniels work is certainly held in high esteem by me. But it still doesn't make 43.71 into 43.17 (which I suspect the man would tell you himself). However if you would like to contradict that, you just show us the math, ok?

(Incidentally, could you do all of us "stoopid" morons a favor and take a remedial class in spelling? Or at least "relaise" what a homophone is? Here's lesson number one. the words "there" "their" and "they're" all sound the same but have very different meanings. Seriously, a typo or other such mistake it wrong once or twice is understandable and deserves no mention. But consistently revealing yourself as a functional illiterate in the very same sentence you use to call people "idiots" and "morons", well that's just entertainment.)

As he had already run quite a bit faster, we don't have to "believe". We know.

It does? Well then I guess it also means she ran her fastest ever 5k "hardly out of 2nd gear" too. Yet she was never able to come within 25 seconds of that again. What happened to all those gears? Hmmmm. Maybe she was in 3rd? Or 4th?

Of course you are only interested in 93. Subsequent performances make you sound foolish. Why would want you want to consider them?

No I believe the true 5k ability of an actual 5k athlete is represented by the fastest 5k that athlete ever ran and everything else is just mental masturbation for dimwits.

Debate has been going on about the Chinese and drugs since 93 too. What of it? Put up or shut up.

So would I. But since she didn't and since she never came within a light year of running what people say she could have, they will never ever know. Not any more than you, Mercier or Daniels will.

No, by my method he is a 12:37 guy because that's what he did run in the real world. Put down your calculator and try to grasp that.

With Dapena? Does he know you are completely insane?

In other words you don't have anything. Thought so. Thanks for clearing that up. (Hey, as long as we on the topic, did Owsald act alone...?)

With nothing to back that up except your assertion. That's the "intrinsic" part. You THINK he was going easy so therefore he was. OK, well I say he did hard running the whole way and, like so many best or near-best performances elites have, it looked easy. Because if your assertion were true, he would certainly have run sub 43 at some point.

In the very least he wouldn't have fallen back to a slower-than 45 guy. But then he did. Hmmm...

An "analysis" that consists of your saying it looked easy. We've already covered that. Could you at least walk us through plugging the how-easy-it-looked number into a calculator please?

No problem, I accept your withdrawal of the know-nothing comments about how hard his training was.

Of course they all had access to drugs. Whether they used them is anyone's guess but the obviously all had access. Tell me you are not so gullible to believe otherwise, please.

Anyway, I acknowledge a lot of reasons why he could have gone 43.5 To me the most logical one is that 43.5 is the best he was capable of running -- or awfully close to it, give or a take a few hundredths -- and he peaked on the right day. But that's just because I'm charitable.

If I were a cynic, I might assume that he was one of the few that year willing to take a chance and do drugs. He sure as hell wasn't going to win any medals running 45 so why not? Or I might cynically he had a better drug program. Or it might be a combination of drugs and a good training cycle. Etc Etc.

Third down on the list is the awesomely naive assumption that he just "worked harder" than everybody else.

So am I. Fortunately we have a measure of the intrinsic value. It's called time.

moron

how stoopid are you ?

daniels/mercier do not have a calculator which measures how "easy" a performance is - it is a subjective judgement

can you not get it into your numbskull

idiot

i am not interested in your syntax/grammatical drivel

imbecile

i am asking about his 5k ability that day, not another day

you are the greatest idiot this board has ever seen with your

"it is about the value of his 2nd 5k in a 10k"

complete & utter drivel

moron

she was after the 10k wr that day, not the 5k one

when she split 15:05, inside the 30:13wr & probably realised how easy it was, she shot off into the distance

who cares about other seasons ?

it was her annus mirabalis - that is all i care about statistically

because i am interested in her wr form - not her likely 14:40/14:50 & 30:30/30:45 she drifted out to in 96, but still good enough for a gold & silver

imbecile

you believe it is "it is about the value of his 2nd 5k in a 10k"

absolute drivel

i do not give a shit on whether they were on drugs or not

they blasted the times of the eastern bloc who had also been on drugs

moron

for umpteenth time, i am interested in her 5k ability in 93

you may stick your head or ass in the sand, but it is quite easy to work out within a second either way of what it was in 93 off 3:51 / 8:06 ( more like 8:04 as she really hammered the last km )

if you are too dumb to offer an answer then f*** off & do not waste my time

but moron

how does that tally with :

"it is about the value of his 2nd 5k in a 10k" or 13:08 on day of his 26:17 ??

he is a nice guy

idiot

you cannot even do basic research

dapena has further embellishment but you can fetch that

moron

who said anything about < 43

can you not even do even the most basic thinking ?

i reckon he was good for 43.1/43.2 that day - no one mentioned <43

the concept of annus mirabilis is clearly lost on you - try vasala/peter rono/nils schumman/rodahl/countless more

moron

learn to read

a subjective judgement based on years of vast experience - nothing to do with a calculator

i see basic logic escaped you idiot

idiot

a dozen+ guys & only 1 of them wants to risk taking the drugs for a potential gold

if you think those are realistic odds, you are an idiot

learn to read idiot

he had a 0.35rt in his 43.71, when normal is 0.15 - 0.20

that gives ~ same time as his final

does your deluded mind think he put in same amount of effort in semi & final from the vids ??

so he was the only one of a dozen+ american guys in 91 who was willing to take the risk & he had the best drug regime of them all ??

how come after 18y this super-drug regime has not come to world attention ( never mentioned in steroid nation or medline - i have looked ) - takes you from 45 to 43.5 in 1y !!!

drivel

another typical f***ing moron who thinks it is all drugs & not talent/hard work

f***ing idiot

go watch marsh semi in 92 & carl in 83 final of 200 & tell us if you think those clockings were an accurate measure of their "intrinsic talent"

This thread has gone from bat-shit crazy to flying-purple- wombat crazy. And that is very, very crazy.

old tymer wrote:

This thread has gone from bat-shit crazy to flying-purple- wombat crazy. And that is very, very crazy.

awesome, isnt it

Mr. Obvious wrote:

old tymer wrote:

This thread has gone from bat-shit crazy to flying-purple- wombat crazy. And that is very, very crazy.

awesome, isnt it

Like watching a 290lb, 60-year old chain-smoker run a 3:55 mile. Not a pretty sight, but mind-bogglingly astonishing: how is such a thing possible????

"stupid"

I'm glad to see that you finally understand it too. So now we can dispense with the talk of "calculators" when we discuss the quality of Watts' run, eh?

The word you are looking for is "English".

And the I am interested in his best 5k ability ever. Measured by his best 5k performance ever.

Who are you quoting here? Sure as hell not me. My assertion is that "it's about the value of his fastest 5k ever." If that were actually the second 5k of a 10k as it was with Wang, then that would be it. Fortunately Bekele actually was able to go out and run faster.

So easy that she could never come anywhere near it again.

Certainly not someone whose arguments sound hollow when they are mentioned.

I think I will be the judge of what I believe and what I do not believe, thanks. For the umpteenth time, It is about the value of the fastest 5k he ever ran. PERIOD. Just as it is for Wang. She just has distinction of that being the second half of the 10k she ran whereas Bekele ran his in an open 5k. You can plug that into any 10k to 5k calculator in the world. At the end of the day, she still never ran better than 14:26.

Very well, then I do not give a shit whether you think the track where Johnson set his 200m WR was "illegal" or not. The rest of the world including the IAAF says it isn't. If you want to claim otherwise, you'll need more than an off-hand comment by Dapena

Of course it's easy to do math in your head. I can make people run all sort of world records if math is the only requirement. Sadly they have to run it as well.

Ummm.... ok. You understand that you have to count reaction time in the full time, right? They don't start the clock when you react, they start it when the gun is fired.

Or did you go back to Michael Johnson's WR 400 in Seville and take out his reaction time too?

No. I'm just experienced enough to know that more effort does not simply yield a faster time by someone at that level. It doesn't work like that. In fact it often buys them a SLOWER as it causes them to tighten up and slow down. That's why so many all-time best performances are ones that felt "easy". Then the elite wonders why he couldn't go faster no matter how much harder he tried.

Oh no, it's FAR more logical that he "just worked harder". Yeah. that's it.

For the same reason that so many drug cheats in the 80s and 90s were never caught. The users are light years ahead of the testers. Except when they get stupid like Ben Johnson.

But again, since I'm charitable, I'll just grant you that he ran the best he could LEGALLY when he did that 43.5

As opposed to the guy who wants to award world records based on how stressed the runner "looked" in a semi. Yeah.

I'm Just a guy with his eyes open, my naive friend. Try it sometime.

Everyone has a bad race. Many have good races. The time on the clock at your best ever is your intrinsic talent. Everything else is just the woulda coulda shoulda of nobodies such as yourself with too much time on their hands.

Geez, this has been going on for like a week hasnt it?

old tymer wrote:

This thread has gone from bat-shit crazy to flying-purple- wombat crazy. And that is very, very crazy.

I have to admit, at this point, I'm just trying to see if I can keep it up. I just keep thinking there must be some way to get through... Nevertheless there is no denying it: I have become the very crazy thing I despise.

yes you are

moron

no one has ever mentioned a calculator in context of watts

how stoopid are you ?

& yours is "drivel"

moron

tell me his 5k ability on day of his 26:17 NOT another day

you f***ing retard

here is your quote : the worst drivel i have ever read here in my life :

utter total complete drivel

moron

what part of annus mirabilis can your peabrain not understand ?

idiot

what the f*** is hollow about stating she ran great 1y & not again ?

moron

see your ludicrous quote above

idiot

you have not a clue

it was "barely legal" when layed but after settling under its own weight & baking under brutal atlanta sun for some weeks/months, what the f*** do you think happened to its resiliency ratio come the meet ??

moron

show me that you are not complete dogshit on my boot & give me wangs 5k ability in 93 within a 10s range

e g 14:40 - 14:50

offer something to prove you are not a complete waste of space & time to me

your drivel quote is above

moron

what part of "nice guy" can your peabrain not understand

his knowledge of physics is very good & he has done a lot of thinking

you f***ing idiot

cant you read ???

it says iaaf limit is 35.0 & track was listed as 35.1

his comments were removed from his website - probably due to embarassing his former pupil & guy in charge of atlanta track

it embellishes the article above about 35.1 resiliency

moron

no one said <43 except you imbecile

43.1/43.2 was very reasonable estimate given ease of run

f***ing moron

every great year/breakthru is drugs to you

you think vasala/peter rono/schumman/rodahl were all on drugs ???

you are a complete idiot

moron

my viewing goes back years before you & includes ~12y of virtually all golden/diamond league meets

you cant bring that to the table piss-ant

you remember seeing kiptanui running like a man possessed & breaking aouitas 3k wr in 92 ??

you see him attack his 5k wr & off a derisory 13:10 pace for 3k set off again like a banshee & run 13:01, when it looked liked he wouda run 12:55 that day if the pacers had done their job to 3k ??

you see ben koech run 1:43.1 as a 19y ole & looking to be a serious threat to the wr in next few years & favorite for 96 gold ?

you see hicham split 2:44 in rieti when he looked on for 3:24 but faded surprisingly to high-3:26 ???

like f*** you did

moron

any 400 guy can expect a 0.15 - 0.20 rt under normal circumstances, so you offer them that for their best possible race

no

it was normal 0.20s

idiot

he was not pushing it in the last 1/2 of the race as he had the win tied up

i am not talking about him busting his gut stoopidly in last 1/2 & blowing up, just a slight perceptible increase in effort & running fully to the line

idiot

so those dozen+ guys at his level on same supposed drugs coudnt break 44.5 from 45 ???

drivel

you are an imbecile

you think nearly 20y ole drug regimes woud still be unknown to current athletes if they had any interest in finding out ???

idiot

just go to any of the steroid magazine websites & they will give you dozens of regimes for all sports with newer steroids than were available 20y ago

after all this progress in pharmaceuticals, no one has still gone from 45 to 43.5 in 1y

what does that tell you moron ??

& i will make that 43.1/43.2 LEGALLY

moron

that is how experienced observers make their picks when deciding on who they think will win - on prelim clockings & manner of them - the manner of this was wr calibre

are you too f***ing stoopid to understand this ?

no

you are a f***ing idiot

f***ing idiot

you dont know about marsh or lewis run

i ask again what do you think lewis 200 "intrinsic" ability was in 83 & marsh in 92 ?

give me numbers not drivel you moron

i hate you guys.

Ventolin has multi-level split personalities. One second he loves himself like no other, the next second it is pure utter hatred.

that time is credible for a high schooler, but a nearly two second drop in another year is hard to fathom.

Well, at least now I know what you look like, ventolin...

There is some sense in what he writes, though he goes overboard and wastes every post with unnecessary insults. I can see granting Watts a faster ceiling in that race, but in the video, I do not see him easing up in the second half until near the line. Where do you see him ease up? If it is the 200m split vs. 400m time, would not that be accounted for primarily by his going out so hard, and then secondarily by his late ease up?

It is obvious that anyone capable of running a big negative split in a 10k is capable of running a much faster stand alone five k.

If drugs are irrelevant, then you mean that you are not interested in that particular argument here, but only whether a runner on a particular day was capable of running faster than he/she actually did. But as to what they were capable of running, drugs have got to be an issue, because so many of the best marks were set by runners on drugs. The Eastern Bloc and Chinese had systematic doping programs and the latter never came close to those times ever again. That might be plausible for individuals, but not en masse, as in the Chinese case. We know that proven dopers even among the men (Kevin Young, Ben Johnson, numerous others) realized massive improvements in a brief time. So, it is plausible that a tremendous talent like Watts did so.

The article you linked said that the resiliency needed to be at least 35 to be legal, and at 35.1, the Atlanta track therefore was legal, but as fast as it could be and still be legal.

Incidentally, there is some bizarre problem on the site that disallows apostrophes in posts, saying something like error in sql syntax.

jjjjjj wrote:

The article you linked said that the resiliency needed to be at least 35 to be legal, and at 35.1, the Atlanta track therefore was legal, but as fast as it could be and still be legal.

Please do not cloud the issue with facts.

Incidentally, there is some bizarre problem on the site that disallows apostrophes in posts, saying something like error in sql syntax.

Yeah, the Brojos apparently switched the board over to PHP but failed to make the code properly escape the apostrophe characters with a backslash. You can make them appear by putting the backslash in yourself but it's a pain in the ass

jennifer cruz wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQSVs9fFkM

Well, at least now I know what you look like, ventolin...

No, _this_ is Ventolin:

Apostrophes are fixed now though. It's great to have them back.

Watts went to a Olympic gold factory. The high school he attended had someone from the school win a gold medal at every Olympics from 1984 to I think 2000.