When the 3000 record of 7:20 was run the 5000 record was 12:39 and the 100 record was 9.84.
9.58 is way faster than 9.84 so corresponding 3000 and 5000 times would be way faster than 7:20 and 12:39.
When the 3000 record of 7:20 was run the 5000 record was 12:39 and the 100 record was 9.84.
9.58 is way faster than 9.84 so corresponding 3000 and 5000 times would be way faster than 7:20 and 12:39.
Star wrote:
When the 3000 record of 7:20 was run the 5000 record was 12:39 and the 100 record was 9.84.
9.58 is way faster than 9.84 so corresponding 3000 and 5000 times would be way faster than 7:20 and 12:39.
Unless 7:20 is way better than 9.84 - which it is. Do I think 9.58 is better than 12:37? Yes, but not much.
Bolt: 9.58
IAAF: “behold the greatest track athlete in the history of great track athletes. The standard by which all track performances will be measured.”
Bekele: averages sub 61s for 3.1 miles.
IAAF: “Meh.”
Komen: 7:20
IAAF: “Good, but not great.”
Lol - what happens when someone comes along and runs 9.57?
dodge ball wrote:
It has more to do with humans have a short attention span. Less than 10 seconds and you’re done. Let’s go celebrate! On the other hand, a marathon is over 2 hours unless you’re Kipchoge who can run a marathon in 1:59:40. Too bad he didn’t run 1:59:35 so he could have been a second a minute faster instead of a second a minute slower in his breaking2. Just listen to the American marathon broadcast, they can’t even keep an eye on the elite when they make a move but have to fill in with feel good stories. But running 26 miles at that pace is a lot harder than running at a pace for 10 seconds.
It’s not, but you can continue to lie to yourself if you wish.
boring, correct answer wrote:
fchj wrote:
There is not a single person on earth, even with the absolute best coaching and PED regime available that can run 7:12. Komen was already 1 In a billion. Seriously, 9.58 is the equivalent of stringing nearly 2, 3:51 miles together!?
Yes.
No, it’s not. We already know 9.58 is possible. When someone comes along and runs 9.57 (which they will) what are they going to do? Lower the 3000 equivalent to 7:05? Get real. Komen was every bit as talented at distance as Bolt was to sprint.
You already have NFL players challenging Bolt to a race. They must not think much of 9.58.
fchj wrote:
boring, correct answer wrote:
Yes.
No, it’s not. We already know 9.58 is possible. When someone comes along and runs 9.57 (which they will) what are they going to do? Lower the 3000 equivalent to 7:05? Get real. Komen was every bit as talented at distance as Bolt was to sprint.
You already have NFL players challenging Bolt to a race. They must not think much of 9.58.
7:20 will be broken before 9.58.
Football players are irrelevant to the analysis.
boring, correct answer wrote:
fchj wrote:
No, it’s not. We already know 9.58 is possible. When someone comes along and runs 9.57 (which they will) what are they going to do? Lower the 3000 equivalent to 7:05? Get real. Komen was every bit as talented at distance as Bolt was to sprint.
You already have NFL players challenging Bolt to a race. They must not think much of 9.58.
7:20 will be broken before 9.58.
Football players are irrelevant to the analysis.
It is 23 years old..... Bolt record is only 11 years old.
I’m aware of when they were set.
Why does any of this matter? It is like comparing Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan.
Star wrote:
When the 3000 record of 7:20 was run the 5000 record was 12:39 and the 100 record was 9.84.
9.58 is way faster than 9.84 so corresponding 3000 and 5000 times would be way faster than 7:20 and 12:39.
9.84 was a minor improvement. Komen went 7:20, breaking the Algerians by 5 seconds.
5 seconds over 3000m is like a 0.17 imrovement over 100m. If Bailey ran 9.68 in Atlanta, that might have been equivalent to the 3000 record.
Actually making me have more respect for the 9.58. But I still maintain that a 5k at near 4 minute pace is pretty remarkable.
Think back to prefontaine and him saying a 12:36 3 mile would be a time he would be satisfied with.
Well little did he know the time he would be satisfied with for 3 miles would leave him more than a straightaway behind a 12:37 5k.
Look at the number of top athletes that run the 100m compared to those that run the 3000m outdoors, If the 3000m was run more outdoors you would see more athletes closer to the WR time.
CO Coach wrote:
The IAAF scoring tables are created using statistics, it's not a popularity contest. Those marks in the other events are what would be needed to be as big of a statistical outlier as Bolt's sprint records.
Are they counting the rounds in there calculations? Or just finals? Seems like there are a lot of ways the numbers could get skewed... but seeing as there are so few 3k/5ks etc setup as as time trials then these records should be even bigger outliers since pretty much all 100m finals are a race against the clock in certain respects.
Greg wrote: Komen went 7:20, breaking the Algerians by 5 seconds.
Actually it was 4.44. At the top level when tenths are so critical, calling something 5 seconds better when it's closer to 4 is unjust. 4.44/30 is 0.15.
9.85-0.15 = 9.70.
Maybe like a 9.70 100m.
I mean who the hell knows forsure.
Distance WR's just don't get the same respect because it takes more effort to run long distance where as sprinting is something anyone can get off the couch and do.
There are more people running the 100m than the 3000 but the talent pool is around the same. Nobody is going about the 3000m record because they lnow they will finish far away.
Interestingly 12:37 is considered better than 7:20 in the online comparators. Even Komen who went hard for the 5k stopped at 12:39
boring, correct answer wrote:
fchj wrote:
No, it’s not. We already know 9.58 is possible. When someone comes along and runs 9.57 (which they will) what are they going to do? Lower the 3000 equivalent to 7:05? Get real. Komen was every bit as talented at distance as Bolt was to sprint.
You already have NFL players challenging Bolt to a race. They must not think much of 9.58.
7:20 will be broken before 9.58.
Football players are irrelevant to the analysis.
Why? Because when Bolt ran that time there were probably a handful of NFL players that thought, with the right training, they could beat Bolt? Tyson Gay was only a step behind Bolt.
7:20 will be broken just like 9.58 will be broken. Are Komen and Bolt 1 in a billion? Definitely. Are they one in 8 billion? Probably not. What’s laughable is that they think 9.58 is a 7:12. Ask any sub 3:50 miler if they think there is anyone on earth, at the moment, that could hold 3:51 pace for 3000m.
It s apple and orange. But no NFL scrubs va d half the taleng that Bolg had.
I think it's important to realize that every sprint event is always going to be the fastest race possible. If you aren't going all out from the gun to the tape, you're going to lose (with few exceptions). In a distance event you can have Olympic finals where they finish a minute+ slower than the world record. Maybe if every distance runner was going all out in every race, holding onto the leader until they finish or their bodies give out, we'd have better times.
Take Tim's 3:29, there were other people there with PBs between 3:30-32, and maybe if they have gone out faster, we'd have seen a faster performance that night. Extrapolate that out into every race and you can see what I mean.
fchj wrote:
boring, correct answer wrote:
7:20 will be broken before 9.58.
Football players are irrelevant to the analysis.
Why? Because when Bolt ran that time there were probably a handful of NFL players that thought, with the right training, they could beat Bolt? Tyson Gay was only a step behind Bolt.
7:20 will be broken just like 9.58 will be broken. Are Komen and Bolt 1 in a billion? Definitely. Are they one in 8 billion? Probably not. What’s laughable is that they think 9.58 is a 7:12. Ask any sub 3:50 miler if they think there is anyone on earth, at the moment, that could hold 3:51 pace for 3000m.
There is no one on earth that could run 9.58 right now, and Gay was more than a step behind Bolt.
fchj wrote:
7:20 will be broken just like 9.58 will be broken. Are Komen and Bolt 1 in a billion? Definitely. Are they one in 8 billion? Probably not. What’s laughable is that they think 9.58 is a 7:12. Ask any sub 3:50 miler if they think there is anyone on earth, at the moment, that could hold 3:51 pace for 3000m.
Ask any 9.8x 100m runner and ask if they think that there is anyone on Earth, at the moment, that could hold 9.58 pace for 100m. No one last year even broke 9.75. Bolt is an incredible outlier in the sprinting world, the closest person ever to him is over a tenth of a second off.
CO Coach wrote:
The IAAF scoring tables are created using statistics, it's not a popularity contest. Those marks in the other events are what would be needed to be as big of a statistical outlier as Bolt's sprint records.
this thread is pointless for this exact reason. The tables are not going to provide equivalent performances in terms of difficulty or impressiveness. They provide a rough comparison of how far performances are from the mean. Extrapolating this to compare the merit of performances across drastically different differences is obviously a flawed approach.
You can see a more in depth look at their calculation here:
https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/15533/how-to-calculate-iaaf-pointsThe most obvious point of discrepancy that jumps out to me is the base performance, ie. the time below which a performance is not scored, and from which superior performances are judged against. there is a lot of inherent arbitrariness in setting this. see
https://www.southernathletics.org.uk/assets/files/bromilowscoring.docxfor a long discussion of this as well as other potential issues with the iaaf formula.
The TLDR is that no formula is gonna perfectly encapsulate the difference between how sprint times and distance performances are distributed. Using the tables to draw hyper specific comparisons is not the correct use and is obviously not going to work well, and no one at iaaf is suggesting that 9.58 is precisely the same performance as 7:12.
Rocket Mann wrote:
fchj wrote:
7:20 will be broken just like 9.58 will be broken. Are Komen and Bolt 1 in a billion? Definitely. Are they one in 8 billion? Probably not. What’s laughable is that they think 9.58 is a 7:12. Ask any sub 3:50 miler if they think there is anyone on earth, at the moment, that could hold 3:51 pace for 3000m.
Ask any 9.8x 100m runner and ask if they think that there is anyone on Earth, at the moment, that could hold 9.58 pace for 100m. No one last year even broke 9.75. Bolt is an incredible outlier in the sprinting world, the closest person ever to him is over a tenth of a second off.
We already know 9.58 is possible. Is it too much to ask that out of 8 billion people there might be someone else as talented as Bolt? Just think if Bolt stuck to soccer, iaaf would be comparing Gay’s 9.69 to 7:12. And, yes, I do think there is talent out there to run 7:20.
Any 3:50 milers out there think it’s reasonable to expect a 7:12 as an appropriate equivalent? Wonder what El G would say. Can you imagine his coach telling him to come through the mile only 6.5 seconds slower than his wr mile pace an then having to hold it for 3 1/2 more laps?
IAAF to El G: “we know you’re 7:23 is pretty good but we really expect that you should be around 7:12 because...Bolt.”