7 boys run 4:11 at New Jersey MOC

4th, 5th, and 6th looks like it was quite a tussle.

8 boys run 4.12 at New Jersey MOC

dang

9 boys run under 4:14 at New Jersey MOC.

10 boys sub 4:15 at NJ MOC!!!

Damn, imagine breaking 4:14 and you're a complete chump.

Of course, you need to add nearly two seconds to these to get an equivalent mile time, so only the winner had a time intrinsically better than the old mile record from 30+ years ago.

Still, very impressive that second-third-fourth are juniors. Well done, all.

srj6 wrote:

Damn, imagine breaking 4:14 and you're a complete chump.

Of course, you need to add nearly two seconds to these to get an equivalent mile time, so only the winner had a time intrinsically(sic) better than the old mile record from 30+ years ago.

The word you're looking for is "extrinsically."

And that 4:10 full mile record was set on a CINDER track at Rutgers. I was there on the track that day.

whoaaa....Steve O'Connell; a 4:10 miler in 1976? How come I don't remember this name. Did he do anything in college?

add andrews in there and nj has got to be the best state in the country other than cali for milers (and its probably pretty close)

15 boys run 4:19 at New Jersey MOC

gonchar wrote:

And that 4:10 full mile record was set on a CINDER track at Rutgers. I was there on the track that day.

I've run a 4:16 mile on that track, two weeks before running a 3:42 1500. "Cinder" track doesn't do it justice. It's more like a sand trap.

malmo wrote:

srj6 wrote:

Damn, imagine breaking 4:14 and you're a complete chump.

Of course, you need to add nearly two seconds to these to get an equivalent mile time, so only the winner had a time intrinsically(sic) better than the old mile record from 30+ years ago.

The word you're looking for is "extrinsically."

ummmm - no it's not. And why did you add the (sic) part? He spelt it right

malmo not so smart wrote:

ummmm - no it's not. And why did you add the (sic) part? He spelt it right

You're 0 for 2.

malmo wrote:

You're 0 for 2.

Malmo is simply the biggest baby when he's wrong or when he loses, isn't he? He gets caught not knowing the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic and he thinks his world will crumble if he can't somehow show everyone else is wrong but him. Pathetic.

Looks like South Jersey's been representin'. Back in my day we kind of sucked compared to the north in the distances...

Malmo Needs Help wrote:

Malmo is simply the biggest baby when he's wrong or when he loses, isn't he? He gets caught not knowing the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic and he thinks his world will crumble if he can't somehow show everyone else is wrong but him. Pathetic.

Yeah, he does the same thing at the TafNews board. He'll either keep dragging something out or he acts like he's just produced an inarguable fact and then run for it. A juvenile and bitter middle age sad-sack crab.

malmo wrote:

malmo not so smart wrote:

ummmm - no it's not. And why did you add the (sic) part? He spelt it right

You're 0 for 2.

enlighten me, oh wise one. On both counts please

malmo not so smart wrote:

enlighten me, oh wise one. On both counts please

He won't. Like the guy posted earlier, he'll just run off to give the appearance he's "won". He's the typical "Internet Warrior" / pussy-in-real-life jackanape you see on lots of discussion boards. He'll probably check-in to see the follow-ups but he'll avoid you. Although the number of people here commenting on his tired tactics might have him busily working on some post to try and get even. A post he'll work on for a while yet he'll claim the verbiage is off the top of his head. He's a wanker.