Peter Snell 800 WR on Grass

Other Running Related Topic Other

Page 6 of 7

1 5 6 7

14 years ago 10/23/2009 8:11pm EDT

re: epopians

epopians wrote:If you don't believe Cordner Nelson's words on the condition of the track, then why do you have such faith in the time given in T&FN when he was the editor?

because moron, he has to go with official timing off the meet

the commonest quote is 46.5 for 300m & 2'46.6

So you just cherry pick which fits in with your views!

46.5/2'46.6 is commonest quote

"The Milers" was a T&FN publication, and most of what lies within is taken directly from the pages of T&FN. P.330~ "...Ryun's last three-fourths mile was in about 2:48.7,..." Which equates to 2:47.8 for 1200m

idiot

the only split worth considering is from

When the runners started off slowly, Ryun followed Keino, back in the pack, and after 220 yards of dawdling, a record seemed out of the question.
Dave Bailey, who came down from Canada to run, increased the pace and Keino dashed into the hole behind Bailey, followed quickly by Ryun, They passed the 440 with Ryun third in 60.9 and then Keino made the move which saved the race from mediocrity

they dawdled for 220 & he sped upto 60.9 at 440

there was speed increase there

ryun is given elsewhere 300m in 46.5, which supposes he covered 300m to 440y( 402.336m ) in 14.4s or for 400m :

14.4 * 400/(402.336 - 300) =

56.28s pace for 400m

Keino sped around the reddish track in 56.0, fastest second lap ever run. Ryun, a close second

where's the inconsistency ???

NO! You can't admit that even with your ludicrous 1 sec conversion, a 55.6 (56.6 - 1) first 400m is par for the course for a 3:48 miler

drivel

moron

55.6 pace is 3'42.4 pace for a miler !

A 3:48 Miler would not slow to 60 secs on the last lap in a 2:51(- 3 secs) 3/4, let alone a 2:54

yes he woud if he'd run 1st lap at 3'42 pace

Very few WR's are run with efficient average lap times

so ?

especially with snell's disparity

If running a 55.6 first 440 and slowing to a last 440 of 59.6 (58.6) and a 3:54(3:50) finish shows that he was capable of 3:48, then other athletes would have been capable of much faster times too

eh ?

squaring the circle ?!

morceli's 3'27wr shouda told you the lesson for 1500

you gotta push from 550 out to convert 3'28-high to 3'27-low

if hicham had decided to try the same in rome '97 or some others, we'd be looking at

3'24 mid/high

Coe's 3:29.7 began with a 54.0 first 400. That's 2 sec below a perfect 56.0, but he still managed to run the last lap in 55.3

& he relaxed a lot in middle 2 laps to recover

i got no problem with him as maybe 1'43.0 - 1'43.5 / ??13'05 - 13'15 potential back then

try here

http://www.jundo.co.uk/

So that must give him 3:27 ability

try

http://www.jundo.co.uk/

Kipchirchir-Komen's 3:29 in '06 started with a 52.6 and finished with a 56.6

those summate to 3'24.75 pace

obviously you relax enough in mid 700m you get a shot at quick

he was a hard man ( destroyed kennster in a 1500 ) - at least 3'27-mid calibre that day

Completely wrong. He ran a 57.8 last lap in his 1st WR and 56.9 in his 2nd

he ran 57.8 in both

he was greatest example of how the legendary kicker got squeezed to oblivion when relentless pace was thrown at

14 years ago 10/25/2009 3:37pm EDT

re: ventolin^2

ventolin^2 wrote:
epopians wrote:If you don't believe Cordner Nelson's words on the condition of the track, then why do you have such faith in the time given in T&FN when he was the editor?
because moron, he has to go with official timing off the meet
the commonest quote is 46.5 for 300m & 2'46.6
So you just cherry pick which fits in with your views!
no

The point I was making; which seems to elude you; is that you choose to believe/use a witness when it backs up your point, but dismiss the same witness out of hand when it contradicts you. In this example, Nelson's writing. His quote was from a publication in 1984, so why did he still quote 2:48.7 for 3/4 when the commonest quote was 2:46.6?

ventolin^2 wrote:
idiot
the only split worth considering is from
When the runners started off slowly, Ryun followed Keino, back in the pack, and after 220 yards of dawdling, a record seemed out of the question.
Dave Bailey, who came down from Canada to run, increased the pace and Keino dashed into the hole behind Bailey, followed quickly by Ryun, They passed the 440 with Ryun third in 60.9 and then Keino made the move which saved the race from mediocrity
they dawdled for 220 & he sped upto 60.9 at 440
there was speed increase there

Well, both "The Milers" and the "Progression of IAAF World Records 2007", quote his 400m time as 60.5 NOT 60.9.

I'm not saying he didn't run the last 1200 in 2:46.6, but the various sources of stats for this race are inconsistent.

ventolin^2 wrote:
NO! You can't admit that even with your ludicrous 1 sec conversion, a 55.6 (56.6 - 1) first 400m is par for the course for a 3:48 miler
drivel
moron
55.6 pace is 3'42.4 pace for a miler !
A 3:48 Miler would not slow to 60 secs on the last lap in a 2:51(- 3 secs) 3/4, let alone a 2:54
yes he woud if he'd run 1st lap at 3'42 pace
[

?? So what!

54.3~ Coe's 3:32.03 (79) = 3:23.6 1500m pace. Last lap =56.9

54.5~ Ovett's 3:30.77 (83) = 3:24.4 pace. Last lap = 55.1

54.0~ Coe's 3:29.77 (86) = 3:22.5 pace. Last lap = 55.3

56.6(440)~ Snell's 3:54.1 (64) = 3:42.4 pace. Last lap(440) = 59.6

Which if you take off 1 sec a lap:-

55.3(400m)~ for 3:50.1. Last 400m 58.3.

Coe 81- 55.3 first 440 = 3:41.2 pace for mile. He finished in 55.4. He ran 3:47, so Snell should have finished his race much better if he were a 3:48 guy on that day.

ventolin^2 wrote:
if hicham had decided to try the same in rome '97 or some others, we'd be looking at
3'24 mid/high
Hypothetical.
EL G's Mile record of 3:43.12 is about the most efficient Mile WR ever:-
55.6, 56.2, 56.1, 55.2~ only a 1 sec differential between fastest and slowest lap, and he had Ngeny up his ass for the last lap. He's pretty much at his limit there. Even his '98 1500 record was fairly even paced~ 54.9, 56.3, 55.1, 39.7 (53.5). He might have improved it a couple of tenths, but certainly not high 3:24.
Coe's 3:29.7 began with a 54.0 first 400. That's 2 sec below a perfect 56.0, but he still managed to run the last lap in 55.3
& he relaxed a lot in middle 2 laps to recover

What!? A 54.0 followed by a 58.0 (4 secs differential) then a 56.1 is terrible pacing and 2 such changes in pace is not relaxed running.

Compare that to Snell's 3:54 run, where each of the next 2 laps got slower~ 56.6 followed by 57.8 and 60.1! That's much more relaxed than Coe's splits and should have allowed him to come back a lot stronger on the last lap.

ventolin^2 wrote:
i got no problem with him as maybe 1'43.0 - 1'43.5 / ??13'05 - 13'15 potential back then
try here

When he ran the 1:44.5 in Stuttgart he ran all of the 2nd bend (4-500)in lane 2 and half of the 1st and last bends wide in lane 2. He probably run c.806m, meaning his performance was worth about 1:43.7. If he could do that in a Championship race (3rd in a few days) in the rain and with a 24.8 last 200m, then I'd say he was in at least 1:43.0 form that season. Especially bearing in mind he ran 1:43.07 the previous year in very much poorer form.

ventolin^2 wrote:
Completely wrong. He ran a 57.8 last lap in his 1st WR and 56.9 in his 2nd
no
he ran 57.8 in both
he was greatest example of how the legendary kicker got squeezed to oblivion when relentless pace was thrown at

No he didn't. I have both races on dvd and the 2nd WR had a last lap of 56.9 (which I checked using a stopwatch) and which is backed up by the splits given on P.66 of the "Progression of IAAF World Records" which I'm sure you can check up for yourself.

14 years ago 10/26/2009 12:34am EDT

re: epopians

the fault of your logic re Coe is he was not dirt/cinder runner going to synthetic,he ran alot on synthetic so he was adjusted.

Also in regards to Ryun i was comparing the CA tracks he ran on which from my own personal experience were slower than other surfaces.

Again i went back & forth between UCLA synthetic(saturday)

LA Pierce dirt (wed) 3 seconds faster at ucla every week.

I actually slowed down in my first race@UCLA because my first lap split was so fast, way faster than the effort i put out. Missed my chance at a PR that day.

Ryun ran a world record he didnt train for, lowering his PR

by over 2 seconds.It was his first 880 final on a synthetic track. While it may not be absolute proof, the fact that he lowered his PR over 1 sec a lap when he went from dirt/cinders to synthetic without even trying to best his PR at least gives credibility to the argument of 1 sec a lap being a reasonable benefit.

I speak from my own personal experience which was similar.

On a weekly basis.

You might think it is sour grapes from older runners, but the old tracks were sketchy. Not that the synthetic tracks of the day were any better. Cal State Northridge had a track that was made from recycled tires that had small bits of metal in the surface.Apparently they didnt get rid of all the steel when they shredded the tires.

After a race there i would pick these little bits of metal out of my shoes.

14 years ago 10/26/2009 8:04am EDT

re: epopians

Coe would have been going flat out in his cinders run - knowing that he was going to be compared to all of the great of the past.

epopians wrote:
Very well put. He always does exactly that!
Of course people from the cinder era will claim they would have been 1 sec faster a lap on synthetic, to make themselves look like they were better than those that followed. For all those claiming a 1sec conversion there are just as many who can see that this is far too much.
On a poor cinder track, or a wet one then perhaps 1 sec a lap in a 10k race would be appropriate. But that would not be the case on a well kept track for just 2 or 4 laps. And it certainly wouldn't be the case in a 400m flat race, or else the guys in the late '60's were all as fast as Michael Johnson 30 years later. Though I'm sure Ventolin will claim exactly that!
A good example to show it isn't worth 1 sec a lap is Seb Coe in 1980. He ran 3 x 800m in quick succession to prepare for Moscow.
He ran 1:45.41 on 26th May, 1:44.98 on June 5th & 1:44.7 on June 7th.
The middle run, 1:44.98, was on an old cinder track at Loughborough.
At the time AW wrote:
"Coe was the chief victim of the facilities, for on a synthetic track he MIGHT well have broken his own UK all-comers record of 1:44.0 (1:43.97). As it was, he recorded....a brilliant run in the circumstances, bearing in mind also that he had cool, windy conditions to contend with".
The entire second lap was solo and he won by 5.4 seconds. 90 minutes later he ran a 46.4 relay leg.
The writer had the sense to realise it was worth "about" a second faster (over 2 laps). But according to Ventolin, this would be worth 1:42.9 on the basis of the track alone (faster if you take his wind conversion into account too). He then runs his fastest ever relay leg of 45.4 (46.4 - 1.0 for cinders to synthetic) an hour and a half later!?
While I don't doubt Coe could have run a solo 1:42 in 1980, why on Earth would he want to do it in a piddly University meeting in Hull in early June? It was merely worthy of a good 1:44.0 early season workout and nothing more.
Ventolin is obviously a child (or should that be troll) of the '60's, and looks back upon the period with rose tinted spectacles. He'd have us believe that the stars from that decade were better than anything that followed for 30 years until his fellow buddy Kenyans arrived on the scene in the late '90's.

14 years ago 10/26/2009 10:47am EDT

re: coe was going for it

What, running against a AAA uni team off a 52.0 first 400m? Yeah, right! LOL

14 years ago 10/26/2009 3:07pm EDT

re: oldhalfmileguy

oldhalfmileguy wrote:
the fault of your logic re Coe is he was not dirt/cinder runner going to synthetic,he ran alot on synthetic so he was adjusted.
Also in regards to Ryun i was comparing the CA tracks he ran on which from my own personal experience were slower than other surfaces.
Again i went back & forth between UCLA synthetic(saturday)
LA Pierce dirt (wed) 3 seconds faster at ucla every week.
I actually slowed down in my first race@UCLA because my first lap split was so fast, way faster than the effort i put out. Missed my chance at a PR that day.
Ryun ran a world record he didnt train for, lowering his PR
by over 2 seconds.It was his first 880 final on a synthetic track. While it may not be absolute proof, the fact that he lowered his PR over 1 sec a lap when he went from dirt/cinders to synthetic without even trying to best his PR at least gives credibility to the argument of 1 sec a lap being a reasonable benefit.
I speak from my own personal experience which was similar.
On a weekly basis.
You might think it is sour grapes from older runners, but the old tracks were sketchy. Not that the synthetic tracks of the day were any better. Cal State Northridge had a track that was made from recycled tires that had small bits of metal in the surface.Apparently they didnt get rid of all the steel when they shredded the tires.
After a race there i would pick these little bits of metal out of my shoes.

So based on times which a few runners like yourself recorded on synthetic and cinder tracks- without putting quality of fields, weather conditions, split times, etc, into the equation, you are certain that the conversion is 1 sec per lap?

If this is the case, then you do realize that what you're saying is the following:- Put Ryun on a synthetic track that day when he ran 3:33.1, and he would have recorded:-

1500m~ 3:29.35 ~ would remain the WR for 25 years until Morceli.

last 1200m~ 2:43.6 ~ equivalent to running 2:15.6 for 1k and running the next 200 in 28.0. No other athlete since has run that fast at the beginning or end of any 1500m race. Not even EL G has ever approached that time.

last 1000m ~ 2:16.2 ~ equalling the then WR of May & Kemper

last 800m~ 1:48.5 , last 400m ~ 52.6- both far faster than EL G's closing splits in his 3:31 2001 World title win.

A run of this character would represent a performance that 42 years later wouldn't even have been approached. It would be in excess of Bolt running sub 9.50 for 100m, and if anyone was to do this today, most on here would suggest that he was "on something"

While I recognize Ryun was ahead of his time and an incredible talent, he wasn't the "alien" that the above stats would undoubtedly make him. In which other athletic events is someone from 42 years ago out-performing what any athlete today ~ with advanced training, equipment, medicine, etc,~ is capable of producing?

NONE!

There may indeed be cases of people from the days of cinders being able to run a second a lap faster on a synthetic track, but any sane reasonable person with an understanding of what is feasible athletically, would come to the conclusion that 1 sec per lap DID NOT apply to Ryun that day in LA.

14 years ago 10/26/2009 11:46pm EDT

re: epopians

just goes to show that cinder tracks are slower

epopians wrote:
What, running against a AAA uni team off a 52.0 first 400m? Yeah, right! LOL

14 years ago 11/03/2009 6:13pm EST

re: epopians

epopians wrote:If you don't believe Cordner Nelson's words on the condition of the track, then why do you have such faith in the time given in T&FN when he was the editor?

screw cordner

i already posted the last lap pic of ryun on that track with numerous indentations on it

The point I was making; which seems to elude you; is that you choose to believe/use a witness when it backs up your point, but dismiss the same witness out of hand when it contradicts you. In this example, Nelson's writing. His quote was from a publication in 1984, so why did he still quote 2:48.7 for 3/4 when the commonest quote was 2:46.6?

When the runners started off slowly, Ryun followed Keino, back in the pack, and after 220 yards of dawdling, a record seemed out of the question.
Dave Bailey, who came down from Canada to run, increased the pace and Keino dashed into the hole behind Bailey, followed quickly by Ryun, They passed the 440 with Ryun third in 60.9 and then Keino made the move which saved the race from mediocrity

learn something moron, once & for all

ryun reached 440y in 60.9 - that is trustworthy - basic 1st lap timing on a 440 - it's not messable-up

60.9 at 440y

3'33.1 end

2 most reliable clockings

work around them :

2'48.7 for last 3 laps or 1320y or 1207m is slowest thrown

that means he ran at the

1500m - 1207m point ->

293m

in 44.4

he now has to reach 440y ( 402m ) in 60.9 according to this hypothesis

he therefore had to cover 293 to 402 = 109.344m in

60.9 - 44.4 =

16.5s ->

60.72 pace

that is bullshit, according to account :

When the runners started off slowly, Ryun followed Keino, back in the pack, and after 220 yards of dawdling, a record seemed out of the question.
Dave Bailey, who came down from Canada to run, increased the pace and Keino dashed into the hole behind Bailey, followed quickly by Ryun, They passed the 440 with Ryun third in 60.9

2'48.7 is bullshit

we have 60.9/3'33.1 as clockings

above 3 lap figure looks transposition error never corrected

it was likely for starters for last 1320y :

2'47.8

14 years ago 11/03/2009 6:30pm EST

re: ventolin^2

Ventolin, shut up. You're as dumb as a box of rocks, and yet you go on and on in an obstinant manner trying to show it. When you mention Cordner Nelson you appear to be suffering from some sort of envy, so you disparage him. YOU ARE A MORON.

14 years ago 11/03/2009 6:53pm EST

re: epopians

epopians wrote:
A 3:48 Miler would not slow to 60 secs on the last lap in a 2:51(- 3 secs) 3/4, let alone a 2:54
54.3~ Coe's 3:32.03 (79) = 3:23.6 1500m pace. Last lap =56.9
54.5~ Ovett's 3:30.77 (83) = 3:24.4 pace. Last lap = 55.1
54.0~ Coe's 3:29.77 (86) = 3:22.5 pace. Last lap = 55.3
56.6(440)~ Snell's 3:54.1 (64) = 3:42.4 pace. Last lap(440) = 59.6
Which if you take off 1 sec a lap:-
55.3(400m)~ for 3:50.1. Last 400m 58.3.
Coe 81- 55.3 first 440 = 3:41.2 pace for mile. He finished in 55.4. He ran 3:47, so Snell should have finished his race much better if he were a 3:48 guy on that day

moron

you are comparing 1500 laps to mile

learn idiot

if you compare mile to 1500, you use

~ 1.08

if you are comparing laps/splits in a 1500/mile, then by logic you adjust each

mile/1500

~ 1.08 / (1609.344/1500)

don't insult this board with that drivel again

try above for modified splits...

14 years ago 11/04/2009 2:33am EST

re: ventolin^2

ventolin^2 wrote:
epopians wrote:
A 3:48 Miler would not slow to 60 secs on the last lap in a 2:51(- 3 secs) 3/4, let alone a 2:54
54.3~ Coe's 3:32.03 (79) = 3:23.6 1500m pace. Last lap =56.9
54.5~ Ovett's 3:30.77 (83) = 3:24.4 pace. Last lap = 55.1
54.0~ Coe's 3:29.77 (86) = 3:22.5 pace. Last lap = 55.3
56.6(440)~ Snell's 3:54.1 (64) = 3:42.4 pace. Last lap(440) = 59.6
Which if you take off 1 sec a lap:-
55.3(400m)~ for 3:50.1. Last 400m 58.3.
Coe 81- 55.3 first 440 = 3:41.2 pace for mile. He finished in 55.4. He ran 3:47, so Snell should have finished his race much better if he were a 3:48 guy on that day
moron
you are comparing 1500 laps to mile
learn idiot
if you compare mile to 1500, you use
~ 1.08
if you are comparing laps/splits in a 1500/mile, then by logic you adjust each
mile/1500
by
~ 1.08 / (1609.344/1500)
don't insult this board with that drivel again
try above for modified splits...

Hello, Eldrick. We haven´t heard from you in a couple of days. Have you been visiting your home country Kenya?

14 years ago 11/04/2009 2:36am EST

re: well.

well. wrote:
ventolin^2 wrote:
moron
you are comparing 1500 laps to mile
learn idiot
if you compare mile to 1500, you use
~ 1.08
if you are comparing laps/splits in a 1500/mile, then by logic you adjust each
mile/1500
by
~ 1.08 / (1609.344/1500)
don't insult this board with that drivel again
try above for modified splits...
Hello, Eldrick. We haven´t heard from you in a couple of days. Have you been visiting your home country Kenya?

So this is Ventolin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kenyan_man.jpg

14 years ago 11/04/2009 2:35pm EST

re: well.

well. wrote:
ventolin^2 wrote:
moron
you are comparing 1500 laps to mile
learn idiot
if you compare mile to 1500, you use
~ 1.08
if you are comparing laps/splits in a 1500/mile, then by logic you adjust each
mile/1500
by
~ 1.08 / (1609.344/1500)
don't insult this board with that drivel again
try above for modified splits...
Hello, Eldrick. We haven´t heard from you in a couple of days. Have you been visiting your home country Kenya?

You are truly ignorant.

I'll compare what I like to illustrate the point I was making; that many athletes have gone off far faster than the optimum lap time for the first 400m, yet have managed to hold it together in the closing stages a lot better than Snell managed on that occasion.

I can only apologise for taking it for granted that you have a modicum of intelligence to pick up on the bleeding obvious. Next time I'll keep it nice and simple for you.

The last example I gave was for a Mile anyway. 55.3 first 440 is 3:41.2 Mile pace. Finishes with 55.4 last 440 or 55.1 last 400m. Considerably better than Snell's 58.3 (59.3)

14 years ago 11/05/2009 1:17am EST

re: epopians

moron

i asked you to list snell's splits modified for

1) 1s/lap for grass to synthetic

2) 1.08 / (1609.344/1500) conversion for laps in a mile to those in a 1500

as for coe's splits in his mile, you seem to be clueless to fact that he went off at 3'41 pace, but he ran middle 2 laps at 3'53 pace allowing him to recover from 1st lap & regain energy for a last lap push

work out snell's equivalent middle laps ( using 2s knocked off for 1) )

14 years ago 11/05/2009 9:46am EST

re: ventolin^2

This ventolin is an imposter besmirching my legacy.

Morons!

I am reporting this post.

14 years ago 11/05/2009 3:03pm EST

re: ventolin^2

ventolin^2 wrote:
moron
i asked you to list snell's splits modified for
1) 1s/lap for grass to synthetic

You're a cock! Snell's 3:54.1 Mile WR WASN"T run on grass but on cinders. Get your facts straight old man.

ventolin^2 wrote:
moron
i asked you to list snell's splits modified for
2) 1.08 / (1609.344/1500) conversion for laps in a mile to those in a 1500

You can ask what you like, I'll write what I want.

There's no need to convert, I was comparing two Mile races you imbecile.

ventolin^2 wrote:
as for coe's splits in his mile, you seem to be clueless to fact that he went off at 3'41 pace, but he ran middle 2 laps at 3'53 pace allowing him to recover from 1st lap & regain energy for a last lap push
work out snell's equivalent middle laps ( using 2s knocked off for 1) )

Idiot. Why should I knock off 2 secs when there is no scientific evidence that this track was 1 sec slower per lap. This is your opinion and nothing more.

Why take the middle 2 laps? Why not the last 2? You can slice it and dice it whatever way you want, but the fact born out by the stats are indisputable. Snell couldn't maintain the pace.

Snell's 440yd laps were:- 56.6, 57.8 (1:54.4), 60.2 (2:54.6) & 59.5

His middle 880 was 1:58 (which is 3:56 pace), so he was actually allowing himself to recover and regain energy for the last lap.

Coe's mid 880 was 1:56.6 (3:53 pace). If you want to go with the 1 sec a lap conversion, then Snell's mid 880 is marginally faster at 1:56.0. But then Coe's initial lap was slightly faster, so they effectively cancel themselves out.

Now lets look at how they finished.

Snell's last 880 was 1:59.7. Lets humour you and take away 2 secs for no scientific reason and give him 1:57.7. That's 3:55.4 Mile pace for our 3:48 man.

Coe's last 880 was 1:54.0 ~ 3:48 Mile pace. That's over 7 secs for the full Mile faster than Snell on a hypothetical synthetic track.

But lets look at the last 100m. Snell ran the last 100m in 15.3. That's 61.2 400m pace. Take off you're bleeding second and it gives him 60.2 pace. He was slowing down badly!

Coe's last 100m in his 3:47 was 13.1. That's 52.4 400m pace. It was the fastest 100m segment of his run. He was speeding up over the last lap and held something back for the last 100m. He wasn't going "all out" over the last lap, as he was primarily in a race not a solo record attempt. The crap pacing on the first 3 laps put paid to that.

So based on the fact that Snell went out slower, and finished much slower, while running a comparable mid section, you want people to believe that this 3:54 run (3:50.1 - just to shut you up) showed he could have run 3:48 that day!?

Lets humour you again. Lets give Snell every break possible:- pristine synthetic track, 1 sec per lap conversion, great weather conditions, three opening laps of 57.0 apiece. He is able to run the last lap in 57 and clock 3:48. Great.

If that is the case, then with the same courtesies afforded to him, Coe would have been running 3:44.

14 years ago 11/05/2009 3:56pm EST

re: epopians

epopians wrote:You're a cock! Snell's 3:54.1 Mile WR WASN"T run on grass but on cinders. Get your facts straight old man

moron

grass & dirt both still have same 1s/lap conversion

tell us your exploits of running on grass & on a '70s synthetic

ventolin^2 wrote:
[quote]You can ask what you like, I'll write what I want.
There's no need to convert, I was comparing two Mile races you imbecile

idiot

you listed a lot of 1500 splits, then splits in 2 races of a mile

only a moron woud try to compare splits in 1500 races with those in mile ones

you have to convert one to the other

i see you are a moron

Idiot. Why should I knock off 2 secs when there is no scientific evidence that this track was 1 sec slower per lap. This is your opinion and nothing more

moron

you have a class athlete in oldtimer telling you at least twice he ran on same track as ryun & on '70s tracks & given differential of 1s/lap as even perhaps an underestimate

are you such a moron you can't comprehend this ???

Why take the middle 2 laps? Why not the last 2? You can slice it and dice it whatever way you want, but the fact born out by the stats are indisputable. Snell couldn't maintain the pace

moron

it was because the 1st 1/2 was too fast for him ?

are you too stoopid to understand this ???

Snell's 440yd laps were:- 56.6, 57.8 (1:54.4), 60.2 (2:54.6) & 59.5
His middle 880 was 1:58 (which is 3:56 pace), so he was actually allowing himself to recover and regain energy for the last lap

moron

his 1/2 was run in 1'54.4 or 1'52.4 on synthetic = 3'44.8 pace

he was wasted by 1/2 mile & was just trying to survive in last 1/2

are you too stoopid to understand this ???

Coe's mid 880 was 1:56.6 (3:53 pace). If you want to go with the 1 sec a lap conversion, then Snell's mid 880 is marginally faster at 1:56.0. But then Coe's initial lap was slightly faster, so they effectively cancel themselves out

try some proper analysis :

he ran 1st 1/2 in 1'53.3 = 3'46.6 pace & finished off in 1'54.0 = 3'48.0 - about as even a distribution of 1/2s you coud ask for

snell's equivalent was 3'44.8 / 3'55.4

Snell's last 880 was 1:59.7. Lets humour you and take away 2 secs for no scientific reason and give him 1:57.7. That's 3:55.4 Mile pace for our 3:48 man.
Coe's last 880 was 1:54.0 ~ 3:48 Mile pace. That's over 7 secs for the full Mile faster than Snell on a hypothetical synthetic track

stoopid

snell went out 1st 1/2 at 3'44.8 pace, coe went out at 3'46.6 - much more comfortable

But lets look at the last 100m. Snell ran the last 100m in 15.3. That's 61.2 400m pace. Take off you're bleeding second and it gives him 60.2 pace. He was slowing down badly!

moron

that implies he covered the last lap between 440y - 100m at 58.4s pace on that dirt

he was doing magnificently to hold onto the pace for so long !

Coe's last 100m in his 3:47 was 13.1. That's 52.4 400m pace. It was the fastest 100m segment of his run. He was speeding up over the last lap and held something back for the last 100m. He wasn't going "all out" over the last lap, as he was primarily in a race not a solo record attempt. The crap pacing on the first 3 laps put paid to that

are you so stoopid that you can't comprehend that if he'd gone faster in initial 300m, he woudn't have been able to finish in 13.1 ???

in a race ??

with ancient mike boit a veritable mile behind him ??

he was only ever worried about ovett being in a race upto then, not decrepit boit

it was a time-trial to get back his wr - not a race to beat boit

as for crap pacing in the initial 3 laps, it was his fault for not taking the bull by the horns & kicking from 500 - 600 out, not relying on a fading wabbit

So based on the fact that Snell went out slower, and finished much slower, while running a comparable mid section, you want people to believe that this 3:54 run (3:50.1 - just to shut you up) showed he could have run 3:48 that day!?

with 3'44.8 / 3'55.4

yes, you idiot

Lets humour you again. Lets give Snell every break possible:- pristine synthetic track, 1 sec per lap conversion, great weather conditions, three opening laps of 57.0 apiece. He is able to run the last lap in 57 and clock 3:48. Great.
If that is the case, then with the same courtesies afforded to him, Coe would have been running 3:44.

moron

the disparity in coe's halves of 3'46.6 / 3'48.0 is trivial compared to snell's 3'44.8/3'55.4

i doubt coe wouda been worth anything more than ~1s better for a low-3'46 that day

14 years ago 11/05/2009 5:26pm EST

re: ventolin^2

ventolin^2 wrote:
epopians wrote:You're a cock! Snell's 3:54.1 Mile WR WASN"T run on grass but on cinders. Get your facts straight old man
moron
grass & dirt both still have same 1s/lap conversion
tell us your exploits of running on grass & on a '70s synthetic
ventolin^2 wrote:
[quote]You can ask what you like, I'll write what I want.
There's no need to convert, I was comparing two Mile races you imbecile
idiot
you listed a lot of 1500 splits, then splits in 2 races of a mile
only a moron woud try to compare splits in 1500 races with those in mile ones
you have to convert one to the other
i see you are a moron
Idiot. Why should I knock off 2 secs when there is no scientific evidence that this track was 1 sec slower per lap. This is your opinion and nothing more
moron
you have a class athlete in oldtimer telling you at least twice he ran on same track as ryun & on '70s tracks & given differential of 1s/lap as even perhaps an underestimate
are you such a moron you can't comprehend this ???
Why take the middle 2 laps? Why not the last 2? You can slice it and dice it whatever way you want, but the fact born out by the stats are indisputable. Snell couldn't maintain the pace
moron
it was because the 1st 1/2 was too fast for him ?
are you too stoopid to understand this ???
Snell's 440yd laps were:- 56.6, 57.8 (1:54.4), 60.2 (2:54.6) & 59.5
His middle 880 was 1:58 (which is 3:56 pace), so he was actually allowing himself to recover and regain energy for the last lap
no
moron
his 1/2 was run in 1'54.4 or 1'52.4 on synthetic = 3'44.8 pace
he was wasted by 1/2 mile & was just trying to survive in last 1/2
are you too stoopid to understand this ???
Coe's mid 880 was 1:56.6 (3:53 pace). If you want to go with the 1 sec a lap conversion, then Snell's mid 880 is marginally faster at 1:56.0. But then Coe's initial lap was slightly faster, so they effectively cancel themselves out
try some proper analysis :
he ran 1st 1/2 in 1'53.3 = 3'46.6 pace & finished off in 1'54.0 = 3'48.0 - about as even a distribution of 1/2s you coud ask for
snell's equivalent was 3'44.8 / 3'55.4
Snell's last 880 was 1:59.7. Lets humour you and take away 2 secs for no scientific reason and give him 1:57.7. That's 3:55.4 Mile pace for our 3:48 man.
Coe's last 880 was 1:54.0 ~ 3:48 Mile pace. That's over 7 secs for the full Mile faster than Snell on a hypothetical synthetic track
stoopid
snell went out 1st 1/2 at 3'44.8 pace, coe went out at 3'46.6 - much more comfortable
But lets look at the last 100m. Snell ran the last 100m in 15.3. That's 61.2 400m pace. Take off you're bleeding second and it gives him 60.2 pace. He was slowing down badly!
moron
that implies he covered the last lap between 440y - 100m at 58.4s pace on that dirt
he was doing magnificently to hold onto the pace for so long !
Coe's last 100m in his 3:47 was 13.1. That's 52.4 400m pace. It was the fastest 100m segment of his run. He was speeding up over the last lap and held something back for the last 100m. He wasn't going "all out" over the last lap, as he was primarily in a race not a solo record attempt. The crap pacing on the first 3 laps put paid to that
are you so stoopid that you can't comprehend that if he'd gone faster in initial 300m, he woudn't have been able to finish in 13.1 ???
in a race ??
with ancient mike boit a veritable mile behind him ??
he was only ever worried about ovett being in a race upto then, not decrepit boit
it was a time-trial to get back his wr - not a race to beat boit
as for crap pacing in the initial 3 laps, it was his fault for not taking the bull by the horns & kicking from 500 - 600 out, not relying on a fading wabbit
So based on the fact that Snell went out slower, and finished much slower, while running a comparable mid section, you want people to believe that this 3:54 run (3:50.1 - just to shut you up) showed he could have run 3:48 that day!?
with 3'44.8 / 3'55.4
yes, you idiot
Lets humour you again. Lets give Snell every break possible:- pristine synthetic track, 1 sec per lap conversion, great weather conditions, three opening laps of 57.0 apiece. He is able to run the last lap in 57 and clock 3:48. Great.
If that is the case, then with the same courtesies afforded to him, Coe would have been running 3:44.
no
moron
the disparity in coe's halves of 3'46.6 / 3'48.0 is trivial compared to snell's 3'44.8/3'55.4
i doubt coe wouda been worth anything more than ~1s better for a low-3'46 that day

Is this the sort of language you use in Kenya?

14 years ago 11/05/2009 7:35pm EST

re: ventolin^2

Ventolin is so insecure about his intelligence that the only possible bulwark he can conjure up to support its flimsy structure is to disparage others, incessantly calling them "moron," "idiot," or "stoopid." This is symptomatic of his lack of self-confidence and the fact that it is likely that his calculator is his only friend. Get out and make yourself a life Ventolin. I hope it is not too late.

14 years ago 11/05/2009 9:54pm EST

re: Old Runner

Snell was great despite Lydiard's training methods, not because of them

Science has since revealed the importance of catering proportional development of different energy systems to your event, and strictly classic Lydiard systems comically miss the mark

If Snell had been trained by Peter Coe, we'd be talking about when, if ever, will someone break his 800 WR

Page 6 of 7

1 5 6 7

Next Last

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Peter Snell 800 WR on Grass

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Peter Snell 800 WR on Grass

Jump To A Page

Follow manonthemount

Block manonthemount

Jump To A Page

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.