Could a fit Alan Webb break 3000M WR?

the smartest letsrunner wrote:

the smartest letsrunner wrote:

a fit alan webb could not break any of the distance AMERICAN records. please be real here people.

I have only said that Webb will never break an AR. FUTURE TENSE. Got it?

Actually, no, that's not what you said. See above. Calm down, hoss.

You said "could," not "will."

Stop claiming you said something you didn't.

"Could" is not future tense, it is a conditional and a past tense.

Then you went on to concede Webb "had the potential" to get the record. Which contradicts your earlier assertion of "could not."

Say it again with me - "could" is not future tense.

kartelite wrote:

Say it again with me - "could" is not future tense.

"He could do it in 2012." Future. (Not true in Webb's case.)

Is English your first language?

AR? yes. WR? no.

Why would he want to?

the smartest letsrunner wrote:

kartelite wrote:

Say it again with me - "could" is not future tense.

"He could do it in 2012." Future. (Not true in Webb's case.)

Is English your first language?

Wow. Seriously. First of all, it is NOT a future tense. "Could" serves the following functions in English:

"Could" is used to express possibility or past ability as well as to make suggestions and requests. "Could" is also commonly used in conditional sentences as the conditional form of "can."

(http://www.englishpage.com)

That said, it can certainly be used the way you implied in "He could do it in 2012." That, by the way, is different from saying "He will do it in 2012." HOWEVER, as English is my native language, I feel confident saying that over 99% of the time, when someone says, "He couldn't do it," ESPECIALLY in the context of this debate (which is hypothetical, as we're given the hypothesis of a "fit Alan Webb"), we interpret "could" to be the conditional use. NOT future. In the context of what he was capable of in 2007, then we'd be in the past usage.

And, you did not say "will," as you insisted. If that's what you had meant, you would not have said "could," because they imply something very different.

You're the one who wanted to get all nit-picky. Believe me, you're not gonna win this one, chief. But if you wanna try, respond to this:

1. First you put things in my mouth. You said: "You are saying that, because Webb was "only" 1-2 seconds off of Lagat's AR (which is 3 seconds off of Lagat's PR), Webb has a shot at a 3000 time that Lagat himself is miles off of?"

Where did I say or imply that? (Disclaimer, I don't think he "could" - in any sense of the word - realistically get the record)

2. You claimed that, according to IAAF charts, "3:29 low" converts to "3:45 low." According to the charts I see, 3:28.96, which is faster than even the lowest of the "3:29 lows," converts to 3:45.53, slower than the highest of anything that could be considered "3:45 low." Explain that.

3. You said "a fit alan webb could not break any of the distance AMERICAN records. please be real here people"

You then said: "I have only said that Webb will never break an AR. FUTURE TENSE. Got it?"

You just contradicted yourself. The first, in its standard usage, means, "Assuming Alan Webb was fit, at no time would he ever have had or will he have the ability to break an American record." The second means, "Alan Webb won't break an American record." The first one carries an implicit assumption that Alan Webb is fit, they are nowhere near the same statement.

...

the smartest letsrunner wrote:Your assumption that your horse racing calculator can accurately interpolate human times, and that all runners with a given 1500/5000 pairing will have the same 3000 results, is the joke

idiot

the ranges we've thrown out have varied from 7'19 to 7'28 for all sorts of athletes based on individual 1500/5k times

And I suppose that ***you're*** never going to give an example of when horseracecalc.co.uk actually worked, are you?[/quote]

you are plainly a complete f***ing moron

did your numbskull not comprehend my post at :

1/18/2011 12:35PM

jennifer cruz wrote:You mention 3:31.7 and 12:52.2 in '05. But remember, he ran 3:31.85 in '06 when he ran 12:48. So if you were really being generous to him, you'd give him 3:31 and 12:48, and you'd probably have a high 7:24.

i tended to overlook him when he gave up on the 1500 when he had sub-3'30 potential with 3'30.99 at 20y - in the post-hicham era, 3'29 coud make you king

anyhows

3'31.85/12'48.66 ->7'25.29

3'31.00/12'48.00 ->7'24.34

I could see him also breaking the AR in the 5000! Not WR though...sorry.

kartelite wrote:

Believe me, you're not gonna win this one, chief. But if you wanna try, respond to this:

>>

3. You said "a fit alan webb could not break any of the distance AMERICAN records. please be real here people"

You then said: "I have only said that Webb will never break an AR. FUTURE TENSE. Got it?"

You just contradicted yourself. The first, in its standard usage, means, "Assuming Alan Webb was fit, at no time would he ever have had or will he have the ability to break an American record." The second means, "Alan Webb won't break an American record." The first one carries an implicit assumption that Alan Webb is fit, they are nowhere near the same statement.

...

"You're not gonna win this one, chief." Are you serious? Do people really talk like that? I guess you do. You're so cute when you try to act tough. Um...how to explain this to you...I already have won this one. Chief.

You have been sitting around cutting and pasting my words, in a thread that I have literally led you all over for my own amusement, while I've been out running and hanging out with the woman you wish you were with. I'll take the win on this thread, thanks.

In any case, I obviously never suggested Webb hasn't broken an AR. I said that Webb can't break a single AR. As in EXISTING ARs, not past ones. I can't believe I need to spell this out for you: I'm not talking about ARs in 1954 or 2007, I am talking about current ARs, and Webb's inability to beat them, no matter what he does. And I maintain that he won't break any existing ARs. Ever.

This is like me saying "Kartelite won't have a single original thought." The fact that you MAY have once is not at issue. The point is that you won't have an original thought in the future. I'd give Webb a better chance at 7:19, frankly.

Now go do something useful.

the smartest letsrunner wrote:Your assumption that your horse racing calculator can accurately interpolate human times, and that all runners with a given 1500/5000 pairing will have the same 3000 results, is the joke

ventolin^3 wrote:

idiot

the ranges we've thrown out have varied from 7'19 to 7'28 for all sorts of athletes based on individual 1500/5k times

you are plainly a complete f***ing moron

did your numbskull not comprehend my post at :

1/18/2011 12:35PM

First, you are such a grumpy little man. There's no need to be obscene. Use your words like a big boy.

Second, what is with your random use of "we"? I am not criticizing the predictions of others; I am criticizing your insistent use of a calculator designed for horse racing.

As for your post at 1/18/2011 12:35PM - that's when you said you can't see a difference between predicting horse times and human times. For a guy calling others "peabrain," you make a lot of spelling errors, and for a guy calling others "numbskull," you have some bizarre ideas about the world.

Here's a thought: I have a greyhound puppy that can cover 100m in 11s, 200m in 23s and 400m in 46s.

I'm sure there are plenty of 11/23 high school sprinters who will be delighted to hear that doggiecalc.co.uk predicts they will do 45 for the 400! Except that it's based on A DIFFERENT SPECIES, GENIUS.

Which is why I've asked, and you've failed, to give a single example of your little horsiecalc.co.uk working prospectively. I'm still waiting...

(But let me save you the trouble of typing up your next bon mot, which I'm sure will go something like: "Ventolin^3 wrote: You dumb f**king s**t, um, horsiecalc.co.uk is good...F**K")

are you f***ing illiterate ??

it says athletics/horse-racing/swimming, nothing preferential

you must be the biggest, utter & complete moron here

do you not even have a clue who 3'29/3'30 with 12'39/12'40 or 3'29/3'30 with 12'50 refers to ???

you f***ing idiot

it says it's not for track races below 400m

learn to read

imbecile

it's the off-season now

there is going to be nothing "prospectively" for 4/12, unless you care to suggest a middle distance guy/gal & give me their current best 400/800 ability

you are clearly a complete numbskull

you get both barrels

ventolin^3 wrote:

as far as i can see from trying it, horses don't run any different from humans apart from being quicker

Funniest quote ever!!! Horses has four legs you dumbass.

haha YO wrote:

Funniest quote ever!!! Horses HAVE four legs you dumbass.

What I meant to say.

here is a "prospective" for you, maybe for '12

a 51.4 / 1'47.8 guy

->3'30.63 , 7'20.00 , 12'36.37 , 26'15.24

or woud you like one for 10 - 15y from now, when we may get some african who can go

48.00/1'42.75

->3'24.13 , 7'13.58 , 12'33.58 , 26'31.83

the smartest letsrunner wrote:

This is like me saying "Kartelite won't have a single original thought." The fact that you MAY have once is not at issue. The point is that you won't have an original thought in the future. I'd give Webb a better chance at 7:19, frankly.

No, it's like saying "Kartelite couldn't have a single original thought."

The fact that I MAY have one once IS an issue as it relates to the validity of the statement.

You're still confused about tense. That's okay. There are worse things in life.

ça sert à rien d'argumenter avec toi ptt salaud, t'as même pas la faculté intellectuelle d'un écureil...tout te dépasse, espèce de connard, quel gaspillage d'oxygène ta sale vie de merde...

For what it's worth, I spoke to Alan after his track workout yesterday and asked him about the 3000 WR. He respects the record but did concede that it is "on the radar."

Oh, wow. Now you're using grammatically incorrect French, too? Please. Make the bad man stop saying mean things in French! Poo-poo!

You seem just smart enough to know that you are wrong here, and I can tell that it's killing you, but let me connect the dots for you again.

To say that a fit Webb could not break an AR is to say that a HYPOTHETICAL fit Webb could not break any of the EXISTING ARs.

Your early misinterpretation ('huh-huh-huh he DID break an AR before') was either deliberate or dumb, or maybe both.

As in: a rich Kartelite could not become less of a loser. Maybe when you made your first dollar you improved your lot slightly, but a hypothetical wealthy you, like a hypothetical fit Webb, will go no further.

Du köra eller tänka mer långsamt?

ventolin^3 wrote:

horses don't run any different from humans apart from being quicker

This quote right here really sums up the running genius of ventolin^3.

Your calculator, even parameterized with a runner's results from longer and shorter distance than the distance being modeled, by definition makes assumptions about the runner's performance between those distances. It is not an unbiased predictor, nor the divining prophet that you seem to see it as, turning to it blindly in every. single. thread.

That is to say, since you don't seem to get this point, that two different 3:30 1500 runners might get to 12:45 differently, and certainly might get to an unknown result for 3000 differently.

Your assumption that there are no pertinent differences between swimming, athletics and equestrian (seriously?) is preposterous. Energy is utilized far differently in a swimming event (where for a number of reasons positive splits are the norm in WRs) and is obviously utilized differently by horses.

All this to say it's no surprise you STILL haven't produced one example of your little calculator working to predict times prospectively. Your post above makes it clear that this failure is because you didn't understand the simple question:

Where x

Where x

(But I'm pretty sure you're just going to have another tantrum, as above.)