So I made a mistake, get over it!
So I made a mistake, get over it!
So is this grammar class or a running website? I'm not writing a paper here so get over it!
I've seen people with much worse grammar. People use ur, instead of your. People use i, instead of I. Maybe you people haven't even seen how other people write. He's right, this isn't a damn english class, its a f***ing forum. Besides, people shouldn't give a f*** about how grammar is on these sites anyway.
So f*** off!
Get an x-ray of your brain. I don't think its big enough
The New uncleB wrote:
[quote]I'm eating oatmeal wrote:
You don't make any sense. First thing I advice you to do is learn grammar and english.
How often do you advice people?
This is kind of random but who is better, John Walker or Alan Webb?
This is just my opinion but I think Sir Walker was much better. Sure Alan Webb's record mile is faster then Walker's, but Walker's career was much longer and much more consistent, he ran over one hundred sub fours!
Sir Walker's fastest mile time was 3:49.4, while Alan's was 3:46.95. I think they're tied. Walker only ran one or two sub 3:50's, but Alan ran like four or five, but you're right, Walker's was way more consistent, that's why they're tied.
training in northern virginia, near DC is much like training in altitude, because rather than oxygen, you breathe in car exaust, he will be in race shape in no time.
Technically it was 3:46.91, not 3:46.95 you stupid f***
Challenger wrote:
Sir Walker's fastest mile time was 3:49.4, while Alan's was 3:46.95. I think they're tied. Walker only ran one or two sub 3:50's, but Alan ran like four or five, but you're right, Walker's was way more consistent, that's why they're tied.
Well they're different. One isn't better then the other. Alan Webb had faster times with more struggles and some good consistency while Walker ran fast times but not as fast as Webb's and he had better consistency for a lot more years.
Let's not forget that Webb's career isn't quite over. He could still become better then Walker. He is still running, Walker's years have ended long ago. Walker was damn hell good of a runner, running the first sub 3:50 mile time ever! That's worth a lot more then a sub 4:00, which Roger Bannister became the first to do, but he couldn't do any better, making him the worst sub four minute miler, because he could only get 3:59.
Who was the first person to get a sub 3:45?
It was Nurridine Morciline, (my spelling sucks)
Isn't the world record 3:43 something?
It is, do some research. I can't believe you don't know what the world record mile time is.
What about the possibility of a sub 3:40 mile time? That would be HUGE!!!
Well the world record has been getting broken less and less, so I bet if that happens it'll be at least seventy years away, if not never
Grandmaster wrote:
What about the possibility of a sub 3:40 mile time? That would be HUGE!!!
There really is no comparison. Alan Webb is American and Walker is from Australia-New Zea land. Of course there are a lot of world class American runners like Jason Pyra, Steve Scott, Lukas Verbas. None of them compare because most of them could only get between 3:57-4:00 miles, but they are better runners in other distances, but we're talking about the mile here. Webb is the best American miler, not the best American runner.
John Walker is still one of the best runners in all of history.
1, he was the first man to ever run a sub 3:50 mile
2, he ran well over one hundred sub fours
3, he was very consistent and injury free, practically invincible until the early 90's
4, he was a good 1500m runner, time of 3:32, less then two seconds from Alan Webb's record, 3:30, This is equivalent to a 3:47 mile. That doesn't mean Alan is bad, he is also great, but the two are different.