Rupp runs 3:50!!

When you have no argument left, "what's your PB?"

The outrageous times logged this past weekend at indoor meets prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that USA T&F is more doped up than MLB, NFL, WWE, UFC/MMA and Cycling combined

Canada Coach wrote:

t94bell wrote:

Full.

If you have to ask this question, you need to educate yourself a little first.

If you made that statement with a straight face then it is probably you who needs to educate yourself first.

Yeah, so, increasingly clear that Rupp is doped to the gills and crafting his own mini lance armstrong fairy tale.

toro wrote:

Running on Empathy wrote:

Coghlan was a head case who had it stuck in his brain that he was the king of indoors. His outdoor racing strategies left much to be desired.

I didn't want to leave this post out there without commenting that Coghlan won a World Championship Gold medal - outdoors.

Why do people always have the urge to take someone down a peg?

Try reading the original post in context. Deanok made the comment that running fast indoors doesn't always translate into running faster outdoors, and he used Coghlan as his example. I only pointed out that Coghlan had a history of running strange inefficient races in big outdoor events - the '76 games where he made terrible decisions in that 1500 final that cost him a medal, the '78 EC's where he indeed finished second to Ovett but only after getting himself boxed on the last lap and then recovering in the last 100, and the Moscow 5k where he was right where he needed to be with 300 to go but let Yifter sneak by on the inside (which seemed to cause Coghlan to lose his composure down the stretch). I also pointed out that Coe ran great times indoors and even better times outdoors in the 800 and mile.

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

He won't argue the point, because he knows it's clear that running the mile INDOORS in exceeding rare for the world's best in the 1500 (a group Rupp is still eons from contact with in the event).

Fifth all-time in the mile is interesting - just like 5th all-time in the 150 or the 2000 is interesting. But it should not be represented as being anywhere near the same level as fifth all-time in a real event.

i'm not here to defend a duck (or rupp, for that matter), nor ask your pr, but you have done little to defend your point as well, other than restate it.

the truth is, many of the greatest milers have had more opportunities than rupp to post a 3:50 indoors and they didn't. put me on a list ahead of aouita, scott, ngeny et. al., and, assuming they had as many or more opportunities to post a better time, that's still rarified air, and, at least in my opinion, more than "interesting." and don't compare it to the 150 or 2k. it's the mile. indoors and out, it is absolutely a "real event" AND it has been contested by MANY of the best, unlike the 150 or 2k...

if you want to make a better argument, you could:

a) talk about suspicions of the salazar camp--tough argument, no proof i know of, but everyone's welcome to their suspicions, which of course also apply to many of the guys ahead and behind rupp on this list;

b) talk about how the indoor tracks are better designed and "tuned"--this, i think, would be a very valid point, though i'm unfamiliar with the boston u track;

c) talk about deer antlers...

that's my story and i'm sticking to it...

True enough. It is pretty exceptional, and interesting under-represents that. There are some great runners who have taken some hard shots at the mile. But the fact is that this is just fractional in comparison to the number of shots at the 1500.

Don't believe me? Look at the time spread between #1 and #10 (or #25, or #50, or #100) in the mile compared with the 1500. I promise you the mile will be more spread out, EVEN THOUGH the mile WR is weak relative to the 1500.

I'm sorry, but people in the US simply have NO IDEA how obscure and anacronistic the 1609.34 meter run is to the rest of the world.

In fact, I think that the 150 WR is more representative of Bolt's peak ability than the 1609.344 WR is of El G's.