Nooooooo wrote:
asdfasdse wrote:I don't see how you DON'T think it's more impressive. Look at Leingang last year: 14:27, 8:51. By all calculators and real world situations, a sub-14:30 is far better than a sub-9, especially for teens, who usually have more speed than aerobic ability.
Even if you can't agree with me on this topic, I think everyone can agree that Leingang's race was awesome, and it's exciting to see two sophomores under 14:35.
Horrible idiotic comparison. IQ of 85?
Everyone knows 1427 and 851 aren't equal. A sub 1430 is not only NOT far better its clearly worse.
Lets throw out more bad comparisons. Ritz 8:41/8:44 and 13:44. That line up? Yea it doesn't work when you throw in braindead comparisons from races not even remotely similar in fast time setup.
3/10 wouldn't bang.
A 9:04 would roughly equate to 14:55, and looking at pace that only makes perfect sense. 4:33.5 for 3200 -> 4:48 for 5000. That makes sense.
Then a 14:27 equates to about 8:50. Paces break down and make perfect sense: 4:26 for 3200 -> 4:40 for 5000.
So clearly "everyone knows" is untrue.
I had a lot of fun watching the race last night.... except when Ian Brooks found ways to garner attention towards himself by being obnoxious, and when the camera showed Wesley Frazier for her interview instead of the race. Nonetheless, Leingang looked like he enjoyed himself.