Because they ran 1500 in Monaco.
Because they ran 1500 in Monaco.
13 years into the 21st century, guess some people still don't understand the internet. I count at least 1 (up to 3) mark better than Alan Webb.
1 3:43.13 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Roma 07.07.1999
2 3:43.40 Noah Ngeny KEN 02.11.78 2 Roma 07.07.1999
3 3:44.39 Noureddine Morceli ALG 28.02.70 1 Rieti 05.09.1993
4 3:44.60 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Nice 16.07.1998
5 3:44.90 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Oslo 04.07.1997
6 3:44.95 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Roma 29.06.2001
7 3:45.19 Noureddine Morceli ALG 28.02.70 1 Zürich 16.08.1995
8 3:45.64 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Berlin 26.08.1997
9 3:45.96 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 London 05.08.2000
10 3:46.24 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Oslo 28.07.2000
11 3:46.32 Steve Cram GBR 14.10.60 1 Oslo 27.07.1985
12 3:46.38 Daniel Komen KEN 17.05.76 2 Berlin 26.08.1997
13 3:46.70 Vénuste Niyongabo BDI 09.12.73 3 Berlin 26.08.1997
14 3:46.76 Saïd Aouita MAR 02.11.59 1 Helsinki 02.07.1987
15 3:46.78 Noureddine Morceli ALG 28.02.70 1 Berlin 27.08.1993
16 3:46.91 Alan Webb USA 13.01.83 1 Brasschaat 21.07.2007
*clean
Hate to be that guy, but with a phd in history I feel compelled to point out that the year 2000 was part of the 20th century. I know it is technical, but there is one easy way to demonstrate this.
Count to thirteen.
Did any one of you start with the number zero...no. The number one is the first in the series, same as with years, there is no such thing as year zero, therefore 2001 was the first year of the 21st century.
Let the mockery begin.
Good point, VAcoach. Accuracy and precision matter.
yeah!
#1 baby
5 gb&f baby !
El G has the fastest this century. What do I win?
sandybeaver wrote:
13 years into the 21st century, guess some people still don't understand the internet. I count at least 1 (up to 3) mark better than Alan Webb.
1 3:43.13 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Roma 07.07.1999
2 3:43.40 Noah Ngeny KEN 02.11.78 2 Roma 07.07.1999
3 3:44.39 Noureddine Morceli ALG 28.02.70 1 Rieti 05.09.1993
4 3:44.60 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Nice 16.07.1998
5 3:44.90 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Oslo 04.07.1997
6 3:44.95 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Roma 29.06.2001
7 3:45.19 Noureddine Morceli ALG 28.02.70 1 Zürich 16.08.1995
8 3:45.64 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Berlin 26.08.1997
9 3:45.96 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 London 05.08.2000
10 3:46.24 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Oslo 28.07.2000
11 3:46.32 Steve Cram GBR 14.10.60 1 Oslo 27.07.1985
12 3:46.38 Daniel Komen KEN 17.05.76 2 Berlin 26.08.1997
13 3:46.70 Vénuste Niyongabo BDI 09.12.73 3 Berlin 26.08.1997
14 3:46.76 Saïd Aouita MAR 02.11.59 1 Helsinki 02.07.1987
15 3:46.78 Noureddine Morceli ALG 28.02.70 1 Berlin 27.08.1993
16 3:46.91 Alan Webb USA 13.01.83 1 Brasschaat 21.07.2007
You don't understand. Webb and Cram are the only clean names on that list.
did he look relaxed?
VAcoach wrote:
Hate to be that guy, but with a phd in history I feel compelled to point out that the year 2000 was part of the 20th century. I know it is technical, but there is one easy way to demonstrate this.
Count to thirteen.
Did any one of you start with the number zero...no. The number one is the first in the series, same as with years, there is no such thing as year zero, therefore 2001 was the first year of the 21st century.
Let the mockery begin.
The guy that pointed out at least one, up to three performances above already made this point in a more subtle way.
I've never really understood this argument.
When you are born, you aren't born at age 1, you are 0 years old, and it is year 0 for a full year. Then it is year 1 for the next year.
In the end, it all boils down to if there was a year 0 or not. I assume historians have just defined the calendar to have no year 0, making 2000 part of the 20th century. In the end I disagree with the decision to do so, as IMO there should be a year 0.
Afterall, if you have people count to 13 starting at -5, you better believe they will all count 0.
Yeah! Only white guys are clean!
moroccans don't dope
VAcoach wrote:
Hate to be that guy, but with a phd in history I feel compelled to point out that the year 2000 was part of the 20th century. I know it is technical, but there is one easy way to demonstrate this.
Count to thirteen.
Did any one of you start with the number zero...no. The number one is the first in the series, same as with years, there is no such thing as year zero, therefore 2001 was the first year of the 21st century.
Let the mockery begin.
First of all, there is a year 0 AD. We don't just skip year 0 when going from BC to AD. If you want to get even more technical than that, we can define year 0 as starting as the Big Bang occured.
I have a BS in Mathematics, so I have taken Algebra and Number Theory. I know a little bit about modular arithmetic. In a ring, Z_n, we starting counting at 0 and go to (n-1). In the case of centuries, n = 100, so we define a year y as being in the range 0 to 99.
Furthermore, ask any computer scientist if they start numbering their elements in arrays at 0 or 1. I'll let you speculate as to what their answer would be.
Another example, military time clocks. We go from 00:00:00 to 23:59:59. There is no 24:00:00, it cycles over at 00:00:00. The first hour is from 00:00:00 to 0:59:59 and so on. The hours are members of the ring Z_24, the minutes and second are members of Z_60.
If we further this analogy to years, we can say the first year in the calendar starts at 01/01/0000AD at 00:00:00. This century ends at 12/31/0099AD at 23:59:59.
To sum up: If you start counting at year 1, what happens to the time period between 01/01/0000AD at 00:00:00 and 12/31/0001AD at 00:00:00? (since you would undoubtedly start the year at 1 second, and not 00:00:00)
I agree that this is how it should work. The problem is that historians have defined year 0 out of existence, thus making the first hundred years from 1 to 100.
Astronomers are smarter than historians and have updated the current calendar and inserted a year 0 to their numbering system.
But Jesus was born in like 3bc so you have to adjust all the calenders to god's time to get the real numbers....
VAcoach wrote:
Hate to be that guy, but with a phd in history I feel compelled to point out that the year 2000 was part of the 20th century. I know it is technical, but there is one easy way to demonstrate this.
Count to thirteen.
Did any one of you start with the number zero...no. The number one is the first in the series, same as with years, there is no such thing as year zero, therefore 2001 was the first year of the 21st century.
Let the mockery begin.
stick with eharmony wrote:
did he look relaxed?
yeah, on a scale of "a$$ clenched so tight he could turn coal to diamond" to "just finished masturbating" how relaxed would you say he was?
How old were you when you born?
How old were you when you were born?
Just under 9 months if you vote Republican. 😀
In the womb wrote:
How old were you when you were born?