OFFICIAL Athletics/T&F WR Thread

I have read your table now and Bolts 9.58 is a massive outlier even though you have not done the equivalence on it, I see how you do your calculations on it and this would be your line.

9.58=19.16=42.48=1.39.64=2.08.37=3.23.83=4.39.43=7.13.26=

12.27.00=25.50.57

This is correct yes?

There is no way bolt is this much of a statistical outlier. For the equivalence to balance out, Bekele would have to run 27sec faster in the 10k and 10sec in the 5k and we would see a sub 3.40 mile. This would also suggest a sub 1.59 marathon and a sub 57 half. Even your suggested 26flat would line up a sub 2 marathon. The marathon is highly competitive and far from extinct but a sub 2, not a chance.

I would like to see your equivelence of these times for a flat marathon like berlin. A 26 flat 10k would need around a vo2 max of 87. This would put that runner ahead of Lance Armstrong and just behind Miguel Indurain, both of whom got to train for 6+ hours a day as they have no impact in their sport. How could a runner match these guys in oxygen uptake if they are training twice the amount everyday and also have a cocktail of drugs in them? This vo2 max would be completely unheard of for a distance runner.

Ventolins calculations appear to be off again

Presumably these imaginary 26 minute athletes are capable of 1-58 marathons going on his previous postings

close, but you are out in some of them

for 200m, he is, less so for 100 as 200 is his best event

you forget posts elsewhere where i said you have to convert sprints to basic times with :

you have then also forgotten the progression of sprints, especially 100m

mo held 9.79 (+0.1) until recently = 9.80 basic

in basic terms, it was only matched by powell in '07 with 9.78 (0) in '07

his 9.74wr earlier in day had +1.7 = 9.83 basic

even bolt's 1st wr of 9.72 (+1.7) in early '08 was only = 9.81 basic

it was only in peking he blasted it away in basic terms

so, upto games of '08, the basic 100m wr was 9.80 of mo/powell

9.80 = 19.60 = 43.70 = 1'41.40 = 2'10.77 = 3'27.13 =

7'19.86 = 12'38.00 = 26'12.57

the 100m wr was weaker than every wr except 1k/3k/10k & those all had caveats :

- noah ran something like 8m extra at start of his 1k in a suicidal 49.8 start !!!

- komen ran that 3k with a tired-looking 13'02 in his legs from 44 hours earlier & again stoopid 57-high start

- kennster had lot of slow kms in that 10k

as 100m is a flat-out, "perfect" effort, it is very likely that upto 5y+ ago it was weakest of all wrs

then we come to mj's 19.32 (+0.4) which every fan on planet agreed was greatest wr of all by far when it was run

19.32(+0.4) = 19.38 basic

19.38 = 9.69 = 43.26 = 1'40.52 = 2'09.67 = 3'25.48 = 7'16.56 = 12'32.50 = 26'01.57

in fact, it was only slightly stronger than butch's 43.29wr & hicham's later 3'26.00wr

this is nothing about "balance"

the conclusion is that bolt is better at 100/200, rudy at 800 & hicham at 1500 than kennster is at 5k/10k

who says kennster has to be as good at his specialist events than those 3 guys above at theirs ???

bottom line : he isn't, but he is close, as i'm sure he couda gone 12'34/26'10 in his perfect races

i haven't put up M equivalents but for a track 2"03'23 = ~ 26'38

seeing as a road, even berlin is going to be slower than a 400m enclosed track, by some unknown amount, i'd guesstimate kipsang's M equivalence on a track is in region of 26'25

this doesn't mean he couda run 26'25 in berlin form but what the equivalent number is for 10k for a road 2"03'23

i also believe M is beyond human's best running distance - there is an oft quoted physiological "wall" at 20 miles

regardless of how fast the M wr goes, it is highly unlikely to match the 10k equivalents

it woud be far better to see the top M guys turn long term to 10k & run it a few times/y to see their relative 10k/M ability

no way the 10k wr woud still be at 26'17 if that happened

26'38 for berlin

but berlin isn't a perfect flat track

for that, more like 26'25

i have no interest in v02

some nordic skiier has higher value than any track athlete

i haven't seen him run 26'00

v02 is a worthless measure

do you think most of these africans have a clue about their v02 ???

just sayin wrote:Presumably these imaginary 26 minute athletes are capable of 1-58 marathons going on his previous postings

it is difficult to comprehend how dumb you are

if 26'00 guys are imaginary, why on earth are you comparing to a M ???

for the record

26'17 = for a berlin course ~ 2"01'55

26'00 = " " ~ 2"00'43

ventolin^3 wrote:

GoldenMiles wrote:The TJ record is also insanely out of reach

you forget the huge effect wind has on tj

edwards had nice +1.3 wind whereas next on list, kenny jumped into a 0.4

a prelim estimate fo "basic" jumps is to use roughly 1% for a 2m/s wind ( as a 10.00 with +2 is usually ~ 10.10 basic )

the wind has a squared effect because it speeds up run-up & pushes you thru the air during trajectory

so, edwards 18.29 ( +1.3 ) = ~

18.29 / [ 1 + (( 1.3/2.0 ) * 0.01)]^2 =

18.06m basic

for kenny, with a 18.09 ( -0.4 ) = ~

18.09 * [ 1 + (( 0.4/2.0 ) * 0.01)]^2 =

18.17m basic

kenny's jump is actually ~ 10cm better intrinsically than edwards wr

teddy & taylor are 5 - 10cm behind edwards ( teddy's 17.92iwr had 5cm behind board )

the tj for the 2 current top guys ( albeit not in good form ) is more about not getting that nice wind than lack of ability

It is interesting that most of Edwards's top times had a wind behind them.

Looking at the all-time top list, it is nice to see that someone else (Teddy, who you mentioned) has cleared 18 meters in recent years.

just sayin wrote:

Ventolins calculations appear to be off again

Presumably these imaginary 26 minute athletes are capable of 1-58 marathons going on his previous postings

His calculator isn't so much the problem, it's the rubbish he puts into it based on his biased agenda to promote his calculator that is at fault.

He says Ngeny ran an extra 8m in his 1k WR at the start, after claiming last week in another thread that it was 5m, just to try and justify that this record should be closer in line with all the others.

This is plainly not the case, as anyone with a pair of eyes can testify to.

To run an extra 8m he would have had to run the entire first bend well into lane 3. Had he run 30cm into lane 3, this would still be less than 8m.

He was in the outer half of lane 1 within a few seconds of the start and ran no more than 2 or 3m extra.

1,000M vs. 2,000M vs. 3,000M vs. 20,000M vs. 30,000M: which one of these obscure records is the best (I'm guessing Komen's 3K), and which is the worst?

nonsense

it is accurate observation

no

on closer observation, the guy in lane 3 is the 1st african guy who is the pacer

that guy wouda been the 5+m guy

however, that is NOT noah

noah is in lane 4 & that is the outer part

no

it is noah starting in lane 4

you have no clue about simple maths

he didn't run whole race in lane 3 but started in outer part of lane 4

nonsense

there is no front-on shot of the bend

well into the bend he has 2 people inside him in a line

at 11s he is still wide in lane 1 of euro guy

the estimate for extra distance run is average of :

distance run in outer part of lane 4 of (1.22 * 3 ) + 0.7m with that running bend in outer part of lane 1 of 0.9m out ->

[(1.22 * 3) + 0.7] * pi = 13.7m

0.9 * pi = 2.83m

average of these 13.7 + 2.83 is

8.27m

that is at least 8m extra run in his 2'11.96 ->

2'10.91

on top of that, it makes his initial 400 even wilder

it was 49.8 with 8m extra in it

that means he ran 2'10.91 with a start of

(400/408) * 49.8 =

48.8 !!!

that means he wouda been looking at much closer to 2'10-flat with a sensible 400 start all in lane 1 & he still had a 3'29.1 from 44 hours earlier in his legs !!!

Utter drivel.

The radius of the bend is 36.8m. To run an extra 8m on 1 bend he'd have to run the entire bend at least 30cm into lane 3.

Radius taken 30cm from inside of lane 1.

Each lane is 1.22m wide, so on the line between lane 1 and 2 = radius + 92cm.

30 cm into lane 3 = 36.8 + 0.92 + 1.22 + 0.30 = 39.24m

Using 2 Pi R for 39.24 = 246.55m. This would be for both bends.

246.55/2 = 123.27.

Each bend on an IAAF approved track is 115.61m in distance 30cm into lane 1.

123.27 - 115.61 = 7.67m

Thus if he had run the entire bend in lane 3 he would have covered less than 8m extra in distance. He is nowhere near being that wide. He would run a diagonal from the start and run most of that bend no wider than the line between 1 and 2.

As usual you exaggerate to a ridiculous level. Any one with an ounce of common sense would laugh at the suggestion he ran 5m more let alone 8m!

the drivel is your post

this again shows your complete & utter cluelessness about maths

the key aspect is WHERE noah starts

repeated viewing shows it is in outer part of lane 4 !!!

now, time to use your peabrain

if noah at gun had run a perpendicular straight line to the inner part of lane 1 in order to then turn 90 degrees to run exact 1k, he wouda had to run to get to inner lane 1 :

0.7m from outer part of lane 4 to inner part of lane 4 + cross lane 3 + cross lane 2 + cross into inner lane 1 =

0.7 + 1.22 + 1.22 + 1.22 =

4.36m !!!

then turn right & run 1000m

this already shows the minimal absolute distance run was 4m if he'd run the ridiculous straight perpendicular to inner lane 1

he of course didn't

he of course ran an arc to get to outer part of lane 1 by end of curve which woud be hugely more than 4.36m & the 8+ m which i estimated in previous post

obviously any kinda basic maths appears beyond you

utter drivel

if he'd run perpendicularly to inner lane 1, it wouda been already 4.36m extra

the extra distance was 8+m

ventolin^3 wrote:

at 11s he is still wide in lane 1 of euro guy

"euro guy" - an algerian?

Noah Ngeny definitely hasn't run 3 extra meters on the first bend of his 1000m WR run 1999 in Rieti. On the 2nd part of the bend he runs some 90cm wide which is around π*0,90/2≈1,41m extra meters. On the full bend he probably even hasn't run 2 extra meters (very unlikely that he has lost more than 50cm in first half of bend).

So, probably not 2 extra meters, definitely not 3 extra meters.

Here are videos for the world records.

said88 wrote:Noah Ngeny definitely hasn't run 3 extra meters on the first bend of his 1000m WR run 1999 in Rieti. On the 2nd part of the bend he runs some 90cm wide which is around π*0,90/2≈1,41m extra meters. On the full bend he probably even hasn't run 2 extra meters (very unlikely that he has lost more than 50cm in first half of bend).

So, probably not 2 extra meters, definitely not 3 extra meters.

where are you getting this drivel from ???

he starts out in outer part of lane 4, which is :

((3 * 1.22) + 0.7 )pi = 13.70m

he ends up in outer part of lane 1 at end of curve, ~ 0.9m wide of ideal

0.9pi = 2.83m

the average of these is

8.27m

for prelim estimate of a guy starting out in outer lane 4 & taking straight line to outer lane 1 by end bend

considering he wouda run an arc to get to get to lane 1, which is a longer distance than a straight line, 8m is an ungenerous estimate for his extra distance

learn some maths...

this matter is important

i'm starting a new thread for everyone to look at his 1st bend & analyse

i'm happy to take batting practice here though

I have to correct myself. It might be that Ngeny has run the 90cm wide little bit more than 2nd half of bend which could be more like 1,50m or 1,60m extra distance.

utter drivel

debate here or

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5864652

I like all the debate, but come on, guys, be friendly in my thread!

Anyone want to weigh in on what's the best of the obscure WRs (1K/2K/20K/25K/30K, etc.)?

GoldenMiles wrote:It is interesting that most of Edwards's top times had a wind behind them.

Looking at the all-time top list, it is nice to see that someone else (Teddy, who you mentioned) has cleared 18 meters in recent years.

this is biggest jump in history apart from walt davis's 17.63 at '04 trials where he mis-happed the landing:

18.26

25cm better intrinsic jump than edwards wr

( although edwards windy 18.43 was his best ever jump )

( i did the detailed calculations for that ole post but not posted - you can work them out with mureika's 50m wind-altitude calculator )

unfortunately, it was a foul by 11cm from counting, but basic 18.26m from toe-sand