Just wondering, and I know it's a stupid question but all distances are fairly arbitrary anyways. If tracks were historically 300m instead of 400, and we ran the 900 instead of 800, would Nick Symmonds be the world's best? What other runners today are optimally suited for race distances that don't exist?
I bet coe could have run 1:57ish for 900m
Asbel would beat Nicky.
You bring up a good point, distances are somewhat arbitrary. The reasoning is, if we double the distance run, then the running economy changes in such a way that different runners excel. However, a lot of the longer distances are run at similar speeds, making them somewhat redundant. The middle distances are underexplored.
This would be an interesting way to break it down, focusing on running speed:
200 meters (~10 m/s) 20.00
300 meters (~9.5 m/s) 31.58
400 meters (~9.0 m/s) 44.44
500 meters (~8.5 m/s) 58.82
700 meters (~8.0 m/s) 1:27.50
1000 meters (~7.5 m/s) 2:13.33
1600 meters (~7.0 m/s) 3:48.57
4 km (~6.5 m/s) 10:15
15 km (~6.0 m/s) 41:40
Marathon (~5.5 m/s) 2:07:51
I would bet on Souleiman being the best.
I think if tracks were 300, then we would actually do a 750 instead of a 900.. 750 is half of a metric mile --1500 meters.
sorry bro.
jim bobbityboop wrote:
I think if tracks were 300, then we would actually do a 750 instead of a 900.. 750 is half of a metric mile --1500 meters.
sorry bro.
But would the WR for 9900 meters be sub 26 minutes? ;-)
If they ran the 900m, Nick Symmonds would look like the best 950m runner in the world. He did change up his tactics to get a medal, however.
jim bobbityboop wrote:
I think if tracks were 300, then we would actually do a 750 instead of a 900.. 750 is half of a metric mile --1500 meters.
sorry bro.
That's not the point of the question... what if whoever invented the meter had made it 13% longer than it is now.
jjjjjjjjj wrote:
If they ran the 900m, Nick Symmonds would look like the best 950m runner in the world. He did change up his tactics to get a medal, however.
I agree with this. I think the list of the best 900 meter runners would be almost identical to the best 800 meter runners.
Amos would destroy him even over 1000m
Onion jock wrote:
Asbel would beat Nicky.
yeah Kiprop is probably one of the best 1000 meter runners in the world right now, I think in the 900m/1000m you'd get a lot of 800/1500 guys dominating the 400/800 guys so Soulieman, Makhloufi, Kiprop, Symmonds ran 3:34 so he could be in consideration still though
Idontevenknow wrote:
That's not the point of the question... what if whoever invented the meter had made it 13% longer than it is now.
The meter was invented by Napoleon and he set it to exactly one stride so that the kilometer would be a thousand paces, which a mile is supposed to be but isn't.
Not everyone has a one meter stride but Napoleon was pretty tall.
Actually, Napoleon was 5'6"
Would peak Rudisha beat the world's best milers in the 900?
I think It's pretty obvious that Seb Coe would be the wr holder in this distance, even today.
joecrunner wrote:
I bet coe could have run 1:57ish for 900m
Went through 900m in 1:57.8 in his 1000m WR. So that's 13.2 on top of his 1:44.6.
He'd still hate running and focus more on marketing himself and brooks than actually running fast
Breathe in breathe out wrote:
John Boy wrote:Actually, Napoleon was 5'6"
If you're going to correct Bad Wigins posts, at least do it the right way: the meter was originally equal to the distance from the north pole to the equator along the Earth's surface, divided by 10 million. Hence Earth's radius = almost exactly 40,000 km.
None of this sh!t is the point either... What if the earth was 13% larger. Happy?
currently: souleiman
Can afford cocaine wrote:
currently: souleiman
Considering that Asbel is faster at 800 and 1500, there is no reason to think he would not be faster at 900 than the Soulman.