Daniel Komen's 7:20 WR will last 3 more decades at least.

I honestly think if Komen and Bekele had been in their primes at the same time and raced each other in a 5k all out Komen could have gone under 12:30, but this is just as useful a statement as saying Jim Ryun could've run 3:24.

So, Ventolin...explain why nobody ran sub 7:23 since Komen...

Or sub 2:17 since Paula Radcliffe (If you want to include a récord which Is softer than Komen 3000m record)

fan of US distance running wrote:

Mo had the best shot of anyone is a long time of going for the record last year. He should have struck while the iron was hot, but he seems pretty disinterested in records, which is a shame.

The iron wasn't that hot. He lost much of his endurance when he decided to train for a 3:28.

said88 wrote:Komen's record is great, but El Guerrouj obviously was capable of breaking it (or at least coming VERY close). So far, I really can't see why so many on this board think this record is "better" than the 3:26,00 or the 12:37,35

7'20 is far inferior

For Komen the 3000m probably was his best distance

maybe not

you have to find his vids

'98i

( i didn't bother to click on dsf/rtl/raiuno those brief 2/52 )

kada says

"best shape"

imo

it maya been

3'27+

7'16+

12'32+

owstruc wrote:

fan of US distance running wrote:

Mo had the best shot of anyone is a long time of going for the record last year. He should have struck while the iron was hot, but he seems pretty disinterested in records, which is a shame.

The iron wasn't that hot. He lost much of his endurance when he decided to train for a 3:28.

No

He didn't train for 3:28

He trained to be the best he could at 5000m/10,000m

Running 3:28 was a consequence of that

Ben L Wrong wrote:

So, Ventolin...explain why nobody ran sub 7:23 since Komen

The only person who made an attempt got bad pacing.

Komen had great pacers that day.

Again...how do you "attempt" a WR If you aren't in WR shape?

I'm positive that Mo never was in 7:20 shape.

Swag Lord wrote:I honestly think if Komen and Bekele had been in their primes at the same time and raced each other in a 5k all out Komen could have gone under 12:30

no

kennster lacked speed

learn

komen 3'29 speed

but this is just as useful a statement as saying Jim Ryun could've run 3:24

err...

what part of

peabrain peabrained

36.5 / 3'38.2 on chewed up dirt

v

36.8 / 3'48.9 on synthetic for 3'29.5 guy your peabrain can't comprehend ???

Ben L Wrong wrote:

Again...how do you "attempt" a WR If you aren't in WR shape?

I'm positive that Mo never was in 7:20 shape.

Your critical reading skills need work. Reread my last post.

You have a very good calculator

Evalutating the strength of different world records

but

i cant help noticing that

it begins to break down

with 100m 200m times

in comparison to 5k 10k

as the table continues.

fan of US distance running wrote:

***

Mo had the best shot of anyone is a long time of going for the record last year. He should have struck while the iron was hot, but he seems pretty disinterested (sic) in records, which is a shame.

You are using "disinterested" incorrectly. "Uninterested" is the correct word.

thedaythattheyfeelspecial wrote:

You have a very good calculator

Evalutating the strength of different world records

but

i cant help noticing that

it begins to break down

with 100m 200m times

in comparison to 5k 10k

as the table continues

no

it indicates women sprinters are far, far better runners than 800 or +

maths doesn't lie...

ventolin^3 wrote:

maths doesn't lie...[/quote]

Analysis of "maths" most certainly can lie and be twisted to tell whatever story matches your agenda. I never see you delve into any detailed explanation of the analysis behind what you present, the assumptions made, the basis and validity of those assumptions, the correlation coefficients, etc. Why should anyone trust a thing you say? Because there is a website, you watch a lot of track and pull a lot of data? Are you a statistician? What is your educational background? How can anyone be assured you even know what you are talking about when it comes to "maths"?

I fully expect your reply to be filled with profanity and poor grammar, I'm ready for it :)

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

Didn't ElG just make one attempt at that record? I think it's crazy to believe that 7:23 was the best he was capable of. He didn't focus on it because he was trying to be the best 1500m runner ever.

He only made one attempt, the race wasn't paced that well, and you could see it on his face he had more or less mentally checked out by 800m to go. He was hurting, had no one to chase, and was off schedule due to improper pacing. There's no doubt he could have run at least 7:21 on a different day.

Bekele could never have gotten it. We never saw his potential at 3000m, but it wasn't 7:20. Probably more like 7:24. Geb definitely could never have gotten it either. Not fast enough at 1500m (like Kenny B).

Records have been talked about a lot on here, and everyone agrees 7:20 is insane and possibly the least likely to be beaten any time soon, though I don't think any of them are likely to be beaten any time soon.

Der Blockwart wrote:

fan of US distance running wrote:

***

Mo had the best shot of anyone is a long time of going for the record last year. He should have struck while the iron was hot, but he seems pretty disinterested (sic) in records, which is a shame.

You are using "disinterested" incorrectly. "Uninterested" is the correct word.

No, I'm using it properly.

Now bugger off.

fan of US distance running wrote:

Ben L Wrong wrote:

Again...how do you "attempt" a WR If you aren't in WR shape?

I'm positive that Mo never was in 7:20 shape.

Your critical reading skills need work. Reread my last post.

You said that Mo had the best shot last year... and I think that Farah never was in sub 7:24 shape... But probably i'm missing something about Mo's 3000 speed.

Peabrain, are you saying the the women's WRs should be;

10.70 (not counting the 10.49 as was wind aided)

21.40

47.30

1:48.60

2:19.77

3:40.63

5:01.73

7:46.86

13:23.00

27:42.57

Math doesn't lie...incorrect formulas do.

fan of US distance running wrote:

No

He didn't train for 3:28

He trained to be the best he could at 5000m/10,000m

Running 3:28 was a consequence of that

Which resulted in him losing much endurance genius. Which is what I said. Good job.

It will be gone within a decade and a half, because when I become a billionaire, aside from all sorts of other great charitable works and contributions to human knowledge and society, I plan on hedging my monies to the improvements of the sport, including offering financial incentives for fast races and world records. :)