How do you rank Wilson Kipketer among the greatest men's 800m runners?

jck wrote:Ventolin, changing your name isn't going to work. I didn't call you out. I asked a question. You didn't refute it. You respond with the exact opposite of what I asked. I asked for scientific evidence. I did not yell "no,no,no". Nowhere in your post is their scientific evidence. All you provided was hearsay about hearsay from a sportswriter.

you are posting lotta nonsense about asking for "scientific evidence"

the study will require athletes of excellent calibre to be paid to run on pristine dirt, then fully rested for 1/52 & then repeat same exercise on synthetic in same temperature/wind/humidity

for a start, where is your $$$ to pay for these guys & facilities ???

impress me :

give me a number for dirt/synthetic conversion in same, good weather

offer me a number...

if not, offer me your better credentials than epstein, a senior writer with SI

jck wrote:I didn't ask him. I asked YOU. Have you even seen the science behind his opinion or are you just accepting his words as fact?

you are spouting some real laughable

ask epstein for his research

as for now, seeing as he is a senior writer with most prestigious sports magazine in the world, i'd accept his opinion

if you have neuronal capacity to refute it, post it & we will go with your estimate of dirt/synthetic conversion

or impress us even more & dig into your pockets & find the $$$ to fund your own research into topic as with guidelines i suggested earlier

jck wrote:

reader of the forums wrote:

lol

calls vent out

is refuted

closes ears yelling 'no, no, no, no!'

Ventolin, changing your name isn't going to work. I didn't call you out. I asked a question. You didn't refute it. You respond with the exact opposite of what I asked. I asked for scientific evidence. I did not yell "no,no,no". Nowhere in your post is their scientific evidence. All you provided was hearsay about hearsay from a sportswriter.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I knew as I typed that comment someone would reply saying that I was Ventolin. LOL!

You're probably the same person who accuses others of being him though.

Ventolin, asking for scientific evidence is not nonsense. My credentials nor Epstein's matter. There is either science to back up your opinion or there is not. Everything else you said is also irrelevant.

it appears your level of neuronal capacity is awesome

i said go contact epstein for his sources

you refuse

so why waste my time ?!

or if in doubt, perform your own study requiring your own $$$

if you fail to do either of above, impress me & give a dirt/synthetic conversion

you won't

give me a dirt/synthetic conversion

did you read pam ryan above ???

she broke wr after 2nd race on synthetic when gearing how fast it was

so far, you have offered nothing to impress me whatsoever & i'd suggest the board

awesome neurone

yes

they do

offer better credentials than him or access to biomechanists so that i/we may have sliver of interest in your opinion

at present

i don't

funny

i always here about "give me the science" from guys who i sense have no clue about science...

impress me :

here is a problem which i set to any guy who i have severe doubts about any scientific/logical/mathematical brain :

solve it & post under under your own handle with some workings & i will have some confidence in you having anything more than a cursory clue about hard science & not just bluffing :

a ball made of pure silver. 2 finders fall into a dispute about how they should divide it.

one wanted a cylinder ; so he said,

" all I want is a cylinder from the ball; all the rest of it, is shavings & you can have that "

the 2nd guy did some maths & proved to his own satisfaction that any true cylinder from the sphere must contain less than half the volume of the sphere & so he agreed to the terms.

was he wise ?

if the total weight of the of silver in the ball was 1 kg, what was the least weight of shavings his friend could make in turning a true cylinder from the silver ball ? "

impress with the answer & some workings under your handle & then i may believe you have a clue about science

pam ryan with wr on 2nd ever synthetic run ???

Biggest cylinder has 57.8% of the volume of the ball.

Some hard maths needed here. Good to know what kind of hard science impress you.

Stop being a fool!

You can never answer a question properly. You simply respond with expletives and your own inane questions.

You are quoting one guy who has carried out some research, the details of which you have never provided. You 'presume' the track was pristine, you 'presume' they waited a week between surfaces, which in itself makes it pretty unreliable. We don't know if the athlete/s being tested were training between each run? We don't know what the difference was in wind or weather conditions. We also don't know if he carried out these tests over a variety of distances. How many athletes were in the pool being tested?

Even if his research is of value, that 1.5% works out more like 0.7 a lap than 1.0. In truth no one can say for certain what the difference was. Many experts and old athletes, including Clarke at the end of his career, stated that the difference is much nearer to 0.5 per lap.

Snell has stated that a well kept grass track was better than a well kept cinder one. So there is conflicting evidence on all sides. You are not qualified to be the final arbiter on such an issue.

While we're at it, if you're now saying that lack of drafting is only worth 0.7 per lap and the same for cinders to synthetic, then that must surely throw Ryun's alleged (lol) 3:41 Mile ability into question for you!?

3:51.1 ht was more like 3:51.3 FAT.

0.7 x 4 for dirt = 2.8

0.7 per 400m for 1000m (no one gets drafting from the gun, and usually only from 200m) = 1.8

So that comes to 4.6 secs

3:51.3 - 4.6 = 3:46.7

That's practically 3:30 flat for 1500m, and miles away from your deluded 3:24/3:41.

Now you're going to have a fit, call me all the names under the sun and reduce these down a further 5 secs because it was hot, or he had a headache or farted at the wrong moment!

There is no definitive evidence as to how much slower a dirt track was compared to a first generation synthetic one. And once again, you hijack a perfectly interesting thread and pollute it with your own agenda by belittling others. About time you grew up.

I'm glad you mentioned the AW rankings. They seemed to produce sensible rankings across a range of events. My memory is different to yours;

- I don't think They gave a lesser number of points for breaking a WR for a 2nd or 3rd time.

- I don't remember use of T&F raknings and longevity. (Wouldn't that be double counting?)

- I think points were given for World Champs (though I do understand problem for pre-1981 athletes).

It seems ventolin was shocked that someone could solve a mid-school maths problem (shouldn't take much more than a minute for someone who has learned basic maths) which he himself couldn't fully understand even after trying some decades. What a man.

RomanceNovelCoverModel wrote:

Perhaps I've introduced significant bias in singling out one runner, but, how do you rank Wilson Kipketer among the greatest men's 800m runners?

Kipketer/Rudisha GOAT

ISBN wrote:

Many experts and old athletes, including Clarke at the end of his career, stated that the difference is much nearer to 0.5 per lap.

1. Rudisha

2. Kipketer

3. Cruz

4. Coe

5. Borzakovskiy

Although watch out for the Botswanan. Nijel Amos.

jCk wrote:Biggest cylinder has 57.8% of the volume of the ball.

Some hard maths needed here. Good to know what kind of hard science impress you.

hmmm...

interesting to see answer posted by someone with a different handle ?!

lets see original poster asked, to post some workings

jcK wrote:It seems ventolin was shocked that someone could solve a mid-school maths problem (shouldn't take much more than a minute for someone who has learned basic maths) which he himself couldn't fully understand even after trying some decades. What a man.

nonsense

that problem took coupla minutes to solve

here is one to show if you have any clue about scienctific thinking :

"2 ladders 20 & 30 feet long lean across a passageway in opposite directions. They cross at a point 8 feet above the ground. How wide is the passageway ?"

post answer under original handle

eh ??

you are the one posting nonsense

the question is nonsense

my experience is that people who drivel on about "show me the science" usually have no clue about science

you are obviously clueless

this is a lecture from a guy with a huge reputation, working for most prestigious sports magazine in the world & is a senior writer there

a simple search, which you seem incapable of, woud have shown you his lecture was based on his book :

if you doubt the research, stop wasting my time & go buy his book & check the references to the biomechanists

err...

anyone with a clue about science woud comprehend the "control" dirt track has to be pristine & not some quagmire on a wet, cold windy day run on by 100+ guys

again clueless

they woud have to be equally rested before either run & ideally upto 1/52 rest for optimal performance

nonsense

if you are going to do the experiment properly, that is how to do it

no reason to stop training

continue same training but equally rested before each run

the weather conditions woud have to be similar

if not, use this to correct for cold/wind :

seeing as he was interested in owens & bannister, i strongly suggest the 1.5% answer was overall for range of distances

buy his book & check

biomechanical scientists don't base an overall answer on 1 or 2 guys

no

more like 0.75s for elite 800m

more like 0.80s for elite 1500m

more like 0.90s for elite 5k

learn to calculate properly

all the above are for presumed pristine dirt

seeing as the big races were almost certainly run towards end of day as highlight of meet, the track they ran on was chewed up & above are significant under-estimate

nonsense

epstein says 1.5% & clarke has said 1s/lap

& for 100th time, says here : 1s/lap

25'00 into vid

again you fail to think

snell never ran on a synthetic track

he has never commented on the difference to a synthetic track

no

there isn't

epstein's research says 1.5% for presumed pristine dirt

much more for the chewed up track the elites usually ran on later in day

Ryun ran his dusseldorf run after a 10k had been run on it !!!

epstein is

he made the effort to research the question & asked biomechanical scientists

clarke is also well qualified to comment, as he ran on both dirt/synthetic

no

it is ~ 0.75s/lap for dirt/synthetic for pristine dirt & much more for the chewed up dirt the elites usually ran on in meet

no

no

for mile, conversion is 0.14s

so 3'51.2+ auto

no

it's 0.75s/lap for pristine dirt

Ryun didn't run that mile on pristine dirt

it was more like 1s/lap

nonsense

you clearly have no clue about mile races

in paced attempts, the elite tucks in immediately behind pacer

there is NO break at 200m

so 3 laps of drafting at 0.7s/lap = 2.1s

no

it's 5.1s

3'51.2+ minus 5.1 = 3'46.1

nonsense that is 3'29-low at worst

utterly clueless

again you fail to examine circumstances of Ryun's run :

he ran a prelim mile the day before, so not rested

that knocks off some tenths & gets him into 3'45s

so,

with a mile in his legs from day before, jog for 2 laps because of heavy-legs, throwing aways many seconds there from those 2 laps, then speeding up & still had helluva lot left after the finish, meaning he couda started his drive lot, lot further out

& he still ran equivalent of a 3'46.1 !!!

he has also said this was not his best race as he was better in 1500mwr but has not commented on dusseldorf shape

again you fail to think

go fetch epstein's book & see what research the biomechanical scientists did

eh ??

just to coupla guys talking nonsense

i woud suggest the same to you, but seeing as you can't work out what 1.5% indicates, nor seem to comprehend ron clarke's words on vid, or ever both to retain the SI article on Ryun in your brain, i suggest you are the one who needs to "grow up urgently" as it might improve your neuronal ability

Hello

watch movies online free, STREAMING watch lucy movie full online. Watch a FILM lucy

Stream movie lucy watch and download from your PC and mobile devices.

Watch lucy free online no sign, watch lucy online Putlocker, Watch lucy free online, lucy full movie without any download, lucy full movie without any download, online movie free, Online Movie Stream lucy, lucy

Click here to watch the full movie ::==>>

http://eigastream.com/

Lucy Movie Stream, stream online lucy, lucy movie free online, lucy movie BitTorrent, free eBook download lucy lucy movie free online only account, watch free lucy online no download, lucy movie free no sign, watch movie free lucy online no account, lucy Torrent download Movie, download lucy movie full HD quality online free watch lucy free onlinewatch streaming lucy online free viooz, watch full movie online lucy lucy online, full movie lucy megashare, can I watch.

Thanks to you.

'50.2 / 58.4 = 1'48.6

( that's 50.2 on dirt, worth ~ 49.2 on synthetic & all this back in '50 !!! )

use formula i previously posted for conversion to run with 2s +ve splits :

difference = [ ( 58.4 - 50.2 ) - 2 ] * 0.3 =

1.9s

-> 1'46.7

very close to harbig's wr, which works out as 1'46.3 using same method'

Having a brain to run sensible splits is part of being a good athlete. What was his pb when he ran more sensible splits- off your flawed reckoning he should have run 1:46 then. No, what a surpise he never broke 1:48. He was a great championship performer (not like you to back someone who actually wins something!) but Harbig used advanced training methods to run much faster even though he came from an earlier time period

People should also take into account how Coe revolutionised 800m running - he smashed the old record by seconds, subsequent runners have only trimmed it. His lack of OG holds him back form the top spot but there were no WC's then. Someone said he had a short career. He ran sub 1:44 consistently for a decade. No other runner had such a record

ventolin^3 wrote:

jcK wrote:It seems ventolin was shocked that someone could solve a mid-school maths problem (shouldn't take much more than a minute for someone who has learned basic maths) which he himself couldn't fully understand even after trying some decades. What a man.

nonsense

that problem took coupla minutes to solve

here is one to show if you have any clue about scienctific thinking :

"2 ladders 20 & 30 feet long lean across a passageway in opposite directions. They cross at a point 8 feet above the ground. How wide is the passageway ?"

47.2 feet. It's getting tricky now, not many 11y old should solve this. Where have you learned all of this science which is involved here? Very impressive.

I enjoy ventolin's posts. To me, they are interesting and provocative.

But every time I read a ventolin post, I am reminded of another forum where people are occasionally scolded for using all capital letters, or for using "unnecessary hard returns."

Ventolin is the master of unnecessary hard returns.

"Hard return" sounds old-school, a term from the typewriter days.

But anyway, here we have a "paragraph." And here comes the hard return.

Boom! Hard return.

That is fact.

There is no doubt about it.

But I don't think it is too bad.

Unnecessary hard returns make the post stand out.

Yes indeed..

See you later.