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

Jck wrote:47.2 feet

no

book answer is 16.2'

intuitevely you shouda realised 47' is far too big as combined ladder length is 50'

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.

the author in effect says that standard number crunching using pythagoras/algebra will get you a virtually unsolvable quartic

the lesson he says you have to take home is that if you reach this point, you need to learn sense enough to stop & find another method

his given answer starts with similar triangles & fiendish manipulation from there

like i said, his key message was to learn the lesson of cutting your losses & look for other methods

ventolin^3 wrote:

[quote]Jck wrote:47.2 feet

no

book answer is 16.2'

intuitevely you shouda realised 47' is far too big as combined ladder length is 50'

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.

the author in effect says that standard number crunching using pythagoras/algebra will get you a virtually unsolvable quartic

"book answer is"!!!! wonderful - it seems you understood your problem very well

next time discribe the probleme more exactly. if physics are involved, tell is

for sure 47.2 feet is not "far too big"

jCK wrote:

"book answer is"!!!! wonderful - it seems you understood your problem very well

next time discribe the probleme more exactly. if physics are involved, tell is

for sure 47.2 feet is not "far too big"

Hey don't steal my username. Make your own.

jck wrote:

jCK wrote:

"book answer is"!!!! wonderful - it seems you understood your problem very well

next time discribe the probleme more exactly. if physics are involved, tell is

for sure 47.2 feet is not "far too big"

Hey don't steal my username. Make your own.

Nobody has used your username. What's the problem?

reader of the forums wrote:

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT2ANRbiiH8&t=25m25s

Actually, what Clarke has actually written down on paper, would seem to contradict what he says years later in a throwaway response on a tv programme.

Ron Clarke's comments in 1972 are pretty interesting ("Ron Clarke Talks Track, page 47). He said, in part:

"There's nothing to compare with a Tartan track; it's far and beyond the best track surface... The Tartan track I think has meant a difference of around four or five seconds for a two-mile, or about 15-20 seconds in a six-mile."

A 2 mile race is 8 laps. A 4 second difference equates to 0.5 per lap. A 5 sec difference equates to 0.6 per lap.

Moving up to 6 miles or 24 laps, we get a difference of 15 sec being worth 0.625 and a difference of 20 secs being worth 0.83 per lap.

He clearly believes that the longer the race on cinders, the greater the rate of slowing down per lap. So, if he believes the difference between cinders and synthetic is approx 0.6-0.8 per lap in a 6 mile race, and between 0.5 -0.6 in a 2 mile race, then it's going to be less than this for a 1 mile race, and more so in a half mile.

Clarke's comments in his book, which would have been after some scrutiny on his part, actually backs up the belief that a 0.5 sec per lap is appropriate for a mile, and that the difference between the 2 surfaces per lap will obviously change depending on the speed and distance of the race. A second per lap for 10000m would seem quite plausible, but not for a mile. The top 400m runners in the world in the late 60's did not suddenly all improve their times by 1.0 sec changing from cinders to synthetic.

Ventolin, you are so annoying.

ventolin^3 wrote:

no

snell was capable of 1'42-low/mid

guys like kiprugut with a near solo 1'44.5 in mexico / kipkurgat 1'43.9 solo on a windy day / caballo a virtually solo 1'43.5

those last 3 all ran their times after rounds, therefore unrested & negligible drafting or none as in kipkurgat's case

those 3 were intrinsic 1'42-mid/high runs in a 1-off, fully rested tt with pacing to bell

leaving aside snell who was long retired when synthetics came along, coe's 1st record wouda been a ~ 0.25/0.5s improvement if those guys had had their best runs on the circuit & not saved it for championships

as for coe, he had '83 & '87 & both times did not run them

don't talk nonsense about no wc

he had 2 opportunities

Idiot.

Kiprugut ran laps of 51.0/53.5 at altitude. The first 400 was pretty perfect for a 1:44 clocking. The times for most of the 800 guys in that race were pbs and there is an overall advantage running an 800 at altitude compared to sea level. And certainly for a Kenyan born at altitude, the advantage would have been greater too.

Kipkurgat's 1:43.9 was also off a 51.0, so ideal pace. You always go on about windy weather when trying to bring an athlete's time down. Well if you look a bit closer at actual stats for the wind, then you'll find that the wind reading for Don Quarrie that same day in the 200m was -0.6m/sec, which is a pretty run of the mill wind level for any meet. It's not like it was 3.5m/sec. The effect on time for 800m at that level would be negligible.

Juantorena had another chance at the WR the following year when fully rested, with pacers and while focussing purely on the 800m, and he only improved by 0.06sec.

All 3 above had decent careers and numerous opportunities to run fast. It's not like the 1500 when the pace for the first 2 laps is important, harder to get right and can really effect fast times. You only have to get someone to keep it fast for the 200-400 section and you should be able to run close to potential. None of the above were any better than 1:43 mid guys. Snell was no better than a 1:43 low on synthetic. He's already stated that grass is faster than cinders,and cinders is no more than 0.5 sec per lap slower than synthetic over 2 laps. Snell's fastest ever 440 relay was 47.9, which is 47.6 for 400m, 48.3 for an open 400m and c. 47.8 for an open 400m on synthetic. This is a sec slower than Coe's 400 best the year he ran 1:42.3 and more than 2 sec slower than the 45.6 he ran from stumbling start in 81. Snell's 1500 endurance was certainly not as good as Coe's, so the idea that he would be only a few tenths slower than Coe at 800m, when Coe's 1500 endurance was better and his 400 speed was a sec + better, is nonsense.

Coe was ill in 83 and out for the entire season in 87, thus he ran in no World Champs. There was only really 1 opportunity to run a World Champs in his peak years (79 - 86) and he had the misfortune of being ill. Kipketer and Rudisha had at least 5 opportunities to win a World title at the distance, since in their eras they were held every 2 years, not every 4. So not a level playing ground when comparing the eras.

ISBN wrote:

reader of the forums wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT2ANRbiiH8&t=25m25s

Actually, what Clarke has actually written down on paper, would seem to contradict what he says years later in a throwaway response on a tv programme.

Nope.

If he wrote that after the interview I linked however, you might have a point.

reader of the forums wrote:

ISBN wrote:

Actually, what Clarke has actually written down on paper, would seem to contradict what he says years later in a throwaway response on a tv programme.

Nope.

If he wrote that after the interview I linked however, you might have a point.

I think I know which is the more reliable!

Athletes, like most other sportsmen, tend to embellish things when looking back at their careers. The further removed from their active days, the more anecdotes, claims exaggerate.

When he wrote the book in '72 he was at the end of his career, with the experience and knowledge of running on both surfaces fresh in his mind and legs. The BBC interview was more than 10 years later. Time blurs details of past events and statements.

In any case, when he says' 1 sec per lap, that is in the context of him referring to the 10000m world record, not for a mile. He said in 72 that the longer the distance, the greater the time lost per lap. He already stated between 0.63 - 0.83 for a 6 mile race (15 - 20 secs), so with a 10000m a reference to "1 sec per lap" is just a slight rounding up from 0.83.

He's not going to answer with, "It's somewhere between 0.63 and 0.83 per lap for a 10000m", he's going to say what a lay man would understand to make a general point. Thus, "1 sec" fits the bill. And just to reiterate, he was talking specifically about 10000m not 800m. Huge difference.

There is no other runner, past or present, who has the speed endurance, courage, and championship racing temprement to do what Rudisha did at the 2012 Olympics. NO ONE! He front ran a world record in the Olympic final!

He never broke 1:48 for 800m big deal if he ran .1 under if converted from 880 yards. Harbig was streets ahead and from an earlier era

The rest is complete garbage, add this to

1) You once said a 1500m starts before the bend

2) You thought someone had run close to WR pace on xc course and was bound to set a WR on the track

3) You got the wind wrong for Wells run

ISBN is wrong about Juantorena in '77 - El Caballo was still running the 400 & 800 and won both at the World Cup, he was not just "...concentrating on the 800,".

It's nonsense to compare runners like Snell with modern runners, as Snell did not do near as much speed/interval training as someone like Coe, never mind not intervals at the speed of Coe or Ovett. Over 800 meters Snell would likely be competitive with today's best with modern training.

We don't know what the true potential for most middle distance guys in the 400 as they did not focus on it. For runners like Borzakovskiy and Rudisha, we do have a good idea of their top end at that distance. Ovett stopped training for the 400 by the time he was 16. Coe trained specifically for the 800/1500 and still managed a good turn of speed over 1 lap. Back in the old days, Ryun ran some fast relay splits at the very start of his track seasons, but the speed of his interval training at 200/400 meters didn't really approach what later runners were doing, but they had faster targets to shoot for.

It's doubtful the level of natural talent has evolved much if at all over the last 100 years. Training has. Tracks have evolved. I do tend to agree, based on personal experience and what we've seen on the track, that the difference between synthetic tracks and prime dirt track is probably worth a couple of seconds in a mile, maybe a second in the 800.

Kipketer? One of the best ever. Bad luck when it came to the Games. But not all record holders win the big one.

Runner800 wrote:

There is no other runner, past or present, who has the speed endurance, courage, and championship racing temprement to do what Rudisha did at the 2012 Olympics. NO ONE! He front ran a world record in the Olympic final!

I would say John ngugi runs him close

nonsense

it is no "throwaway" comment

it's a calm measured statement in a 1/2 hour long interview

& in his tv interview he believes he was capable of 13-flat/27-flat on synthetic which is more than 1s/lap from his 13'16/27'39 pbs

it seems you have no inability to calculate/think

any %age ratio makes the difference greater with increasing race distance

& i have said epstein's 1.5% for presumed pristine dirt offers

~0.75s/lap for 800 to 0.95s/lap for 10k

it woud be 0.75s/lap for 1 mile for pristine dirt, but seeing as the elite mile races of the '50s/'60s were not usually 1st run of the meet, the dirt wouda been chewed up when they ran, so much more than 0.75s/lap

once again you offer no thinking

400m in late '60s was only about the americans

smith/evans/freeman/james either retired or were past their peak after '68

the guy who continued on from '68 with most success was matthews who was not good enough to make individual team in '68 but won gold in '72

the talent pool of the early '70s guys was nowhere near as good as the ones of late '60s

Coach.. wrote:

Runner800 wrote:

There is no other runner, past or present, who has the speed endurance, courage, and championship racing temprement to do what Rudisha did at the 2012 Olympics. NO ONE! He front ran a world record in the Olympic final!

I would say John ngugi runs him close

this one was just as good, a WR and nearly double the distance

Those were impressive for sure. However, I meant that there is no other runner, past or present, who had/has the speed endurance, courage, and championship racing temprement to do what Rudisha did in that 800m Olympic final, that is, front run a 1.40.9! Since no other man could have done this, he's the greatest 800m man.

utter nonsense

once again you fail to look at the splits

he reached 51.0 off a suicidal 24.2 !!!

24.2 is split, using 0.5s increments/200, pace for 1'39.8 !!!

he had already lost the race with that ridiculous opening 200 but still hung on to be only passed in the latter part of home stretch

the ncaa app gives that time as worth

~ 1'43.2

at sea-level

that is a run with no drafting, until doubell passes him at end, off a suicidal 24.2 & rounds in his legs

that is worth a

1'42-mid at sea-level, fully-rested & paced to bell sensibly

doubell ran sensible splits + lots of drafting

because kiprugut forced them to run fast

without him, that race wouda been a snore-bore

utter total nonsense

the ncaa app is the gold-standard altitude convertor

mexico is 7382'

it lists a 1'44.58 at 7163' as 1'43.32

it lists a 1'44'58 at 7544' as 1'43.17

the average of above 2's altitudes is 7353 - virtually mexico's 7382 & the average 800 conversion for mexico is

1'43.24

more nonsense

i see nothing in the ncaa app saying

"not applicable to kenyans"

if altitude doesn't affect kenyans much, then explain why in 1'40.91 year, Rudy front ran a nairobi 800 in "only" 1'42.12 ???

why didn't Rudy run close to 1'40.9 if altitude doesn't affect kenyans much ???

nairobi is only 5445' compared to mexico's 7381'

ideal pace

but no drafting & on a windy day

& he had fatigue of a 1'44.38 just 2/7 before

1'44.38 was at that time joint 3rd fastest 800 ever behind fiasconaro & wohlhuter

if you have a clue, you woud realise that the wind changes on same day

the white flags on either side of track at start of home-straight are significantly blowing when seen separately on 1st then 2nd lap

you then fail to listen to commentator who says wind on "back-stretch" cost him the wr

it seems you don't have enough sense to know there is NO wind-guage on back-stretch

no

you have no clue what wind was on back-stretch which wrecked the time

with those completely uncovered stadium you have no idea how bad the wind was

the commentator certainly didn't believe it was negligible

kipkurgat ran 1'43.91 with no drafting, windy day & 1'44.38 in his legs from 2/7 before

fully rested, no wind & paced to bell, that is a

~ 1'42-high

utter nonsense

caballo's 1'43.44 was not a paced meet but a medal race - world university games

there was no designated pacer & it was run in brutal conditions, with a guy who ran the 1500 just 2/7 later saying track-side temperatures were over 100F !!!

the weather charts for those few days says the temperature on caballo's race day was virtually identical

caballo ran a pedestrian 51.4 then powered a 52.0

he had no official pacer & the slow 1st lap is almost certainly due to brutal heat

in temperate weather & paced to the bell in something 50-mid/high, it is virtually certain he wouda run

1'42-mid/high

no

the 2 kenyans had only 1 great year each in '68 & '74 & kiprugut only ever ran on synthetic in '68 after which his career at top-level was over

caballo had 2 great years in '76/'77 & he only took up 800 seriously in '76 & chased no 800 times on circuit after games

he had only 1 serious tt in a "proper" meet in '77 when winning zurich in 1'43.64 & 1'43.66 at unknown bydogzcs

even that zurich race was more a match race v boit than a simple unquestioned tt & he hammered boit by nearly 1s

caballo's career was on downslide from '78 on

to state these guys had numerous opportunities at their peaks is nonsense

utter nonsense

the 1st 400 of a 800 is just as important as 1st 800 of a 1500

i've never heard such rubbish !

that "keeping it fast" has to be so precise, with pacer going thru smoothly in target of 24-low or 24-mid or 24-high or 25-flat smoothly & not charging off leaving elite adrift at 200m which has happened so much in recent years with poor quality pacers on circuit outside of scherer

utter drivel

to state this shows you have no clue about the sport

caballo already ran faster than 1'43-mid with 1'43.44 in race with trackside temperature over 100F !!!

nonsense

try more like 1'42-low/mid

nonsense

all he said was that a well kept grass track was a fast as good dirt one

utter nonsense

he has never ever said anything about synthetics

he never ran on 1 !!!

a token attempt in '62 games where he had run multiple 800/1500s

he anchored team to dead-last in heat over 2s behind 1st higher team

hardly freash & hardly serious as his team had no chance of qualifying as new zealand were never a serious 400m nation

& it woud be 47.3 for synthetic, which is still an unrested time after multiple races

no

it is 1/2s slower when unrested & unknown effort put in

snell used to do 6 reps of 25s on dirt or grass, which maya been into 24s on a synthetic

that is damn impressive speedwork

you have no clue about that

in his 3'54.1wr, he jogged the 1st lap in 60.7s & hardly ran any faster until the bell when he blasted a 54.5

he was capable of 3'52+ off even pace & on synthetic, a 3'48+

pretty damn good for a guy running his 1st serious mile tt

no

his endurance was as good as coe's in '79 & his speed damn close

no

snell's endurance was very comparable to coe of '79 & his speed very close

a 1'42-low/mid for snell is very likely, especially so as he was better at 800 than 1 mile

but ducked out of '83

the docs told him he had toxoplasmosis amenable to treatment with antibiotics & couda still shown the guts to run in wc but he didn't

he still couda challenged for a medal in '83 but refused even to try

but still couda run it but didn't have the guts to risk a beating

eh ??

kip ran in 4 wc, only the 1st 2 of which he was in good shape & improving

he won 3rd in '99 by just 0.02s when on downslide with 1'42.2sb

he missed all of '01

in '03 he was complete shadow of peak with 1'43.2sb for a 4th & only 4th again in wc

he showed the guts to run a wc when knowing slim chance of winning but still brave enough to attempt it

something coe failed to show in '83

as for Rudy, it is utter nonsense he's had 5 opportunities at wc :

he messed up semi in '09 with poor warm-up in cold & won '11 & missed latter 1/2 of '13

he's had 3 opportunites & run in 2 wc

Ventolin

You're postings are getting insanely long recently

i'd take his last word on the matter

that word is 1s/lap for 5k/10k

he has nothing to embellish with multiple wrs & most prolific wr setter post-war

his tv interview is a cold, calculated one consistent with that of the qualified accountant he is

name them

the experience was that of a guy running on synthetics as a shadow of himself following his heart valve problems in mexico

he wasn't beaten by 27'39-dirt guy in '70 but in a 28'11

it probably took him years to fathom exactly what he couda run at his peak on synthetics & end answer was 1s/lap better

time to think long & hard on subject & come to a final answer

it was 1s/lap

not when your achievements have had huge media coverage for best part of a decade & huge amount of research material

we are not talking about some hobbyjogger but the greatest wr breaker post-war

nonsense

you clearly can't hear or think

he had 13'16/27'39pbs

he says he believes he couda gone 13-flat/27-flat on synthetics

the calculation is :

~ 1.2s/lap for 5k

~ 1.5s/lap for 10k

he settled for 1s/lap for both which is sensible

like i have told you so many times, that is what a %age such as 1.5% implies

the disadvantage in seconds increases with race distance

& on tv he has said 27'39 -> 27-flat which is helluva lot more than this

his conclusion of 1s/lap looks just ballpark for dirt already run on by many athletes before main events come on

nonsense

lay-man coud equally understand 3/4s per lap

he said 1s/lap because he meant it

nonsense

he said 1s/lap for 5k & 10k

he did not mention 800 as obviously he never ran one on synthetic

no

it is a small difference

for presumed pristine dirt, epstein's 1.5% -> for elites NOW & not in '50s/'60s when each of below wouda been ~ 0.05s slower

400m ->~ 0.66s

800m ->~ 0.77s

1500m ->~ 0.83s

5000m ->~ 0.91s

10000m ->~ 0.96s

ron is being very generous with 1s/lap

even his 5 & 10k were not likely to be 1st race on track to get pristine dirt

on top of that, huge field of maybe 15 or 20 guys chewing up lane 1 lap after lap until you are running on total junk after 3 or 4 laps

it's going to be helluva lot more than 1s/lap well into those ole 5 or 10ks