here's one wrote:
Maryam Jamal is another:
1:57.8 and 14:51
That's three now!
here's one wrote:
Maryam Jamal is another:
1:57.8 and 14:51
That's three now!
Prosper wrote:
YEAH BUDDY wrote:First of all, she would be the 5th chronologically, not the 5th best ("most able"). Second of all, it would be inaccurate (at least subjectively) to say that she's the 5th woman capable of running sub 2 and sub 15. However, it would be objectively accurate to say that she would be the 5th woman to have a sub 2 and a sub 15 PR. Like others have said, that might be misleading or meaningless, but it would be accurate.
No, you are all wrong about this. You are confusing "literally" and "officially" with "accurate". You contradicted yourself in your final sentence: if it is misleading then it is not accurate. A statement can be literally accurate while being practically inaccurate. This is the case in here where including her rank carries additional implications that go past what is literally written. Thus it is true that the statement is inaccurate.
I don't know what your "first of all sentence" has to do with me. I'm guessing you were replying to someone else with that.
???? "A statement can be literally accurate while being practically inaccurate" What does this even mean? It's just gobbledygook. A statement is either accurate or it is not.
"Shannon Rowbury just misses. Comes up .04 short from becoming 5th woman in history at sub-2 and sub-15" Is this a factual statement, that is exact and free of errors? Assuming it is, then it is accurate. Implications are something that one may read into the statement, but they have nothing to do with it's essential accuracy.
Prosper wrote:
No, you are all wrong about this. You are confusing "literally" and "officially" with "accurate". You contradicted yourself in your final sentence: if it is misleading then it is not accurate. A statement can be literally accurate while being practically inaccurate. This is the case in here where including her rank carries additional implications that go past what is literally written. Thus it is true that the statement is inaccurate.
I don't know what your "first of all sentence" has to do with me. I'm guessing you were replying to someone else with that.
You're a clown, pal.
3:54.11 wrote:
here's one wrote:Maryam Jamal is another:
1:57.8 and 14:51
That's three now!
Natalya Artyomova 1:58.05 and 14:54.08
So we have:
Sifan Hassan
Maryam Jamal
Natalya Artyomova
Regina Jacobs
If these are all of the sub 8/sub15 club, Shannon Rowbury indeed falls .04 short of becoming 5th women to do so.
sub 2 - not sub 8!!
I could do a sub 8 for 800m!! even drunk...
Jenny, Jenny who can I turn to wrote:
Ummm. You kinda forgot an event. The 3000M SC. I know shannon doesn't do it but Simpson was national champ and american record holders.
Shannon does, or at least did, 3000mSC.
3000 Steeple: 9:59.4 (2006)
http://shannonrowbury.com/about-shannon/resume3:54.11 wrote:
So we have:
Sifan Hassan
Maryam Jamal
Natalya Artyomova
Regina Jacobs
If these are all of the sub 8/sub15 club, Shannon Rowbury indeed falls .04 short of becoming 5th women to do so.
We know for a fact that Jacobs and Rowbury are dopers. What about the other three?
3:54.11 wrote:
So we have:
Sifan Hassan
Maryam Jamal
Natalya Artyomova
Regina Jacobs
Faith Kipyegon joined the club:
1:58.02 (yesterday in Rieti)
3:56.98
14:31.95
800m and 5000m time both from 2015!
Jamal, Artyomova and Jacobs also did the feat in the same year - some great achievement.