Hey, I believe it's legit. And you believe it's legit. I'm guessing there is at least 1 person in the universe other than Calculo/Ventolin who believes it's not legit.
Hey, I believe it's legit. And you believe it's legit. I'm guessing there is at least 1 person in the universe other than Calculo/Ventolin who believes it's not legit.
Provide a link or quote from someone of significance that states the Firenze track was not legitimate?
You have been asked numerous occasions by numerous posters on here yet have never managed to do so.
Richard Hymans never said that Coe's WR was not legitimate.
The late David Cocksedge, another great statistician who I had spoken to directly about the issue, raised some doubts about the authenticity of the exact time of Coe's run in Firenze through an article in the BMC News, after Cruz ran his 1:41.77 in 84. The subject was never raised before this.
He felt that Coe's time should have been ratified as 1:41.6 hand timed, which would still have made it a WR.
In the pages of AW, other leading experts, including Bob Sparks and Mel Watman, argued against Cocksedge and put forward their thoughts.
At no point did any of them question the validity of the track. Nor did they question whether or not Coe had run a sub 1:42 and indeed a 1:41.6 hand timed performance.
calculo wrote:
thankfully, we have his zurich run later in year, which is very poor run
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAgCOWofZVUvery poor run
~ 24.2 / 49.5 / 75.5
He went through 600m in at least 1:15.0, probably 1:14.8. You can see this from where he is compared to the 200m curve at 1:16.6 into the race. The athlete on the 200m curve line at this point doesn't reach where Kipketer was at 1:16.6 until 1:18.4. That's 1.8 secs. There is no way Kipketer could have covered that same distance in 1.1 secs, meaning his 600m time would have been 1.8 secs before 1:16.6, which would have been 1:14.8.
This means his last 200m with good pacing to that 600m point, was 28.0!
That is not indicative of someone in 1:41 shape.
If a 1:41 runner is given 24 low, 49.5, 1:14.8-1:15.0, then they would have had the ideal circumstances to go well below 1:42. He didn't.
Active Inspire wrote:
Provide a link or quote from someone of significance that states the Firenze track was not legitimate?
You have been asked numerous occasions by numerous posters on here yet have never managed to do so.
Richard Hymans never said that Coe's WR was not legitimate.
The late David Cocksedge, another great statistician who I had spoken to directly about the issue, raised some doubts about the authenticity of the exact time of Coe's run in Firenze through an article in the BMC News, after Cruz ran his 1:41.77 in 84. The subject was never raised before this.
He felt that Coe's time should have been ratified as 1:41.6 hand timed, which would still have made it a WR.
In the pages of AW, other leading experts, including Bob Sparks and Mel Watman, argued against Cocksedge and put forward their thoughts.
At no point did any of them question the validity of the track. Nor did they question whether or not Coe had run a sub 1:42 and indeed a 1:41.6 hand timed performance.
All correct. I have been asking him to provide any evidence other than his own ramblings for years and he has yet to provide a shred, so don't hold your breath.
Moderators, I think you'll find that many of Calculo's recent posts are remarkably similar to ones he had removed from here a week or so ago. He often does this.
It's also worth noting that many of his posts have "RE: Alfred Kipketer" on them!
Can we just ban Calculo altogether - he ruins every thread (unfortunately they are all 800m related threads which are the ones I have a main interest in) and even when you do try have a logical discussion with him, it's meet with mindless waffle that strays so far from the point, that you can't even remember what the topic was.
Maybe start a new section for him called 'hypotheticals' where what an athlete actually runs, as nothing to do with it.
JR
JRinaldi wrote:
Can we just ban Calculo altogether - he ruins every thread (unfortunately they are all 800m related threads which are the ones I have a main interest in) and even when you do try have a logical discussion with him, it's meet with mindless waffle that strays so far from the point, that you can't even remember what the topic was.
Maybe start a new section for him called 'hypotheticals' where what an athlete actually runs, as nothing to do with it.
JR
He was banned! Ventolin^3 was the same guy, they banned that name for being too insulting but he made another and returned. He has been banned from other sites also for this behaviour.
Deanouk wrote:
Moderators, I think you'll find that many of Calculo's recent posts are remarkably similar to ones he had removed from here a week or so ago. He often does this.
It's also worth noting that many of his posts have "RE: Alfred Kipketer" on them!
I know, he posted a claim that a Ryun relay split of 46.9 is really 44.2 for a flat 400m. I posted that (from experience) a non-starting relay leg is about 1 second quicker and a hand timed leg is 0.2 quicker, so his 46.9 could be as slow as 48.1. I didn't swear or anything, the next day my post was gone.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Deanouk wrote:Moderators, I think you'll find that many of Calculo's recent posts are remarkably similar to ones he had removed from here a week or so ago. He often does this.
It's also worth noting that many of his posts have "RE: Alfred Kipketer" on them!
I know, he posted a claim that a Ryun relay split of 46.9 is really 44.2 for a flat 400m. I posted that (from experience) a non-starting relay leg is about 1 second quicker and a hand timed leg is 0.2 quicker, so his 46.9 could be as slow as 48.1. I didn't swear or anything, the next day my post was gone.
Lol. Yes, I agree with you.
I'm prepared to reduce that conversion from relay to flat down to 0.7, which I have often seen used, but the 0.2 for hand time to FAT is about right.
A Mile run hours earlier and the so called weather conditions and state of the track, which looked pretty good to me from that video, would have some effect, but they are not quantifiable. You cannot just say, the weather cost him a second, the wind 0.5, ..etc.
The link only shows about 10 secs of his relay leg anyway, and as we know (and as Calc. keeps claiming) some hand timing can be out by a lot. Without full video footage of the race, we can't even say how accurate that 46.9 was.
What we can say is that in the many other relay legs Ryun ran in 66 and 67 (8 altogether), he never once broke 47 secs.
If he were truly capable of running a 44.2 (and I can't believe I'm even considering the ridiculous possibility!) then he should have been able to churn out at least 45 sec relay splits on cinders. He didn't.
Deanouk wrote:
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:I know, he posted a claim that a Ryun relay split of 46.9 is really 44.2 for a flat 400m. I posted that (from experience) a non-starting relay leg is about 1 second quicker and a hand timed leg is 0.2 quicker, so his 46.9 could be as slow as 48.1. I didn't swear or anything, the next day my post was gone.
Lol. Yes, I agree with you.
I'm prepared to reduce that conversion from relay to flat down to 0.7, which I have often seen used, but the 0.2 for hand time to FAT is about right.
A Mile run hours earlier and the so called weather conditions and state of the track, which looked pretty good to me from that video, would have some effect, but they are not quantifiable. You cannot just say, the weather cost him a second, the wind 0.5, ..etc.
The link only shows about 10 secs of his relay leg anyway, and as we know (and as Calc. keeps claiming) some hand timing can be out by a lot. Without full video footage of the race, we can't even say how accurate that 46.9 was.
What we can say is that in the many other relay legs Ryun ran in 66 and 67 (8 altogether), he never once broke 47 secs.
If he were truly capable of running a 44.2 (and I can't believe I'm even considering the ridiculous possibility!) then he should have been able to churn out at least 45 sec relay splits on cinders. He didn't.
b..b..but the temperature and the drafting and the 1.8m around the bend and the uneven pace and the!!!! Good riddance calculo/ventolin.
The times people ran are the time people ran. Simple as that.
Stop interacting with the drunk old fool and report his posts every time you see one.
Noble Kane wrote:No Richard Hymans doesn't confirm his 220 split was 21.6
is this a joke ???
"on Theodore's heels" at the 220 mark"
what evidence you got to deny this ?
he says that he printed what was reported by T&FN at the time
is this a joke ???
offer contradictory sources !
offer your source saying Mal didn't split :
21.6y
which was their 440 times
is this a joke ???
can't you read ???
it says in iaaf pdf
21.6y
The only comment about Whitfield at 220 was that he was 'on the heels' of the pacemaker after that point
is this a joke ???
it says in iaaf pdf :
21.6y
hymans needs to withdraw it if inaccurate
he hasn't
therefore,
21.6y
opening split on likely chewed-up dirt & still alive at bell !!!, let alone 660y !!!!!!, let alone 880y !!!!!!!!
Very plausible they got the wrong line in first place
is this a joke ???
it is 1/2-way mark on track, with huge markings as 220y races required
learn to think !!!
and with no images or film of race
is this a joke ???
it was '50 !!!
in low-key race !!!
it is a joke using modern parameters of vids-needed to qualify clockings to run in '50 !!!
Mal ran 21.6y on likely chewed-up dirt & didn't die by 440y, let alone hugely by 660y !?
what on earth off
25-mid for 220y on that chewed-up dirt ???
there is no way of telling just how close Whitfield was at 220yds
is this a joke ???
what part of
"on Theodore's heels" at the 220 mark"
can't you analyse ???
Anyone with an ounce of sense would tell you straight away that it is a nonsense he went through 220 in 21.6 from a standing start
is this a joke ???
hymans doesn't deny it, he even "confirms it" with
"on Theodore's heels" at the 220 mark"
it is "official" in iaaf wr pdf
In fact Hymans says his first 220 was more like 23 and his last 27.5 in that link you provided
is this a joke ???
he obviously did research when questioned about this if you can comprehend chronology :
http://trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/showthread.php?147946-Mal-Whitfield-s-880y-WR-19-08-1950&highlight=whitfieldadding that WE WILL NEVER know for sure
is this a joke ???
Mal ran
21.6y !!!
opener on likely chewed-up dirt in '50 & still held on for
1'49.2y !!!
tell us what evidence you have got for Mal not being thru 220y in 21.6 ???
Slagowski eventually
Statistical Analysis wrote:Banked indoor tracks are as fast as oversized tracks for middle distance events
no
a banked 200 track is never as fast as a 400 outdoor
"Banked 200m Tracks and Oversized Tracks (+260m) - research conclusion - there is NO statistical difference found between performances on a æƒanked 200m Track?(BT) and that of an æ™versized Track?(OT)."
http://www.trackie.com/track-and-field/Articles/cis-indoor-track-conversion-ratios/13027/"Certain track types have advantages over others, which influence a
runner抯 race time. For example, it is well known that athletes run faster on banked tracks as opposed to flat tracks. The banked turns help reduce loss of speed when running along the
curve, which clearly aids the athlete during a race."
it is embarrassing to quote such
it is a research project posted by some guy/gal, who if entered uni at maybe 18y, was maybe 20y at time of pdf
even moreso, he/she was attempting to get a degree from
"worcester polytechnic institute"
https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-042413-222345/unrestricted/Statistical_Models_for_NCAA_Indoor_Track_and_Field_Data.pdf
P.5 - "The only major similarity between the NCAA and GLMM conversion
standards was the banked to oversized track conversion, which says there is no difference between these two track types."
i had to laugh when the guy/gal quoted taylor series with some newton-raphson thrown in !
P.48 suggests that the conversion for a men's 800m on a 200m banked track to an oversized flat one is x 0.9993
no
guy/gal is is maybe 20y
attending
"worcester polytechnic institute"
Meaning Kipketer's 1:42.67 would be 1:42.60 on a flat oversized track
is this a joke ???
he already had
1'41.83 PB
with proper timing & splits
he ran ~ 1.5m extra on bends & dead-tired after 1'43.3 just ~ 44 hours before
too many races in previous 3 weeks with rieti a nothing meet for him
he was hugely fatigued by the time he got to rieti with lotta fast runs prior
he was at worst, off proper 0.25s slowing 200s in fully rested shape
1'41-flat
off rieti & probably more like
1'40-high
if he had ~ 1'40-high coming into '97, how on earth was he only in
1'42.60 shape in paris ???
when he was actually trying his hardest to smash times ?!
As impressive as it was, Kipketer's indoor WR is not anywhere near as comparable as Rudisha's Olympic WR
no
Kip was in
outdoor shape of '96 of
~ 1'40-high
his '97 paris 1'42.67i wouda been little more than this as he targeted it
is this a joke ???
he was already in 1'40-high shape in '96, so how does 1'42.67 indoors in '97 give NO difference between outdoors / indoors for 800m ???
Coe's 800m times and championship performances were below what he was really capable of. As a 46 400m and 3:29 1500m performer, he should have run faster than 1:41.7. Two Olympic 800m silvers is a great result, but Rudisha has two Olympic 800m golds.
Track king wrote:
Coe's 800m times and championship performances were below what he was really capable of. As a 46 400m and 3:29 1500m performer, he should have run faster than 1:41.7. Two Olympic 800m silvers is a great result, but Rudisha has two Olympic 800m golds.
Snell has two as well,
Kipketer, Rudisha, Snell, Coe, Cruz. The big five of the 800m.
WRONG! Juantorena >>>>>> Coe and Cruz because he ran fast 400's too.
Snell is nobody compared to Juanto! Enough skinny 1500/800 pups who think they're special. Juantorena was fast.
Bad Wigins wrote:
WRONG! Juantorena >>>>>> Coe and Cruz because he ran fast 400's too.
Snell is nobody compared to Juanto! Enough skinny 1500/800 pups who think they're special. Juantorena was fast.
No. Snell won 2 Olympic titles at 800, Juantorena 1.
Snell improved the WR by 1.4 sec. Juantorena by just 0.26, or 0.1 if you include Wohlhuter's 1:44.1 880 as being worth 1:43.5.
Snell's 1:44.3 on grass is worth similar to Juantorena's 1:43.44 on synthetic, but he did it 15 years earlier.
Snell's achievements over 800 are better than The Horse's.
Therefore Snell> Juantorena over 800m.
Deanouk wrote:He went through 600m in at least 1:15.0, probably 1:14.8
is this a joke ???
he went thru in ~ 1'15.4
You can see this from where he is compared to the 200m curve at 1:16.6 into the race
eh ??
see what ??
i can freeze-frame it at 1'16.5
he is ~ 8.0m past 600m point at that instant from taking measurements from vid of height & distance beyond 600m
assuming ~ 26.0 speed at that point, his 600m time, he covered to 1'16.5 of ~ 8.0m in 8.0 / ( 200/26.0 ) = 1.0s
->
1'16.5 - 1.0 =
1'15.5
The athlete on the 200m curve line at this point doesn't reach where Kipketer was at 1:16.6 until 1:18.4
is this a joke ???
you are comparing slowest guy in field to champ !!??
where on earth are speeds comparable ???
That's 1.8 secs
flawed analysis
There is no way Kipketer could have covered that same distance in 1.1 secs
is this a joke ???
you have used flawed analaysi with wrong photo-time to begin with
anyone who can analyse propery, i ask :
what is 600m time if at 1'16.5 you are at ~ 608.0m & travelling at ~ 26.0s speed for 200m ???
meaning his 600m time would have been 1.8 secs before 1:16.6
no
flawed
which would have been 1:14.8
no
flawed
you used wrong instant time, compounded it with using slowest guy in field who is collapsing & absurdly claim Kip was travelling at same woeful speed ???!!!
This means his last 200m with good pacing to that 600m point, was 28.0!
is this a joke ???
it was 27.3
That is not indicative of someone in 1:41 shape
no
his monaco-'95 run off tired legs with 1.25m extra on bends & owed ~ 100m of drafting as wide so much of race, was indicative of guy in
1'42-flat
past-peak & with no gothenburg in his legs, as commentator alluded, Kip in monaco in a 1-off was worth at worst IMO :
~ 1'41-high
If a 1:41 runner is given 24 low, 49.5, 1:14.8-1:15.0, then they would have had the ideal circumstances to go well below 1:42
no
he ran ~ 1.25m extra in splits of :
24.2 / 49.5 / 1'15.5 / 1'42.87
& owed ~ 100m of drafting
with tired legs evidenced by slower, slower runs after gothenburg & getting beat !!!
He didn't
analyse properly
if this had been a fully-rested 1-off, route-1, paced to bell in gothenburg shape, then Kip was looking at worst :
1'41-high in '95
Seriously, are you alright?
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion