Clayton Murphy just ran 1:43.60 at Mt. Sac

---

JRinaldi wrote:

Remember when Duane Solomon ran 1:43.88 at Mt. SAC in 2014?

How much faster did he run that year?

---

---

Altered Image wrote:Looks like someone has been over indulging in something

---

---

Ryun likes to add to his own myth with these anecdotes

---

---

Always has some reason why he didnt run faster

---

---

Its called rose tinted spectacles

---

---

He said at time he had a bit of a sore throat but felt great during race

---

---

He didn't have flu

---

---

You cant jog with flu never mind run 1.44

---

---

And he returned the next day to run 2 more races not 1

---

---

He won the mile, time

---

---

The idea he must have been ill because he didnt run 3.51 is the most dumb excuse Ive heard.

---

---

So every time someone runs 10 secs slower than pr they are ill?

---

---

You dont run 4 races inside 48 hrs if your ill, period

---

---

The video of the 880 race in 66 is of the poorest quality and shows nothing to indicate the extra distance you would like him to have run, nor wind of any note

---

---

A source account of race or wind readings for sprints at meet are evidence

---

---

The poorest quality, highly edited recording which doesnt even look like its being played at the right speed doesnt tell us anything

---

---

sundown wrote:

Makh had non-ideal splits in the 2:13. Just go back and look. They were all over the map.

---

---

calculo wrote:

---

Altered Image wrote:

[quote]So every time someone runs 10 secs slower than pr they are ill?

---

eh ?

what is this rubbish ?

( letsrun, can you ban this woeful )

i am interested in only 800

---

---

Noble Kane wrote:

---

sundown wrote:

Makh had non-ideal splits in the 2:13. Just go back and look. They were all over the map.

---

Now you are changing what you originally said. You said he had "lousy" pacing. I said they weren't now lousy. Now you are saying they were 'non-ideal'. That's something different completely.

Makhloufi's 200 splits in Nancy were ~ 26.8, 26.0 (52.8 - which is 2:12 pace), 27.2 (1:19.0 - which is 2:11.6 pace), 27.3 ( 1:46.3 - 2:12.8 pace), 26.7.

He lost any chance of the record from 600 to 800, which is when you would expect an athlete after a record to be in front and making his own pace anyway.

The idea that 'ideal' pace must be a much faster first 400m is not universally agreed. He ran very even splits, which I would suggest is preferable. Yes, the first 200m was slow compared to several other record performances over 1000m, but they are starting from a standing start, so it would be slower if the pace was the same throughout.

After his first 200m the 4 remaining splits differed by only 1.3 secs.

In Coe's 1st WR, the difference was 2.7 secs, in his 2nd it was 1.9 sec and in Ngeny's it was 2.5 secs.

---

---

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

---

Noble Kane wrote:

---

sundown wrote:

Makh had non-ideal splits in the 2:13. Just go back and look. They were all over the map.

---

Now you are changing what you originally said. You said he had "lousy" pacing. I said they weren't now lousy. Now you are saying they were 'non-ideal'. That's something different completely.

Makhloufi's 200 splits in Nancy were ~ 26.8, 26.0 (52.8 - which is 2:12 pace), 26.2 (1:19.0 - which is 2:11.6 pace), 27.3 ( 1:46.3 - 2:12.8 pace), 26.7.

He lost any chance of the record from 600 to 800, which is when you would expect an athlete after a record to be in front and making his own pace anyway.

The idea that 'ideal' pace must be a much faster first 400m is not universally agreed. He ran very even splits, which I would suggest is preferable. Yes, the first 200m was slow compared to several other record performances over 1000m, but they are starting from a standing start, so it would be slower if the pace was the same throughout.

After his first 200m the 4 remaining splits differed by only 1.3 secs.

In Coe's 1st WR, the difference was 2.7 secs, in his 2nd it was 1.9 sec and in Ngeny's it was 2.5 secs.

---

Check your math bud.
I'll let you figure out where the mistake is

---

---

Noble Kane wrote:~ that grainy clip shows 5 secs of the 2nd bend from the final and he is in lane 1 and being drafted

---

---

~ it shows nothing of bend 3

---

---

It shows him at 500m on the curb being drafted

---

---

No discernible extra distance

---

---

~ it shows some of last bend where he is tight on inside

---

---

No extra distance

---

---

~ no account of race has ever mentioned it as being windy

---

---

Offer reference or reliable source stating otherwise

---

---

~ he wasn't ill

---

---

You make it sound like he was dying

---

---

So ill he ran 2 more races the next day

---

---

Accounts of the race say he had a 'bit of a sore throat' and that he had 'a tremendous burst of energy' at 500yds

---

---

~ offer papers or reliable sources that show asphalt track was 'nowhere near as quick as '70s track'?

---

---

Total hyperbole

---

---

Altered Image wrote:

Looks like someone has been over indulging in something.

Ryun likes to add to his own myth with these anecdotes. Always has some reason why he didnt run faster. Its called rose tinted spectacles.
He said at time he had a bit of a sore throat but felt great during race. He didn't have flu. You cant jog with flu never mind run 1.44.
And he returned the next day to run 2 more races not 1. He won the mile, time irrelevant. The idea he must have been ill because he didnt run 3.51 is the most dumb excuse Ive heard. So every time someone runs 10 secs slower than pr they are ill?

You dont run 4 races inside 48 hrs if your ill, period.

The video of the 880 race in 66 is of the poorest quality and shows nothing to indicate the extra distance you would like him to have run, nor wind of any note.
A source account of race or wind readings for sprints at meet are evidence. The poorest quality, highly edited recording which doesnt even look like its being played at the right speed doesnt tell us anything.

---

---

Altered Image wrote:

Looks like someone has been over indulging in something.

Ryun likes to add to his own myth with these anecdotes. Always has some reason why he didnt run faster. Its called rose tinted spectacles.
He said at time he had a bit of a sore throat but felt great during race. He didn't have flu. You cant jog with flu never mind run 1.44.
And he returned the next day to run 2 more races not 1. He won the mile, time irrelevant. The idea he must have been ill because he didnt run 3.51 is the most dumb excuse Ive heard. So every time someone runs 10 secs slower than pr they are ill?

You dont run 4 races inside 48 hrs if your ill, period.

The video of the 880 race in 66 is of the poorest quality and shows nothing to indicate the extra distance you would like him to have run, nor wind of any note.
A source account of race or wind readings for sprints at meet are evidence. The poorest quality, highly edited recording which doesnt even look like its being played at the right speed doesnt tell us anything.

---

---

calculo wrote:

---

Noble Kane wrote:Do you purposely act obtuse?

---

eh ?

is this a joke ?

---

It's quite clear what the poster is getting at

---

offer it

---

Why plead ignorant?

---

then stop pleading on her/his behalf & post direct

---

You previously stated that the fact Ryun ran a 4:01 mile the next day

---

he said ~ 4'02 when "completely flat/dead"

you have other opinion to offer ?

---

and was able to run 3:51 a few weeks later

---

is this a joke ???

he ran 3'51.3WR many weeks later !!!

who ever said he hadn't made some recovery later ?

---

proves that he was ill that day

---

is this a joke ?

---

That would imply that every time someone runs 10 sec slower than their best time, they must be ill

---

is this a joke ???

he says in a many many posted vid interview he was ill !!!

how many f*****ckin times do you have to be told to learn to watch/listen until it sinks in :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkTPCspfwCI

if you were his physician back in '66, then post it !!!

---

Which of course most people recognise as nonsense

---

is this a joke ?

you dare offer medical opinion of a guy in '66 against his stated testimony of that day of what background ?

were you then or at any time Ryun's physician or ever in a position to be such ?

---

If you choose to run 4 races in less than 36 hours then you are not ill

---

is this a joke ?

you run what coach tells you to in '66

his coach was clueless & when he stopped his watch he was completely shocked as he had no idea of 2-laps ability

---

and certainly not suffering with flu, as you suggest

---

is this a joke ?

were you his physician in '66 ?

what qualified diagnosis you offer ?

---

The most useful and believable accounts are ones from the time

---

yes

offer

---

11 not 40+ years later in an interview where it is in both the journalist's and athlete's interests to 'spice' up the facts

---

then offer his medical condition from reports in '66

offer...

---

He said at the time that he had 'a tremendous feeling of energy' at the start of the back straight

---

sounds similar to vid

offer source

i'm sure he can expand...

---

That is not how someone feels when they are ill

---

is this a joke ?

that is his statement

were you or ever his physician in '66 to offer other ?

---

And an ill person certainly doesn't come back the next day to run 2 more events!

---

& he syas they ere total rubbish 4'02+

---

-Ryun ran a 1:44.9 hand timed 880 on a synthetic track

---

no

asphalt rubbish which was slow & smashed to pieces needing regular "filler"

why wasn't asphalt track in mexico ? or munich or montreal ?

---

Meaning it was likely 1:45.0/1:45.1 automatic

---

yes

---

-We have a very grainy, highly edited clip of the final with no running clock on the video footage

---

then we analyse

if you can't analyse good enough, it's not anyone's problem but yours

---

The speed of the film looks out

---

eh ?

who on earth expected to time splits from it ?

---

-We see about 5 secs total of bends 2 & 3

---

huge amount for discernation

---

from side on and using a long distance shot

---

best angles

the "classic"

---

In the footage given he maybe runs 2m extra

---

is this a joke ?

on 2nd bend, he maya run 2m at worst, but guy passed well inside him on it, so more like 2.5m

on 3rd bend, he enters it wide in lane 2 & he is not "ducking in lane 1" at 19y with guys to overtake

next shot is wide in lane overtaking guy in lane-1

it's likely 4 - 6m extra

---

- We have no accounts on record from the time about weather conditions being windy

---

is this a joke ?

can't you observe vid ?

the pennants are blowing hugely !

it's a wrecking wind !

---

There is no wind sock on screen for the duration of the race

---

is this a joke ?

wind sock ?

how much of a joke is this ?

what utter joke is this ?

---

so there is nothing to go on

---

is this a total joke ?!

---

-We have no idea what the track's dimensions or configuration were

---

in '60s on rival USTAF Meet, i reckon rock-solid

if you have other info, offer it

---

Surely if it wasn't 116/84 you wouldn't recognise it as legal

---

i'll take '60s tracks as they come

unlike oslo woeful, built around a speed-skating track !!!

utter joke track !!!

or firenze, an unknown, 6-laner on mandatory-8-laners 0f '70s & it coudn't even offer auto-timing !!!

---

and it would have speeded up his time?

---

116/84

only acceptable

---

It is beyond belief how anyone can use the footage of this race with the above analysis, to conclude that he was capable of 1:40 flat in 66

---

eh ?

is this a joke ?

any discerning analyst with math/logic ability wouda got this at

~ 1'40-flat

---

---

calculo wrote:
is this a joke ?
is this a joke ???
is this a joke ?
is this a joke ???
is this a joke ?
is this a joke ?
is this a joke ?
is this a joke ?
is this a joke ?
is this a joke ?
is this a joke ?
how much of a joke is this ?
what utter joke is this ?
is this a total joke ?!
is this a joke ?

---