Caster Semenya Runs..... 51.53

Semen y'all wrote:

As long as she's entered in the men's 800, I'm fine with it. Enough of this politically correct, sensitivity garbage. Obviously she has more man parts than girl parts. Obviously the man parts give her a competitive edge. Enter her in the correct race. I expect to see women in the women's race, not a dude who wins on a technicality.

Quit picking on her bully! Have you seen some of the "other" competitors in the W 800 lately?

Aerobic development is "mystic nonsense"? Does your fairy godmother give it to you at birth then? 49/1:54 is not at all an unlikely combination among faster high school boys, particularly in an era when runners didn't do significant miles in high school, and those are two times that Semenya could run.

There were 1440 U.S. high school boys under 50, 515 under 49, this year alone. There were 3278 sub 51. (McLaughlin's 51.78 is #1 U.S. girl).

This is Athletics.net. There may be some errors, because in the 800m list, they have Brandon McBride, Anthony Romaniw and a few other pros near the top of the list. Including them there were only 358 athletes under 1:55 and 627 under 1:56 (somehow Jacob Burcham was in there too, at 1:55).

I don't know what was going on with this list, but it seems that the 400m is way, way, way deeper than the 800m in high school.

Since the CAS decision that allowed her to run without hormone therapy, I have not seen a race where I thought she was even close to all out. Seems an intentional decision to just win by a little, NOT destroy the field.

800ftw. wrote:

i'm more inclined to believe a HS 1'55.0 guy will likely need lot quicker than 50.50 to run 1'55.00 as hasn't got the years of endurance in his legs

more like 49+ speed to run 1'55.0

how can they at 16/17y have had enough years of accumulated 30 - 50 mpw to establish their endurance ?

Bullshit, go and do some training and racing yourself for once. Deal with real athletes

once more completely outta your depth

There are no 1:55 kids running sub 50 for 400m that are actually middle distance oriented

at age 16/17y the number of kids who have accumulated enough years of 30 - 50mpw to be considered bona fide middle distance guys is small

therefore most will be moving up from 400 where they coudn't hack it or thought more chance of success at 800 will not have enough mileage in their legs to equal the iaaf points for 1'55.0 for 400 which is ~ 49.5

i don't agree with iaaf points & reckon 50.5 is better equivalent to 1'55.0

if the kid hasn't yet developed the endurance to be equally good at 800 as 400 but manages to run 1'55.0, then logically his intrinsic 400 has to be better than 50.5 to do it

->

his intrinsic 400 if anywhere close to ideally run when in 1'55.0 shape has to be substantially quicker than 50.5 & therefore 49+ fits the bill

learn some logic.

800ftw. wrote:

i'm more inclined to believe a HS 1'55.0 guy will likely need lot quicker than 50.50 to run 1'55.00 as hasn't got the years of endurance in his legs

more like 49+ speed to run 1'55.0

how can they at 16/17y have had enough years of accumulated 30 - 50 mpw to establish their endurance ?

Bullshit, go and do some training and racing yourself for once. Deal with real athletes

once more completely outta your depth

There are no 1:55 kids running sub 50 for 400m that are actually middle distance oriented

at age 16/17y the number of kids who have accumulated enough years of 30 - 50mpw to be considered bona fide middle distance guys is small

therefore most will be moving up from 400 where they coudn't hack it or thought more chance of success at 800 will not have enough mileage in their legs to equal the iaaf points for 1'55.0 for 400 which is ~ 49.5

i don't agree with iaaf points & reckon 50.5 is better equivalent to 1'55.0

if the kid hasn't yet developed the endurance to be equally good at 800 as 400 but manages to run 1'55.0, then logically his intrinsic 400 has to be better than 50.5 to do it

->

his intrinsic 400 if anywhere close to ideally run when in 1'55.0 shape has to be substantially quicker than 50.5 & therefore 49+ fits the bill

learn some logic.

NOP Skeptic wrote:As I read the rest of the comments on this thread, I will say it again. Semenya's 400 (50.4) and 1500 (4:01) IAAF scores are pretty much equivalent. She is a balanced 400/800/1500 runner

you keep harping on about this

no one seriously believes her 1500 is anywhere as good as her 400 if she ran both races to the best of her ability

her 4'01 was a shock as i doubt anyone seriously doubted she wouda broken 4'05 at the time but she has better endurance than many including myself thought

however, due to her immense muscularity/physique, there is no way her 1500 woud be as good as her 400 off her primary 800 training

all that power is built to launch her like a projectile over 400 not 1500

her 400 poor runs have quite clearly been a misjudging of the race, her numerous easy 800 wins with kick in last 100/200 have convinced her wrongly that all she needs to do to win an elite 400 is cruise around to 300 & kick hard, an ultra-ohurugo who won 2 or 3 majors like this

it doesn't work that way

an ideal 400 has to be run off 1s +ve 200 splits & she is trying to -ve split !!!

Fook that wrote:

You're a sorry excuse for a track and field fan if you think for one fooking second that a 52... a sub 52(51.9) would make a final at a state track meet. Yeah if you're talking about the smaller class schools but fook they don't break 5 minutes for 1600 either.

sub 52 means 51.xx, not 51.9. Or are you suggesting that a 51.9 400 runner can't be coached to a 51 low?

If not, gtfo. 51 low is a threat unless you're 4A or above.

I'll add that 800 runners are not generally allowed to specialize in high schools, and even wasted on the ridiculous 4x800 which dilutes their PR's, and of course never have pacemakers, so are usually further from their best over 800 than 400.

And finally that the 800 runners who aren't good 400 runners rarely record open 400 times for you to go research up attempting to argue with me.

When you're wrong, you're wrong. Go home.

calculo wrote:

i don't agree with iaaf points & reckon 50.5 is better equivalent to 1'55.0

don't get offended but that is ridiculous. 1:45 runners are only 2-3 seconds faster than that over 400. Is 3 seconds worth 10 seconds over twice the distance?

50 is worth 1:50 if you train well for it.

eh ?

my estimates reckon 1'45.00 = 45.50

what is problem with that ?

further ->

1'44.00 = 45.00

1'43.00 = 44.50

1'42.00 = 44.00

1'41.00 = 43.50

1'40.00 = 43.00

you can go check what iaaf tables has as equivalent for those various 800s

for a mature 1'45.00, full time 800 only guy, i woud expect his intrinsic 400 to be at least 1s slow than 45.50, probably 46.5 - 47.0, because he has years of 30 - 50mpw in his legs & woud expect his 800 to be better than his 400

eh ?

my estimates reckon 1'45.00 = 45.50

what is problem with that ?

further ->

1'44.00 = 45.00

1'43.00 = 44.50

1'42.00 = 44.00

1'41.00 = 43.50

1'40.00 = 43.00

you can go check what iaaf tables has as equivalent for those various 800s

for a mature 1'45.00, full time 800 only guy, i woud expect his intrinsic 400 to be at least 1s slow than 45.50, probably 46.5 - 47.0, because he has years of 30 - 50mpw in his legs & woud expect his 800 to be better than his 400

few if any will believe me but i reckon these times are mathematically equivalent NOT stats massaged like iaaf points :

~

1'55.00 =

11.50

23.00

50.50

3'52.63

8'10.86

14'03.00

29'02.57

1'56.00 =

11.62

23.25

51.00

3'54.50

8'14.62

14'09.25

29'15.00

1'57.00 =

11.75

23.50

51.50

3'56.38

8'18.36

14'15.50

29'27.57...

2'00.00 =

12.12

24.25

53.00

4'02.00

8'29.60

14'34.25

30,05.00

values of distance runs have been skewed for decades because apart from chinese women & coupla ethiopians & a Kenyan gal, women's distance times have been p!ss weak

look at above & consider whether they look nearer the mark for HS/lower tier college guys

Bad Wigins wrote:

unregistered spineless chicken shit, get a bold name then talk.

HAHAHAHA ya - you're so brave and must have a really strong spine - posting ANONYMOUSLY on an ANONYMOUS website.

Post under your real name and then you can call someone out.

In fact, it's cute (sad?) how much pride you take in a registered handle. Maybe that's why you have a few of them... someone getting a little overly upset over "800 Loser" getting called out... wonder why....

BTW: Feel free to search 'Macdaddy'... I've been using this handle for years.

Bad Wigins wrote:

An open sub 52 threatens to make the final and score points at all but the most competitive state meets

LMAO!!! One of the dumbest statements I've ever seen!!! Find me one of those states (what... like 1A Idaho?). Then, when you do, look at what the winning/qualifying 800 time was in that division.

calculo wrote:

few if any will believe me but i reckon these times are mathematically equivalent NOT stats massaged like iaaf points :

~

look at above & consider whether they look nearer the mark for HS/lower tier college guys

Way off. You've basically listed a set of times that get stronger as the distances get longer. The 100/200 times are ridiculously far off the mark from the rest in terms of equivalent performances; just look at what scores in high school and collegiate meets.

For reference along the last trend line you gave, 12.12 and 24.25 might pick up a point for 3rd in a dual meet. 53.00 will consistently score in most dual meets. 2:00 will win pretty much any dual and get kids into fast heats in invitationals. 4:19 (1600) threatens to place in major invitationals. 9:07 (3200) is a threat to win all but the most competitive state meets.

Quite a range you've got there. It gets ever more pronounced at the faster ranges, where you go from 11.5/23.00 (could win dual meets) to 8:46 (3200)/14:03/29:02 (good shot at winning FL, NXN, state 3200, etc).

It's not logical. It's not realistic or accurate. You think you are an expert because you watch lots of pro races on TV.

Go and get involved in true amateur sport and you will see your 'ideas' and 'logic' are nonsense.

A high school 800m boy that runs 52 should be looking to run 1:55. If he runs 49 and bits then he should be looking at 1:52 at worst. His age matters not.

You actually have no idea about the 400m and it's your largest shortcoming in all of your predictions. It's why you predict that every decent 800 guy should be running 44 and give Jim Ryun the miler a 44.0 or whatever craziness.