I think a fair criticism of any insider site is when there is a great performance immediately focus goes into how great was it, where does it stack up historically etc, instead of just appreciating it.
But we all know he ran 5947 and won Rome so people want to know more especially when so much of the sport is about times and we have courses not eligible for records etc.
I don't see a problem trying to figure out what this was worth on a flat course.
Had thought today that Rupp might win in Tokyo if you want me to stir things up. He's great at half and up.
It was a "flat course."
65 net feet over 13 miles is nothing. That is a miniscule .1 percent grade. For reference, civil engineers won't design drainage swales in parking lots at anything less than .5 percent because water won't drain reliably at slopes that flat.
Do you you really think 5 feet per mile/ 15 inches per 400 meters/ 4 inches per 100 meters/ .4 inches per 10 meters/ 3/8ths of an in inch in 30 feet makes any difference when factored into wind/ temperature/ humidity/ sun exposure/ pacing/ etc., etc.
Rupp broke 60 and he smoked a world class field. Enough said.