John Kellogg is proven to be a genius yet again - He predicted the possibility of the 8:44 steeple WR (after the fact but..)

---

rojo wrote:

So John Kellogg called me this afternoon. He's into biking and was out on a ride and his credit cards slipped out so he wanted his LetsRun.com credit card to be reported as lost.

Anyway, I was like, "Hey did you watch the Monaco meet?" That was kind of a stupid question as I know running bores him to some degree now and he doesn't have cable and doesn't watch meets.

He was like, "No."

So I started to tell him about it but then stopped and said, "Hey what do you think the women's world record in the steeple should be."

He said, "Well given how low those barriers are. It should be a hell of a lot faster than it is now. I'd say 8:42-85."

I asked him how he derived that and he said he thought it should be about 25 seconds slower than the 3000 wr and he was ignoring chinese marks. So Dibaba has run 816 and Obiri 820 so he kind of split the difference.

He did add at one point that some might argue that women aren't as tell as men so maybe it could be slightly slower but no slower than 848.

So there you have it, yet again his mathematical brain predicts exactly what happened. Yes, he predicted it after the fact and yes there is no way to prove he didn't know but I know and that's all I need to know.

Like when I talk about doping, I often say, "Well I know my brother ran 28:06 clean and I certainly imagine some super talented white guy coudl run at least a minute faster...."

---

---

lkn fgn wrote:

So, who in the hell is John Kellogg? Why should anyone care about the opinion of some dude who doesn't watch track?

---

---

anacondarunner wrote:

Rojo, why does running bore JK now? That's kind of a depressing thought.

---

---

rojo wrote:

So John Kellogg called me this afternoon. He's into biking and was out on a ride and his credit cards slipped out so he wanted his LetsRun.com credit card to be reported as lost.

Anyway, I was like, "Hey did you watch the Monaco meet?" That was kind of a stupid question as I know running bores him to some degree now and he doesn't have cable and doesn't watch meets.

He was like, "No."

So I started to tell him about it but then stopped and said, "Hey what do you think the women's world record in the steeple should be."

He said, "Well given how low those barriers are. It should be a hell of a lot faster than it is now. I'd say 8:42-85."

I asked him how he derived that and he said he thought it should be about 25 seconds slower than the 3000 wr and he was ignoring chinese marks. So Dibaba has run 816 and Obiri 820 so he kind of split the difference.

He did add at one point that some might argue that women aren't as tell as men so maybe it could be slightly slower but no slower than 848.

So there you have it, yet again his mathematical brain predicts exactly what happened. Yes, he predicted it after the fact and yes there is no way to prove he didn't know but I know and that's all I need to know.

Like when I talk about doping, I often say, "Well I know my brother ran 28:06 clean and I certainly imagine some super talented white guy coudl run at least a minute faster...."

---

---

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

---

rojo wrote:

So John Kellogg called me this afternoon. He's into biking and was out on a ride and his credit cards slipped out so he wanted his LetsRun.com credit card to be reported as lost.

Anyway, I was like, "Hey did you watch the Monaco meet?" That was kind of a stupid question as I know running bores him to some degree now and he doesn't have cable and doesn't watch meets.

He was like, "No."

So I started to tell him about it but then stopped and said, "Hey what do you think the women's world record in the steeple should be."

He said, "Well given how low those barriers are. It should be a hell of a lot faster than it is now. I'd say 8:42-85."

I asked him how he derived that and he said he thought it should be about 25 seconds slower than the 3000 wr and he was ignoring chinese marks. So Dibaba has run 816 and Obiri 820 so he kind of split the difference.

He did add at one point that some might argue that women aren't as tell as men so maybe it could be slightly slower but no slower than 848.

So there you have it, yet again his mathematical brain predicts exactly what happened. Yes, he predicted it after the fact and yes there is no way to prove he didn't know but I know and that's all I need to know.

Like when I talk about doping, I often say, "Well I know my brother ran 28:06 clean and I certainly imagine some super talented white guy coudl run at least a minute faster...."

---

So that would be some kind of "rocket-science" to figure out ? All statistically aware people involved in running knows that
the relatively difference between 3000m flat and 3000m steeple is around 25-30 sec. Same with the statistically relatively connection between 5000m and 10000m. If you multiply the 5000m time with 2 and adds around a minute you get the predicted 10000m time.

---

---

lkn fgn wrote:

So, who in the hell is John Kellogg? Why should anyone care about the opinion of some dude who doesn't watch track?

---

---

GBohannon wrote:

---

rojo wrote:

So John Kellogg called me this afternoon. He's into biking and was out on a ride and his credit cards slipped out so he wanted his LetsRun.com credit card to be reported as lost.

Anyway, I was like, "Hey did you watch the Monaco meet?" That was kind of a stupid question as I know running bores him to some degree now and he doesn't have cable and doesn't watch meets.

He was like, "No."

So I started to tell him about it but then stopped and said, "Hey what do you think the women's world record in the steeple should be."

He said, "Well given how low those barriers are. It should be a hell of a lot faster than it is now. I'd say 8:42-85."

I asked him how he derived that and he said he thought it should be about 25 seconds slower than the 3000 wr and he was ignoring chinese marks. So Dibaba has run 816 and Obiri 820 so he kind of split the difference.

He did add at one point that some might argue that women aren't as tell as men so maybe it could be slightly slower but no slower than 848.

So there you have it, yet again his mathematical brain predicts exactly what happened. Yes, he predicted it after the fact and yes there is no way to prove he didn't know but I know and that's all I need to know.

Like when I talk about doping, I often say, "Well I know my brother ran 28:06 clean and I certainly imagine some super talented white guy coudl run at least a minute faster...."

---

Yep, he nailed it alright. Just like you nailed that women’s 400. Not much gets past the LRC gang.

---

---

rojo wrote:

---

lkn fgn wrote:

So, who in the hell is John Kellogg? Why should anyone care about the opinion of some dude who doesn't watch track?

---

He was our coach, he was my right hand man at Cornell and he had a cult following on her when the site started and he shared his wisdom? Why should you care? Because he could take my brother from 30:16 in college to 28:067 post collegiately while coaching him remotely. He's so smart he doesn't need to watch it.

He also predicted the possibility of the 2:03:02 in Boston that year and the 2:15 winning time this year.

---

---

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

---

GBohannon wrote:

---

rojo wrote:

So John Kellogg called me this afternoon. He's into biking and was out on a ride and his credit cards slipped out so he wanted his LetsRun.com credit card to be reported as lost.

Anyway, I was like, "Hey did you watch the Monaco meet?" That was kind of a stupid question as I know running bores him to some degree now and he doesn't have cable and doesn't watch meets.

He was like, "No."

So I started to tell him about it but then stopped and said, "Hey what do you think the women's world record in the steeple should be."

He said, "Well given how low those barriers are. It should be a hell of a lot faster than it is now. I'd say 8:42-85."

I asked him how he derived that and he said he thought it should be about 25 seconds slower than the 3000 wr and he was ignoring chinese marks. So Dibaba has run 816 and Obiri 820 so he kind of split the difference.

He did add at one point that some might argue that women aren't as tell as men so maybe it could be slightly slower but no slower than 848.

So there you have it, yet again his mathematical brain predicts exactly what happened. Yes, he predicted it after the fact and yes there is no way to prove he didn't know but I know and that's all I need to know.

Like when I talk about doping, I often say, "Well I know my brother ran 28:06 clean and I certainly imagine some super talented white guy coudl run at least a minute faster...."

---

Yep, he nailed it alright. Just like you nailed that women’s 400. Not much gets past the LRC gang.

---

Hehe! Where did your post disappear ? It was something like " I never thought I ever would write this on the boards, but here it is : "The Wizard" is right "

---