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 8:42-45."
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 could run at least a minute faster...."
John Kellogg is proven to be a genius yet again - He predicted the possibility of the 8:44 steeple WR (after the fact but..)
Pro News/Info/Results
Distance
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
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. -
So, who in the hell is John Kellogg? Why should anyone care about the opinion of some dude who doesn't watch track?
-
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?
??? dunno if it’s intentional but all of these replies sound like they’re coming from a bunch of crotchety old men haha -
Rojo, why does running bore JK now? That's kind of a depressing thought.
-
Maybe for the same reason the TdF bores a lot of people now.
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...."
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. -
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.
So...…..When we will have the first runner to break 12:30 in the 5000m , that runner will most truly also be the first runner to break 26 min in the 10000m. And the new women`s WR in the steeple is relative to a 8:14 - 8: 19 in 3000m flat. When the women`s WR will come down to sub 8 in the 3000m flat we will also see a sub 8:30 at the steeple if same runner go for it. -
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 28:06 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. -
"he had a cult following on her"
That sounds unseemly if not illegal. -
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 " -
Did he have any wrong predictions that we didn't hear about?
Seriously, though, it's good that he takes a mathematical approach to the sport, because it gives a false precision that sometimes gets closer than our eyeball estimates. -
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.
I hope you don't think that's remarkable progression. Carlos Lopes went from 30 plus to much bigger things and he never touched Corn flakes in his life. -
Spmething tells me he was pulling your leg . I didn’t watch the NBA finals . Want to hear my prediction who should win ?
-
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 "
Yes, that was what I had written and I am not sure why it was removed!
I was, of course, being light hearted. I am a big proponent of high mileage, so I don’t often agree with you. When you’re right, you’re right though! -
Nice call but I don't think it's earth shattering material to propose that the steeplechase and women's distance records in general have been absurdly soft. It's been too many mediocre athletes atop the rolls so the more special athletes don't have to do much. Consequently they get away with dawdling one race after another.
It will be interesting to see if this 8:44 breakthrough leads to more races below 9 minutes.
Also we should have an influx of superior athletes entering those races, once they see how much room there is at the top. Likewise with swimming once you have a Katie Ledecky now there are prodigies like Claire Tuggle on the way. -
So how often are your athletes tested Jan?
-
Did anyone watch Heusden? I have feeling Houlihan might run mid 14:30'.
-
If I show up at the office wearing a Rupp-Approved shirt can I get a LetsRun.com debit card (for those of us young'uns)
-
So JK discovered the obvious after it happened? I think most people understood the women's steeple was weak before.
What's JK got on the Jets vs the Colts? Can Namath pull it off?
