So, I hear people complain about Hall's 2:04 Boston a lot. I also hear people in awe of Kipchoge's 2:01 in Berlin. Hall had a tailwind. Chichoge wore the 4%s. I want to know what you all think of their performances. Are they legit times that should count as PRs or are they bogus times that should be considered time cheats? Explain why you answer the way you do.
Hall's 2:04 Boston: Legit or Bogus
Kipchoge's 2:01 Berlin: Legit or Bogus
Look at the top ten runners in Boston in 2011 and compare it to there legal pr.
Sand Dunes wrote:
Look at the top ten runners in Boston in 2011 and compare it to there legal pr.
You didn't answer the question.
I think WR eligible performances are legit and ineligible performances are bogus.
Hall 2:04 - bogus
Kipchoge 2:01 - legit
Kipchoge 2:00 - bogus
set and spike wrote:
I think WR eligible performances are legit and ineligible performances are bogus.
Hall 2:04 - bogus
Kipchoge 2:01 - legit
Kipchoge 2:00 - bogus
Didn't ask about breaking 2, but whatever.
Hall's 2:04 Boston: Bogus
Kipchoge's 2:01 Berlin: Bogus
No way anyone should think either of these performances are legit. Both had assistance. How anyone can think that running with freaking springs on your feed is legit is beyond me.
Say What Now What Now? wrote:
Hall's 2:04 Boston: Bogus
Kipchoge's 2:01 Berlin: Bogus
No way anyone should think either of these performances are legit. Both had assistance. How anyone can think that running with freaking springs on your feed is legit is beyond me.
ditch your shoes and run then. freakin performance enhancers. Hate shoes. Your PRs are bogus too.
in fact, screw body glide. Keeping my nips and crotch from chafing. Enhancing my times. agghh
Ryun Kipchoke wrote:
So, I hear people complain about Hall's 2:04 Boston a lot. I also hear people in awe of Kipchoge's 2:01 in Berlin. Hall had a tailwind. Chichoge wore the 4%s. I want to know what you all think of their performances. Are they legit times that should count as PRs or are they bogus times that should be considered time cheats? Explain why you answer the way you do.
Hall's 2:04 Boston: Legit or Bogus
Kipchoge's 2:01 Berlin: Legit or Bogus
I think the average runner is fine to claim Boston as their PR, as the course itself is relatively tough, and the time ultimately won't matter.
For an elite runner, then Boston with a tailwind should be noted as aided. In Hall's case, he's a guy that had already run a 2:06 on a "legit" course, so it means that there is much much less room for physical improvement and the conditions (tail wind) have more of an effect on them.
One thing that makes me wonder though is that G.Mutai did run within a minute of his Boston time with a 204 flat, and his NYC run later that year was arguably an even better performance. I do not think 203 flat in something like London that year was out of the question for Mutai.
The question with 4% shoes is nothing I think. The name is marketing and of course it does not mean 4% raw improvement or we would have had a sub 2 by now.
Thread logic.
All times wearing shoes are bogus because the provide assistance. Kipsang record bogus because 1% boost material. Steve jones record bogus because he would not run that fast barefoot on asphalt. Legit marathon record Abebe Bikila.
All track times bogus because of assistance of spikes and resonant plate in sole. Legit track records belong to caveman.
Ryun Kipchoke wrote:
set and spike wrote:
I think WR eligible performances are legit and ineligible performances are bogus.
Hall 2:04 - bogus
Kipchoge 2:01 - legit
Kipchoge 2:00 - bogus
Didn't ask about breaking 2, but whatever.
I’m aware. I included it anyway to further illustrate my stance.
Yeah screw genes too. Having great parents is probably the biggest performance enhancer.