Trying to put Laura Muir's close in perspective. Has a woman ever closed a 3:58 race with a 57 last lap before?

hardset nipples wrote:

It's like the groupthink on this board has no idea at all about the performances of Soviet Bloc women of the '70s & '80s.

Many of us are too young to remember these performances and it is not as easy to get the splits of these races with a few mouseclicks.

According to German language wikipedia in Moscow Olympics 80 Kazankina ran splits of ca. 65-66 - 2:13-14 - 3:12 - 3:56.6, Wartenberg of GDR was second with 3:57.8. As none of them was leading at 800m, they must both have run very fast 3rd and last laps.

hardset nipples wrote:

It's like the groupthink on this board has no idea at all about the performances of Soviet Bloc women of the '70s & '80s.

Did you read my post yesterday? I stated women from 1980's & 1990's. The best Soviet female middle distance runners from mid-1970's were still racing in 1980.

Jo72 wrote:

hardset nipples wrote:

It's like the groupthink on this board has no idea at all about the performances of Soviet Bloc women of the '70s & '80s.

Many of us are too young to remember these performances and it is not as easy to get the splits of these races with a few mouseclicks.

According to German language wikipedia in Moscow Olympics 80 Kazankina ran splits of ca. 65-66 - 2:13-14 - 3:12 - 3:56.6, Wartenberg of GDR was second with 3:57.8. As none of them was leading at 800m, they must both have run very fast 3rd and last laps.

So if she hit 800 in 3:12 and 800 in 2:13-4, that means she likely hit 100 in 3:57 meaning her last lap would have been 59.

So the answer is still no.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in what a doped up Soviet did. That's like asking me if a guy has ever closed a 3:58 race in 57?

Favor Hamilton closed that last 200m after speeding up to fight off an initial challenge by Jacobs, later caught doping, in 27.7! Incredible. Had she had that mental fortitude at World's or Olympics in the final, it would be hard for anyone, doped or not, to beat her.

In the 1993 World's where Liu Dong closed a 4 in 57, her Chinese compatriot, #133, Liu Yi, 19 years old at the time, ran 1:57 and 4 flat at the Chinese championships and the IAAF has results only for 1992 and 1993. Yi has the appearance on a thin male teenager and was a signatory on the famous letter from Wang, the 8:06/29 10k runner, asserting rampant doping on Ma's Army at the time.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/athletics/we-took-drugs-chinese-athletes-confess-to-doping-in-secret-letter-20160206-gmn8jk.html

Jo72 wrote:

hardset nipples wrote:

It's like the groupthink on this board has no idea at all about the performances of Soviet Bloc women of the '70s & '80s.

Many of us are too young to remember these performances and it is not as easy to get the splits of these races with a few mouseclicks.

According to German language wikipedia in Moscow Olympics 80 Kazankina ran splits of ca. 65-66 - 2:13-14 - 3:12 - 3:56.6, Wartenberg of GDR was second with 3:57.8. As none of them was leading at 800m, they must both have run very fast 3rd and last laps.

If the splits you have given are accurate, then Kazankina rn the last 700m in a 3:56.6 in c.1:43.* and a last 300m in 44 low.

In comparison, last week Hassan ran a 1500m equivalent (in her 4:12.3 mile) of 3:53.6 (although her actual 1500m time was c. 3:55.1) , with a last 700m of 1:46.4 and a last 300m of 45.5. Yet within that last 700m, Hassan ran the 400m from 1109 to 1509 in 59.6.

Muir's splits in her 3:58.2 1500m race in London were - 65.8, 65.6, 63.7, 43.1 (57.6 last 400m). Her last 700m was 1:46.8 and last 300m was 43.1.

All impressive in different ways, but neither Muir's nor Hassan's performances are better than Kazankina's closing splits in a Championship final after rounds IMO.

If of interest, Hassan's splits in her mile WR were - 1/4 splits of - 64.6, 64.1 (2:09.4 at 880), 61.4 and 60.7.

Her 100m splits, based on subtracting 1.5 secs from her splits at 109m, 209m, etc, were as follows (give or take 0.1):

16.1, 31.9, 48.7, 64.6, 1:21.4, 1:37.1, 1:53.0, 2:08.7, 2:24.4, 2:39.8, 2:55.4, 3:10.1, 3:25.3, 3:40.1, 3:55.1, 4:10.8 (with a 1.5secs run in from the start line to finish).

Looked at another way - 16.1, 15.8, 15.8, 15.9, 16.8, 15.7, 15.9, 15.7, 15.7, 15.4, 15.6, 14.7, 15.1, 14.8, 15.0, 15.7

Apart from the 100m stretch from 400 to 500m and from 1100 to 1200m, quite economical running.

The sexist answer would be idn but men have undoubtedly done it lots of times.

which being but a jest, should illustrate that a 57 close isn't an outlandish accomplishment for your basic 3:58 performer.

At least this thread isn't mooning about the zillionth 53 second close in a men's 5000, like that never happens.

rojo wrote:

So the answer is still now.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in what a doped up Soviet did. That's like asking me if a guy has ever closed a 3:58 race in 57?

That one of the founders constantly keeps posting racist misogynistic drivel like this,

demonstrates how futile any moderation "improvements" would be for this terrible cesspool of a website.

Is Muir married? Sooo hot.

Disgusting people. wrote:

rojo wrote:

So the answer is still now.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in what a doped up Soviet did. That's like asking me if a guy has ever closed a 3:58 race in 57?

That one of the founders constantly keeps posting racist misogynistic drivel like this,

demonstrates how futile any moderation "improvements" would be for this terrible cesspool of a website.

And then we have here the defence of doped athletes or the outright denial that it was happening.

rojo wrote:

To be honest, I'm not really interested in what a doped up Soviet did. That's like asking me if a guy has ever closed a 3:58 race in 57?

Hey dummy, they all passed the doping protocols in place at the time, same as Radcliffe or Muir.

Twin Twits wrote:

rojo wrote:

To be honest, I'm not really interested in what a doped up Soviet did. That's like asking me if a guy has ever closed a 3:58 race in 57?

Hey dummy, they all passed the doping protocols in place at the time, same as Radcliffe or Muir.

Yet we all know that the E Bloc athletes were doped under a state-sponsored system. But that's ok, because they got away with it and it's the "protocols" that matter, right?

Twin Twits wrote:

rojo wrote:

To be honest, I'm not really interested in what a doped up Soviet did. That's like asking me if a guy has ever closed a 3:58 race in 57?

Hey dummy, they all passed the doping protocols in place at the time, same as Radcliffe or Muir.

Don't do that. It isn't necessary. Just make your argument.

Tatyana Kazankina, refused a test, was suspended for 18 months then retired.

Now you may pound your chest and say Kazankina never failed a test.

Not even close wrote:

Pulitzer Committee wrote:

Aren’t you a track journalist? Shouldn’t you know these things?

You must be new here. The guys that run this site are about 2 steps behind what is going on.

And, yet, here you are.

im pretty sure tatiana kazankina did it,more than once.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Twin Twits wrote:

Hey dummy, they all passed the doping protocols in place at the time, same as Radcliffe or Muir.

Yet we all know that the E Bloc athletes were doped under a state-sponsored system. But that's ok, because they got away with it and it's the "protocols" that matter, right?

State-sponsored then or corporate-sponsored now, is there real difference in outcome? Testers are more than a step behind at any time. The only difference now is marketing.

jeff tallon wrote:

im pretty sure tatiana kazankina did it,more than once.

The good old days of industrial strength steroids.

Needles McDoperface wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yet we all know that the E Bloc athletes were doped under a state-sponsored system. But that's ok, because they got away with it and it's the "protocols" that matter, right?

State-sponsored then or corporate-sponsored now, is there real difference in outcome? Testers are more than a step behind at any time. The only difference now is marketing.

If athletes today are doping, or doping as much as they were in the 80's, those E Bloc and Flojo records wouldn't still stand.

Pulitzer Committee wrote:

Aren’t you a track journalist? Shouldn’t you know these things?

You know, what the normal folk do not understand about journalists is that they are not always in the know, au contraire, they often have no clue at all, but, on behalf of the their media, to serve the people, they ask questions so that we all get in the know.

Now you know.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Needles McDoperface wrote:

State-sponsored then or corporate-sponsored now, is there real difference in outcome? Testers are more than a step behind at any time. The only difference now is marketing.

If athletes today are doping, or doping as much as they were in the 80's, those E Bloc and Flojo records wouldn't still stand.

Yet somehow the AW ARs have been broken. ? Doping alone doesn't lead to records, there are many variables and doping doesn't happen in a vacuum.