Bad Wigins wrote:
All this cheating now just to run slow, makes me wonder what he was doing when he was fast?
Cheating on YouTube in order to spite LetsRun turds is not the same as cheating to deny fellow athletes out of medals and records.
Bad Wigins wrote:
All this cheating now just to run slow, makes me wonder what he was doing when he was fast?
Cheating on YouTube in order to spite LetsRun turds is not the same as cheating to deny fellow athletes out of medals and records.
Get your point but... wrote:
Sick Nymmonds wrote:
LMAO, what a load of poopoo!
Why the edits at every split? If he really ran it, why not the continuous overhead shot? No need for cinematic effect when you are trying to show that you really ran sub 2. The clock we can clearly see keeps going, but we have no idea how many seconds got trimmed during the cuts.
Three unnecessary cuts before the 200 split... WHY? We want to see ACTUAL SPLITS? Same thing before the 400 split... Completely unnecessary edits. Same edit at 600 for no apparent reason and same edits at the finish.
Makes it real easy to trim when you add mysterious edits, always right before the line. It makes it easy to "sync" the clock that way.
Total horse manure. Nice Try.
Do it without the edits and I may bite.
I think it's legit, he's just too lazy to go through all that trouble to fake it, not to mention his coach doesn't want the credibility hit.
This is a fantastic experiment, and really shows just how freaking hard it is to run 2min 800, let alone low 140s that he once did. Give him credit for putting it out there and not being embarrassed by being so far off his pb.
I'm especially shocked how such a stumpy bow legged guy can run so fast!
That doesn't even make any sense, the lazy thing to do would be to run the entire drone arial footage uncut. That requires zero editing. All those cameras, a drone pilot flying and multiple edits strategically before and after 200, 400, 600 splits are not what a lazy person would do. Nick is a master manipulator, he's all about his brand and make no mistake that this is all about marketing. It's very easy to trim frames off the shot after he passes the splits. The only reason you put a cut before is so you can put one after. The one after is where it's trimmed and harder to spot in the shots of him moving away because you cannot see how much ground he covered relative to the markings on the track. You can trim off whatever you want so it appears you hit the next split exactly. It's not rocket science, it's not even Lego science.
The video is BS.
Do it again with no cuts and at the proper fps.
There are some really angry people on this thread. Is it so hard to believe that a guy with a 1:42 PR can put together a sub 2 when he is not specifically training for it? Personally, I don't care one way or the other and find the guy entertaining. But man, there are some serious haters on here who really NEED for this to be fake.
ReallyAngry wrote:
There are some really angry people on this thread. Is it so hard to believe that a guy with a 1:42 PR can put together a sub 2 when he is not specifically training for it? Personally, I don't care one way or the other and find the guy entertaining. But man, there are some serious haters on here who really NEED for this to be fake.
+1, hes got good natural speed, let it alone
ReallyAngry wrote:
There are some really angry people on this thread. Is it so hard to believe that a guy with a 1:42 PR can put together a sub 2 when he is not specifically training for it? Personally, I don't care one way or the other and find the guy entertaining. But man, there are some serious haters on here who really NEED for this to be fake.
There is no hate, some of us are just not that gullible. You seem to just blindly trust everything even when you are CLEARLY being deceived.
Again, just answer this question.
Why the edits?
He has a camera above and that is the perfect view. Why would you cut the video and then ONLY at the points where one could calculate splits from track markings?
I don't know or care if he can run a sub 2, but when I see a video that purports to show that did, which clearly does not, I have to call BS. Pointing out obvious inconsistencies is not anger, it's common sense. You should try it.
ohia wrote:
ReallyAngry wrote:
There are some really angry people on this thread. Is it so hard to believe that a guy with a 1:42 PR can put together a sub 2 when he is not specifically training for it? Personally, I don't care one way or the other and find the guy entertaining. But man, there are some serious haters on here who really NEED for this to be fake.
+1, hes got good natural speed, let it alone
Do not let Late Runner Phil find out what you posted. L.R.P. labeled Symmonds a slow twitch athlete.
I saw the video and remember 1:59:92.
Anyway, I find the videos to be highly entertaining. Especially the perfect splits of 29,5 and 59 after the opener 400.
Why should a 1:42 runner not be capable of sub 2 with some training at age 35?
don't let ... wrote:
Do not let Late Runner Phil find out what you posted. L.R.P. labeled Symmonds a slow twitch athlete.
Did he? I don't think so. Therefore you will be punished with another long lecture.
Fakest video ever. Nick, thanks for wasting my time.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Symmonds was already caught cheating with weird camera angles to claim 11.5 in his 100m quest, and the official video proved he ran 12 flat.
All this cheating now just to run slow, makes me wonder what he was doing when he was fast?
At the very least, this is the guy who stops his watch early in workouts, no doubt about it. Like the coach said, he's only hurting himself.
He’s always been a marketing/branding/promoting guy, even when he was at his best. The kind of businesses where they don’t let the truth get in the way of some publicity, the kind of businesses where they spin and massage things to get the result they want. That he’d screw around with edits is no surprise.
ohia wrote:
discus
looks like the 3x400m predictor was right on the money
The only thing worth discussing is how big a loser you are. Letsrun losers say “discus”.
And just to add, it makes no difference to me if he really ran 1:59 or not — Nick’s PR, National titles, Olympic 5th and world medal mean he’s got nothing to prove to me. Only noting that if he did just miss the goal time and then edited up the video, it would be in character.
don't let ... wrote:
ohia wrote:
+1, hes got good natural speed, let it alone
Do not let Late Runner Phil find out what you posted. L.R.P. labeled Symmonds a slow twitch athlete.
slow twitch people aint runnin 1:42. dont even care if they took a 5 yr dose of the Bekele Super-Sauce, they aren't goin that fast
This is an awesome performance, and is probably the most notable performance in Track and Field this week.
Heck, Bekele ran a 2:01.41 800, and since he hasn't race in awhile, they put it on the front page.
Sick Nymmonds wrote:
Why the edits at every split? If he really ran it, why not the continuous overhead shot? No need for cinematic effect when you are trying to show that you really ran sub 2. The clock we can clearly see keeps going, but we have no idea how many seconds got trimmed during the cuts.
Three unnecessary cuts before the 200 split... WHY? We want to see ACTUAL SPLITS? Same thing before the 400 split... Completely unnecessary edits. Same edit at 600 for no apparent reason and same edits at the finish.
Makes it real easy to trim when you add mysterious edits, always right before the line. It makes it easy to "sync" the clock that way.
It would literally be more effort for Nick to edit this than for him to run a 1:59, and probably less fun for him
you can not be seerious wrote:
It would literally be more effort for Nick to edit this than for him to run a 1:59, and probably less fun for him
Again, another stupid comment. The edits are there. He edited it, THE QUESTION IS NOT IF HE EDITED IT, THE QUESTION IS WHY. The edits happen at the 200, 400 600 and the finish.
You just proved my point. If it takes more effort to edit a video than just run the 1:59, why did he choose to edit it? Why not just film the damn thing in a continuous clip and call it a day? That literally would take less effort and would be more effective at showcasing the effort.
The video BS.
Sick Nymmonds wrote:
Get your point but... wrote:
I think it's legit, he's just too lazy to go through all that trouble to fake it, not to mention his coach doesn't want the credibility hit.
This is a fantastic experiment, and really shows just how freaking hard it is to run 2min 800, let alone low 140s that he once did. Give him credit for putting it out there and not being embarrassed by being so far off his pb.
I'm especially shocked how such a stumpy bow legged guy can run so fast!
That doesn't even make any sense, the lazy thing to do would be to run the entire drone arial footage uncut. That requires zero editing. All those cameras, a drone pilot flying and multiple edits strategically before and after 200, 400, 600 splits are not what a lazy person would do. Nick is a master manipulator, he's all about his brand and make no mistake that this is all about marketing. It's very easy to trim frames off the shot after he passes the splits. The only reason you put a cut before is so you can put one after. The one after is where it's trimmed and harder to spot in the shots of him moving away because you cannot see how much ground he covered relative to the markings on the track. You can trim off whatever you want so it appears you hit the next split exactly. It's not rocket science, it's not even Lego science.
The video is BS.
Do it again with no cuts and at the proper fps.
Ya you're right, it would be easier to not edit it at all, but multiple camera angles are more interesting. If it was just Nick, i would suspect cheating, but i just can't believe his coach we be part of the cheating, there's nothing in it for him. And i'm still impressed that he can run 2min with that William Shatner waddle, he looks 15+ lbs over his race weight!
Sick Nymmonds wrote:
Why not just film the damn thing in a continuous clip and call it a day? That literally would take less effort and would be more effective at showcasing the effort.
And BTW, that footage does exist. It's clear that the drone filmed the entire 800 from above, he just chose to splice in ground footage from cameras he had placed at the splits. If he really ran it under 2, all he has to do is upload the full, uncut drone footage shot IN REAL TIME without adjusting the speed or fps. That's real easy to do, HE already has the video. He already has a YouTube account. Uploading a 2 minute long video takes only seconds.
I know you are reading this Symmonds, if you really ran sub 2, the narcissist in you should kick in and you should want to prove it. If you didn't run sub 2, the narcissist in you should kick in and you will want to make excuses and deflect.
We shall see which one we get. Upload the drone footage with no cuts and no manipulation.
ok yeah wrote:
Ya you're right, it would be easier to not edit it at all, but multiple camera angles are more interesting.
What is more interesting in an 800 than seeing the actual 200, 400 and 600 splits, especially when he tells you at the beginning what splits he plans to hit? It's not like he's Hugh Hudson and he's trying to make Chariots of Fire. No cinematic experience is required to film an 800.
And he doesn't give you any sustained multiple camera angles. These are cuts to 1 second of ground footage. It's a common method used to trim video. The only way you can trim it is to cut it. The 1 second shots serve no purpose otherwise and offer nothing interesting at all.
lol, just watched the video...+1 fake. He probably just ran a single 200 filming from different angles.