| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2003 9:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Nate you will find that little offends me ... A good debate is just that - a good debate ..
Running consistently fast and running consistently right at the world record are two completely different things ... As your own post pointed out many have run consistently fast ... And I would agree with all you named except for Carl Lewis ... But that is for another debate ... None the less many have run very fast on a consistent basis .... But Mo has run right at the WR on more than one occasion and even more amazingly in multiple seasons .... The only one who I could put near there is Allen Johnson ... The others have run fast and consistently so ... But no where near WR level ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Justin
Varsity
Joined: 08 Oct 2001
Posts: 312
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2003 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mo Greene has run 80 times of 10.19 or faster, of which 43 were sub 10.00 and 68 are 10.09 or faster. This is quite breathtaking high level consistency, absolutely unmatched among 100m runners.
Not sure what the rest of the debate is about any more...
Justin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2003 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As usual Justin to the point ... Nuff said ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathaniel
Water Boy
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Conway wrote: | | ... But no where near WR level ... |
to leave the tangents regarding MJ total domination as a sprint god behind...
to re-iterate somewhat what i've already said, i think there is a greater variation (then it seems conway, dan, et al are allowing) at anyone's PR level regardless of whether their PR is at the "WR level" or if it's just best-on-the-block-level. the original discussion, i think centers around -for me anyway - the truth value of the statement: WR PR's are different then "normal" PR's. to find the answer, there is a need to define "WR level" or more specifically "near WR level". i don't see how you can say some one is running no where near WR level, if you can't define what it is to be near WR level. (going back to the tangents: thus my statement that MJ continued to run at WR level still stands irrefuted).
....
a pesonal (very non-scientific) example that performance variation at "PR level" is large: yesterday i did some repeat 200's, i clocked a 22.13 then a 21.75. the work out before 21.96, 22.13. my best is 21.60 and on the day that i clocked it i also ran 21.98. in every attempt i feel like i was performing at (or very near) my PR level - i.e. in any event, i was equally likely to run a PR. i just didn't. i wasn't suddenly loosing or gaining fitness. i can only account for the discrepencies by saying that this variation is randomn. i don't think, this amount of variation is not unsual. i am not suprised to see variation on any level... i feel that if i were arguing from conway's point of view i'd be kicking myself every week because i didn't run 21.60 or 21.62.
well i could right a book... maybe i'll get back to this later.
peace out.
Last edited by nathaniel on Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:14 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't really follow the purpose of your example, but if you ran intervals that fast, I'm very impressed! 
| Quote: | | i think there is a greater variation (then it seems conway and others are allowing) at anyone's PR level regardless of whether their PR is at the "WR level" |
I don't believe anyone is dismissing that fact. It is all the more reason why people are so impressed with Maurice's accomplishments. No other athlete has managed to be so consistent at such a high level. Period.
In your own example, if your PR is 21.6 and you're hitting intervals in ~21.9, then 21.6 clearly is not the best you're capable of (or you're gaining a second or so by a running start or something). How that affects things relative to the discussion is debatable... Generally, running below maximum exhertion allows for greater consistency, i.e. pacing. In your case, you were pointing out the inconsistency (variance). But really, hand timed intervals +/- two-tenths of a second isn't much variance at all, so for all intents and purposes, that tells us nothing.  Times are going to go up and down throughout any interval workout, that's just the nature of the beast.
Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI]) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2003 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WR level is easily define able ... 400 record = 43.18 ... WR level would be times very close to that or better .. 43.6's being half a second off do not qualify ... 43.2x's would ... maybe 43.35 or faster ... But 43.6's 43.7's or anything slower do not ...
In the 100 9.80, 9.81, 9.82 would at that level ... 9.85 is not ... Very simple ...
In the 200 one would have to run 19.3x's to be there ....
I don't see what the problem is here ...
Its fine to define performances as above average .... But not all above average performances are "near WR" .... Those are special ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2003 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conway wrote: | WR level is easily define able ... 400 record = 43.18 ... WR level would be times very close to that or better .. 43.6's being half a second off do not qualify ... 43.2x's would ... maybe 43.35 or faster ... But 43.6's 43.7's or anything slower do not ...
In the 100 9.80, 9.81, 9.82 would at that level ... 9.85 is not ... Very simple ...
In the 200 one would have to run 19.3x's to be there ....
I don't see what the problem is here ...
Its fine to define performances as above average .... But not all above average performances are "near WR" .... Those are special ... |
simple, indeed. but, why choose those as the limits? why couldn't someone just as easily say <44.00, <20.00, <10.00 very close? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Becasue they aren't very close ... They are outstanding marks to be sure ... But not close to WR's ...
No one is disputing what identifies an outstanding performance ... The "near WR level" simply pertained to the specific conversation we were having ... Without a doubt sub 44/20/10 marks are of the highest level ... NO one is saying that they are not ... But when talking about someone performaing at WR level, well those marks just aren't at THAT level ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Because those are world class, yet light years away from world record caliber. 10.00 is at the tail end of making a packed final. Hardly a near-WR peformance...
Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI]) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathaniel
Water Boy
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2003 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conway wrote: | Becasue they aren't very close ... They are outstanding marks to be sure ... But not close to WR's ...
But when talking about someone performaing at WR level, well those marks just aren't at THAT level ... |
why aren't those times close enough? ...on second thought, perhaps <44, <20, <10 are too high. we should choose times closer to the WR's... <9.78, <19.32, <43.18. these times should define WR level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2003 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I assume you're being sarcastic, but it sounds like you don't see the difference between world record level and world class. World record level doesn't mean exactly at the world record, just like world class doesn't have a precise cutoff... Both are generalities that refer to a non-quantifiable concept.
Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI]) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathaniel
Water Boy
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2003 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan wrote: | I assume you're being sarcastic, but it sounds like you don't see the difference between world record level and world class. World record level doesn't mean exactly at the world record, just like world class doesn't have a precise cutoff... Both are generalities that refer to a non-quantifiable concept.
Dan |
i was just as serious as i was when i propose limits of 10/20/44.
saying that i don't see the difference is a groundless and apparently based on "'cause i(we) say so" reasoning, which, perhaps not surprisingly, has been the approach you and conway have taken in describing WR Level.
i picked the extremes that i did for WR level to illustrate that point - "cause i say so" is a simple way of defining a concept, but in this case when there is a disagreement over a concept definition this method is useless.
if the concepts are non-quantifiable and non-agreeable, then the debate comes down to "i said" "you said", which is a pretty weak debate, if you can call it one at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2003 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the absence of any definitive statement or position, I choose to stick to what makes sense...  I just don't see how you can refute any of what you're disagreeing with.
Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI]) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is an old saying:
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance ten baffle them with bullsh** ...
This seems to be the approach you have decided to take upon entering this debate - which in and of itself is already ended ... Why you want to argue the difference between world class and world record levels is somewhat ludicrous at this point ... And that fact that you seem to have an even more difficult time distinguishing between the two would lead me to believe there is little to discuss further with you on the matter as in order to conduct a debate there must at least be understanding as to the subject under debate ...
So ... Aren't they running races this weekend ????
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe the Texas Relays got underway today, and the Willamette Invite begins tomorrow. 
Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI]) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
