Re: t-and-f: Record duration

mplatt wrote: In 1999 30 guys broke 2:09 and the marathon has always been a weak event (the best runners are not running it) I bet there are conservatively 100 more that could have. Every so often, this opinion comes up and I always have to laugh. Thirty years ago, perhaps it was true that

RE: t-and-f: Record duration

Thirty years ago, perhaps it was true that fewer of the best runners were running the marathon, although I think the cream of the crop - Shorter, Rodgers, etc - wouldn't have been beaten by any of the shorter distance runners. In many cases over the last 35 years, the best 5k/10k runners

RE: t-and-f: Record duration

It oughtta be real interesting to see what Mr. 12:49.87/26:27.85 runs in London on April 22. -Original Message- From: Mcewen, Brian T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:27 PM To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: RE: t-and-f: Record duration

Re: t-and-f: Record duration

Ed wrote: It is roughly equivalent to 27:45 10k running. I'm not sure I agree that 2:09 is equal to 27:45, but let's say it is for a second. 27:45 was 26th on the 2000 annual list, while 2:09 was 27th. Maybe the marathon is MORE competitive than the 10K. If you believe that a 27:45 10K

Re: t-and-f: Record duration

-and-f: Record duration In a message dated Tue, 3 Apr 2001 3:36:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ed Dana Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've always been impressed by Clayton's time because it was way ahead of anyone else at the time (not that Beamon and the others weren't!). Having read his book

Re: t-and-f: Record duration

was no longer there due to construction. Ed Koch --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 3, 2001 10:35:08 PM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: Record duration In a message dated Tue, 3 Apr 2001 3:36:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ed Dana Parrot

RE: t-and-f: Record duration

I recall reading somewhere that it was impossible to re-measure the course years later because part of the course was no longer there due to construction. Ed Koch An idea came to me regarding this issue of the 2:08:37 really being a "valid" WB. Certainly, all that has been written

Re: t-and-f: Record duration

2:08 was always a soft time for a world best. It has never surprised me that it is now commonplace and second rate. Clayton did it, legit, MHO Mike

Re: t-and-f: Record duration

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2:08 was always a soft time for a world best. Huh?!? It has never surprised me that it is now commonplace It is? and second rate. WHAT?!? News flash - even in the year 2001, 2:08 is pretty flinkin' fast, and not terribly common. Clayton did it, legit, MHO

Re: t-and-f: Record duration

In 1999 30 guys broke 2:09 and the marathon has always been a weak event (the best runners are not running it) I bet there are conservatively 100 more that could have. It is roughly equivalent to 27:45 10k running. If you are the 20-30th best quarterback or the 30th best tennis player, etc.

Re: t-and-f: Record duration

I do realize that 2:08 has been bettered ~50 times, so I guess it depends on your concept of "common." My definition of "common" means not quite world class. If you can run 2:08, you're a world class marathoner and can race with anyone. Donald Mcfarlin wrote: News flash - even in the year

RE: t-and-f: Record duration

@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: Re: t-and-f: Record duration gh wrote: I don't know how modern marathon statisticians view Clayton's time, but there was certainly no end of skepticism about course length for many years after we ran it, and there's no doubt that course-measuring techniques

RE: t-and-f: Record duration

To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: Re: t-and-f: Record duration gh wrote: I don't know how modern marathon statisticians view Clayton's time, but there was certainly no end of skepticism about course length for many years after we ran it, and there's no doubt that course

t-and-f: Record duration

Well, of course we have gh and others on the list with the specifics, but men's world records that come to mind in the last 40 years or so are: Evans' 400m Beamon's LJ Mennea's 200m - was it close to 20 years? Clayton's marathon Coe's 800m I've always been impressed by Clayton's time because it

RE: t-and-f: Record duration

LJ record lasted 25 years 79 days. -Original Message-From: Conway Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 4:03 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: t-and-f: Record duration And wasn't Owen's LJ record over 20 years in duration

Re: t-and-f: Record duration

In a message dated Tue, 3 Apr 2001 3:36:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ed Dana Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've always been impressed by Clayton's time because it was way ahead of anyone else at the time (not that Beamon and the others weren't!). Having read his book on how he trained,

Re: t-and-f: Record duration

gh wrote: I don't know how modern marathon statisticians view Clayton's time, but there was certainly no end of skepticism about course length for many years after we ran it, and there's no doubt that course-measuring techniques and requirements weren't remotely as effective then as now.