Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stanford Invite

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon
    Originally posted by gh
    really? Which of those represented somebody moving to No. 2 on the all-time world list, scaring the World Record?
    None, of course. But the number of PRs (the main reason for your doubting of the Turin performances) is far higher than the Turin track produced.
    Main reason, but not only reason. And I believe that buried somewhere in all that long discourse you'll find a disclaimer from me that I have a higher tolerance for mass PR-making where race pacing is involved.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by EPelle
    This sweater was purchased at the last Stanford Invite I attended (2002):
    POSER!!! :twisted:

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    really? Which of those represented somebody moving to No. 2 on the all-time world list, scaring the World Record?
    None, of course. But the number of PRs (the main reason for your doubting of the Turin performances) is far higher than the Turin track produced.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    ... hence the reason for the Stanford sweater. Arrived when it was sunny, stuck it out for the late distance races long past shivering. 25-USD later, all was good.

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    A distance running fans wet dream.
    Not mine. When the 5ks get rolling at 7pm is when I leave. After four laps I snooze. Miss all of the cold that way too.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    really? Which of those represented somebody moving to No. 2 on the all-time world list, scaring the World Record?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    Let's see, in last year's meet, men's 5K--
    Section 1: PRs for 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26.
    Section 2: 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 16, 19.
    Section 3: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6.
    Section 4: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14.
    Section 5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 21, 22.
    Men's 10K--
    Race 1 PRs: 1 (an NR), 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
    Race 2: 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16... and so on and so on.
    Looks to me like a meet where most people run better than they ever have before.
    Are you sure it was held at Stanford? Looks like results from Turin...

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    A distance running fans wet dream.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    As a fan I like to sit in the stands and watch other folks do their best at the running and jumping and throwing thing. The Stanford Invite will satisfy this fan just fine.
    It has done the same for me competing (1986, 1987, 1989, 1990) and observing: (1994, 1996, 1997, 2002).

    This sweater was purchased at the last Stanford Invite I attended (2002):



    Never had a bad meet watching.

    Leave a comment:


  • dl
    replied
    Perhaps running a super-fast 5K at the end of March isn't the best way to be at your best in June...

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    As a fan I like to sit in the stands and watch other folks do their best at the running and jumping and throwing thing. The Stanford Invite will satisfy this fan just fine.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    I'd rather not. However, germane to this discussion, I, as a fan, would like to see a few faster cluster times at the front end at Stanford. Those times likely won't occur, but that doesn't take away from the achievements the athletes make.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Add a few ~ equations in there and you'll start sounding just like Eldrick, the king of pie-in-the-sky projections.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    you make it sound as if collegians can run 13:20s just by trying a little harder. Note that only two races in NCAA Championships history (’79 & '05) had 13:20 times. And only 4 others ('77, '78, '81, '98) went in the 13:30s.
    No, individually, they can't. However, they can, collectively, push each other past that 8.40 first 3.200m point, and sneak under 13.25. I'd like to see what leader 3.200m splits have been recorded in the past 10 editions.

    Originally posted by gh
    Obvioiusly that's a seriously flawed comparison, because time-trialing at Stanford isn't the same as an NCAA that may have had heats. But it goes to the fact that 13:20 is just far above the skill level of most collegians who have ever run.
    Lost in this discussion is this: Raise the bar a bit. It's contagious. Run 13.20-13.25 at Stanford against three other guys whom you'll meet again in two months, and one has the potential of being pushed to 13.17-13.20 if they hit their splits right.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    you make it sound as if collegians can run 13:20s just by trying a little harder. Note that only two races in NCAA Championships history (’79 & '05) had 13:20 times. And only 4 others ('77, '78, '81, '98) went in the 13:30s.

    Obvioiusly that's a seriously flawed comparison, because time-trialing at Stanford isn't the same as an NCAA that may have had heats. But it goes to the fact that 13:20 is just far above the skill level of most collegians who have ever run.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X