Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

    "so we are lucky the chinese left this record alone for mere " mortals" to chase"

    We'll probably see a Chinese sub-14 in oh, say, four years?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

      >"so we are lucky the chinese left this record alone for mere " mortals" to
      >chase"

      We'll probably see a Chinese sub-14 in oh, say, four years?




      Or maybe next year - 2005 is their national games year (they have them every four years) and previous editions in '97 and '93 saw the distance records being blitzed. It's their last national games before their very own olympics, so I wonder if we'll see anything truly astonishing!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

        wang's best 2 times were her 3'51.92 & 8'06.11

        the estimates i get for her for various distances based on these are:

        1'58.3

        2'30.3

        4'10.0 !!

        13'57.5 !!!

        29'09.3 !!!


        she really should have run about 4'10 for the mile, actually gone under 14'00 for 5k ( fairly comfortably), whilst her 10k should have been at the 29'10 level in an even paced race - all this assumes she maintains her endurance as well as possible with increasing distance (which may be debatable - but if she'd maintained her '93 level for another 1 - 2y, i'm fairly confident these were nearer her ballpark ability)

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

          >But finally, Abeylegesse has made it a much more
          >respectable WR (both based on time and considering who she took the record
          >from).

          The Purdy tables rate it at 851 points, roughly equal to 8:17 and 3:53; pretty respectable, I'd say.

          >Also, would anyone bet against her for winning the Olympics?
          >She's hinted towards doubling up (after her recent 3:58 1500m run), but judging
          >by the article on the iaaf.org site, she is "100% sure" that she'll be the OG
          >champ.

          Wasn't there a Turkish woman who was 100% sure of winning the 1500 last year in Paris? A paced Grand Prix race is not the same as a WC/Oly final. Having seen Dibaba win the 5K there last year, I wouldn't necessarily bet on Abeylegesse against her, or some other Ethiopian or Kenyan young woman who was only 17 last year.

          Can't wait.
          Cheers,
          Alan Shank

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

            In Wang's 29:31 race, her fastest 5 kilometers add up to 14:14 and the last 3000 went in 8:17 and change. Oh yes, this was legit!! How could ANYONE doubt this performance???

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

              >In Wang's 29:31 race, her fastest 5 kilometers add up to 14:14 and the last
              >3000 went in 8:17 and change. Oh yes, this was legit!! How could ANYONE doubt
              >this performance???

              i've never been able to find the km by km splits for that race - any chance you could post them ?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

                Happy to help. According to the IAAF records progression book--which no one else here seems to find of the slightest value--the pace was as follows:

                Led to 7000 by Zhong and by Wang thereafter:
                2:54.7
                5:56.6
                8:59.2
                12:02.8
                15:05.7
                18:10.1
                21:14.4
                23:59.9
                26:44.8
                29:31.78

                The last 3 kilometers in reverse order were:
                2:47.0
                2:44.9
                2:45.5
                This furious finishing pace suggests that the pacesetter was actually impeding Wang instead of helping!!
                One more factoid: Wang's 8th and 9th kilometers together would have placed her 6th on the all-time 2000 list at the time.

                This volume notes that the fastest 5 kilometers totalled 14:14.0.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

                  >the IAAF records progression book--which no one
                  >else here seems to find of the slightest value



                  I have it, and it's a great resource (as are the ATFS annuals).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

                    I've always wanted to know how the 8:06 broke down by 1500s. Does anyone know the opening 1500 split?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

                      Kilometer splits for Wang's 8:06.11: 2:42.0, 2:47.7, 2:36.5. I haven't seen a 1500 split for this race...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

                        thanks Kuha, maybe someone can come up with the 1500 mark, I would bet one of the 2 was sub-4. Sick isn't it

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

                          >thanks Kuha, maybe someone can come up with the 1500 mark, I would bet one of
                          >the 2 was sub-4. Sick isn't it


                          if the middle 1k was run evenly (around 84 seconds each 500m), then it could have made the last 1500m around 4:00. But seeing as the last 1k split is the quickest (hinting towards her speeding up in the latter stages), then she could well have ran the 2nd 1500m in sub-4:00!! Scary!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

                            >>thanks Kuha, maybe someone can come up with the 1500 mark, I would bet one
                            >of
                            >the 2 was sub-4. Sick isn't it


                            if the middle 1k was run evenly
                            >(around 84 seconds each 500m), then it could have made the last 1500m around
                            >4:00. But seeing as the last 1k split is the quickest (hinting towards her
                            >speeding up in the latter stages), then she could well have ran the 2nd 1500m
                            >in sub-4:00!! Scary!

                            forget sub-4'00, look at that last 1k - 2'36.5 !!!

                            that's 3'54.75 pace bigged up to 1.5k !!!

                            i had an estimate of ~ 2'30 for her for an individual 1k based on her 3'51.92 & 8'06.11

                            2'36.5 for the last 1k of an already superfast pace must mean she was capable of a lot quicker than 3'51.92 for individual race - perhaps that race wasn't that fast for her & she just got outkicked at the end of a "slow" pace for her

                            i'm sure she was capable of sub - 3'50

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

                              > Wasn't there a Turkish woman who was 100% sure of winning the 1500 last year in Paris? A paced Grand Prix race is not the same as a WC/Oly final. Having seen Dibaba win the 5K there last year, I wouldn't necessarily bet on Abeylegesse against her, or some other Ethiopian or Kenyan young woman who was only 17 last year.

                              The woman who lost the world championships last year was Sureyya Ayhan. Due to a hamstring injury, she could not sprint at all last summer, so she had to run all her races, including qualifiers at a fast pace all the way from the start. She went a bit too fast and run a sub 59 first 400 at the world championship final and had to settle for the silver with a 3:59.04. Last year, Sureyya Ayhan ran the three best times in the world: 3:55.33 at Bruxelles, 3:55.60 at Zurich and 3:57.72 at Monaco, all without rabbits. She has not run any races so far this year.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Abeylegesse - 14:24.68 WR!

                                >The woman who lost the world championships last >year was
                                >Sureyya Ayhan. Due to a hamstring injury, she could not sprint at all last
                                >summer, so she had to run all her races, including qualifiers at a fast pace
                                >all the way from the start. She went a bit too fast and run a sub 59 first 400
                                >at the world championship final and had to settle for the silver with a
                                >3:59.04.
                                According to T&FN, her splits in Paris were 60.5, 2:06.8, 3:13.2. She was passed my Zadorozhnaya with about a lap to go, but regained the lead on the backstretch, which she ran very hard. She had nothing left with which to fight Tomashova off in the last 50m.

                                > Last year, Sureyya Ayhan ran the three best times in the world:
                                >3:55.33 at Bruxelles, 3:55.60 at Zurich and 3:57.72 at Monaco, all without
                                >rabbits. She has not run any races so far this year.

                                It just goes to show that the runner capable of the fastest times does not always win the championship race. Ayhan was one of the strongest favorites of the meet.

                                I saw pieces of the 5K WR race on Fox Sports Network's coverage yesterday. It seemed like Dibaba made up quite a bit of ground in the last lap. In Athens, the prelim and the likely heat make a runaway less likely. If I were a betting man, I would take the field against Abeylegesse.
                                Cheers,
                                Alan Shank

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X