Charles Jock 3:49.66 1500!!!!

jjjjjjj wrote:

3:49's major improvement from Jock. Was this winning or trailing? You get major improvement at fifteen and retain speed at 400m and you have the ingredients for a breakthrough at 800m. So much for the big Andrews pass at the finish if Jock can hold his first lap speed significantly better with the added endurance or strength if you will. Notice that many 400/800 types barely ever take a crack at the fifteen. To me, this also shows that he and his coach understand that he can make major, major gains in his fifteen, above anything else, and that the huge endurance gains will allow for big gains at 800m.

I am sorry, but how is it that a guy that ran 1:44.67 last year is showing "major improvement" by running a 3:49? There is no evidence for this assertion. I would expect that Jock would run 1:43.75 or so this year just from maturity and another year of training, but this 1500 means NOTHING in relation to those expectations, and anybody who tells you differently is engaging in the frivolous speculation which is tantamount to an internet circle jerk.

I will add that to run 3:49.66 with even pacing would mean coming through 800 in 2:02.48 which might almost seem like jogging for a fit Charles Jock. It is laughable that morons are lauding this.

Kipketer's 1500m personal best was 3:42 and his 400m was 46.8. This proves how little you blowhards know.

This is very impressive from Jock, who is more a sprinter than a middle distance runner.

Factt wrote:

Kipketer's 1500m personal best was 3:42 and his 400m was 46.8. This proves how little you blowhards know.

This is very impressive from Jock, who is more a sprinter than a middle distance runner.

You're an idiot. Jock finished 3rd in this 3:49.66 and if you find that impressive, then you're a complete moron. I am not saying it is an awful performance, but it is the bare minimum for a 1:45 800 meter man to be able to do, and Jock is capable of more than this.

Based on your logic, Michael Johnson SURELY could have run a 1:46 800m, or else he was a failure.

Check yourself.

Factt wrote:

Based on your logic, Michael Johnson SURELY could have run a 1:46 800m, or else he was a failure.

Check yourself.

No, moron, you are really stupid. Charles Jock has run roughly the equivalent of a 3:35 1500 meters if you look at his 800m pb. So, even if you factor in that he is a speed based runner and you wouldn't expect him to run nearly that fast at 1500m, 3:49xx is nothing to get excited about. You're too stupid to understand that.

Wilson Kipketer only ran 3:42.

Does that mean Wilson Kipketer was a failure?

Factt wrote:

Kipketer's 1500m personal best was 3:42 and his 400m was 46.8. This proves how little you blowhards know.

This is very impressive from Jock, who is more a sprinter than a middle distance runner.

I am so tired of you morons trying to tell the few of us with any intelligence how "little" we know.

When Kipketer ran 3:42, his 800m pb was no faster than 1:45.46, almost a full second slower than Jock's 800m pb is currently. Kipketer became a legend, but he was a nobody when he ran 3:42, and he didn't run 1500m races after he became the legend that he become, i.e., after he broke 1:45.

Factt wrote:

Wilson Kipketer only ran 3:42.

Does that mean Wilson Kipketer was a failure?

Nobody said Jock was a failure, moron, and again, Kipketer hadn't even broken 1:45 when he ran 3:42, and he didn't feel the need to try again after he became a legend at 800m. Jock may become a legend at 800m, but this 3:49 has NOTHING to do with it.

I love how the most argued threads on LetsRun are about hypothesizing what middle distance runners could run if they moved up/down in distance

electron1661 wrote:

I love how the most argued threads on LetsRun are about hypothesizing what middle distance runners could run if they moved up/down in distance

Yeah, except that's not what this thread is about, and so your comment is utterly and completely misplaced.

This is pretty simple.

If a middle distance runner improves in one area, be it speed, endurance or strength, then they should be able to improve in their main event.

This isn't about whether the 1500m was fast relative to what other athletes have done but whether it was fast compared to what he has done before.

The gains could be physical and psychological.

If he was already able to do this last year but was not able to execute then we may not be looking at a more fit runner but still a more confident runner.

To take this subject and result and look at it as anything other than positive seems to be a sign of some misdirected frustrations.

Someone here may need to see a professional, like a shrink or a prostitute.

I lol so hard reading MAPIV's comments.

As long as he is not sacrificing his speed and speed endurance then why not run some 1500s.

The times aren't world beaters but that doesn't matter because you are getting in a harder prolonged effort. Running 800s and 400s all season long is taxing. Why run 400s and 800s in March when you plan on running the 800 into the late summer. The goal is to stay healthy. Run some 1500s for a change of pace and to keep the training interesting.

Three goals. Win NCAAs, qualify for the Olympics and advance beyond the first round.

He does not want a repeat of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6renGFOEhY

Don't laugh Rutger won the Big East title in Track and Field with basically a walk-on distance team. I hear the coach only cares if you can run under 1:55 for the 800. You could run a 3:47 1500 in a meet and the coach would say the next day, "you have talent now lets get you in the 800!". No need for sub 3:50 1500 meters here.

Captain of Moss wrote:

Don't laugh Rutger won the Big East title in Track and Field with basically a walk-on distance team. I hear the coach only cares if you can run under 1:55 for the 800. You could run a 3:47 1500 in a meet and the coach would say the next day, "you have talent now lets get you in the 800!". No need for sub 3:50 1500 meters here.

Are we talking about 2005? Rutgers did not win the big east title this year...

Also, Coach Gagliano is assisting Mulqueen with the md guys, are you trying to say coach Gags ONLY Cares about 800 guys?

MIPAV wrote:

This is pretty simple.

If a middle distance runner improves in one area, be it speed, endurance or strength, then they should be able to improve in their main event.

This isn't about whether the 1500m was fast relative to what other athletes have done but whether it was fast compared to what he has done before.

The gains could be physical and psychological.

If he was already able to do this last year but was not able to execute then we may not be looking at a more fit runner but still a more confident runner.

To take this subject and result and look at it as anything other than positive seems to be a sign of some misdirected frustrations.

Someone here may need to see a professional, like a shrink or a prostitute.

This.

i suppose i may be guilty of misdirected frustrations, along with being dense and unimpressed with a 3:49 (although don't mistake this with being unimpressed with jock in general, which i AM). however, in a strange twist of fate, i may be racing jock this friday night at the oxy distance carnival. entries are up, but heat sheets won't be up until tomorrow.

maybe i can sit on him and outkick him? that was a joke--lighten up francis...

Just look at Rutgers recent track and field history and it is basically based on strong sprinting and field events. Their 1500 meters are nowhere to be seen in the best east championship finals. It may of been 2005 or later when Rutgers won the Big East in Track. I know I saw Lukezic win the Big East title in that race so it must of been awhile ago.