Taoufik Makhloufi NOT Competing in Moscow

I agree with your argument, but in the case of EL G in Athens, his last 200m was actually quite a bit slower at 26.3. His 200m stretch from 1200 to 1400 was quicker, 25.7, which is only 0.4 slower than Makhloufi's corresponding 200 segment. But, as you rightly point out, this has to be considered in the context of the last 800m. EL G ran it in 1:46.9, Makhloufi in 1:50.2. So, I would suggest that EL G's performance is better.

I agree with SPMBLNPFalberry here, but I just wanted to remind people that when ventolin^3 says someone is in 3:28 shape, that means with absolutely perfect pacing hugging the rail and a wall of pacers to block the air resistance and a golf cart following him with a guy waving one of those big fans you see in portrayals of Ancient Egypt ("fetch me some grapes!"). As in, when ElG ran 3:26.00 he was really in 3:24-high shape, as in, physically possible but those conditions never really happen in the real world.

But again I disagree that his performance indicates anything special. Makh closed the race in 52.9 (as did Leo). In the 2011 world championships, they closed in 51.4, and the winning time was only 1.5 seconds slower.

Nonsense.

Being in lane 3 at 19 secs does not mean you have run extra distance. It is on the straight. Have you no common sense?

He then tucks in behind the guy in front at the 200m mark and stays on the inside of lane 1 until 31.5 secs, where he moves past. He runs half that curve on line between 1 and 2, and then the first half of the next bend after the bell, before tucking in behind a runner at 57 secs and then getting about 200m of drafting. On the last bend he runs wide at about 1:25 until the home straight. That's about 2m there. All together he runs about 5m extra.

No way whatsoever he runs 808.5m. You are delusional.

And he gets the expected 200m of drafting from 450-650m, rather than the normal 200-400m.

His performance is worth 1:43.0 at absolute best, and that does not indicate 3:26 ability for 1500 or 46 sec speed for 400m.

We already know Cram was able to run 1:42.8 off 48.1 400 pb.

killarney wrote:

I agree with SPMBLNPFalberry here, but I just wanted to remind people that when ventolin^3 says someone is in 3:28 shape, that means with absolutely perfect pacing hugging the rail and a wall of pacers to block the air resistance and a golf cart following him with a guy waving one of those big fans you see in portrayals of Ancient Egypt ("fetch me some grapes!"). As in, when ElG ran 3:26.00 he was really in 3:24-high shape, as in, physically possible but those conditions never really happen in the real world.

But again I disagree that his performance indicates anything special. Makh closed the race in 52.9 (as did Leo). In the 2011 world championships, they closed in 51.4, and the winning time was only 1.5 seconds slower.

I agree with SPMBLNF too. But I don't agree with Ventolins' perfect world scenario either. That 800 by Makhloufi was worth no better than 1:43 flat. He ran no more than 5m extra, got 200m of full drafting on 2nd lap and he didn't start off too slow. He ran sensible even splits. He would still have been running faster in the first 200 (25.5) than the 2nd 200 (25.0), because the first 200 started from a standing start.

Ventolin tries to coerce his fantasies upon people with outright inaccuracies. Makhloufi did not run 808.5m, period!

He has no way of knowing that Mak could run 46 for 400, so he's plugging in unknown and basically made up numbers into a calculator that cannot be applied to every runner like he tries to convince people. If his calculator is universally accurate, why hasn't the IAAF taken it on board and sanctioned it?

His analysis is embellished to fit in with what he wants to believe. There is no evidence whatsoever that Makhloufi had 3:26 ability in London 2012, even with perfect distribution of effort, total drafting for 3 laps and competition at the end.

posters here i've seen are damn bright

you must be a total fool if you think it's not understood

probably about low-3'25

same as noah couda expected if he'd run a 1500 in rieti, rested & not a meaningless 1k, except that it was a worthless wr to erase & he didn't prepare properly for it & got suicidal help

nonsense

you try to work out basic ability over a distance

this simple concept too hard for you ?

maloofi was 1500 level beyond '11 guys

I can assure you Cram was a highly doped up athlete. He ran great times out of Olympics and then disappeared. He ran a 3:46 mile! Yet noone since in the UK has been able to come close b/c brits don't have hte genetic potential to run that fast without dope.

I have grave doubts that Bannister or Ryun were clean. Paavo Nurmi was using testosterone in the 1920s! I strongly suspect both Bannister and Ryun were using some PED 'vitamins' that weren't illegal when they were using.

ventolin^3 wrote:

posters here i've seen are damn bright

you must be a total fool if you think it's not understood

My point is what you call 3'28 shape is what most people call 3'30 shape since you're thinking extremely idealistic bubble conditions and they're thinking realistic conditions. There is nothing inherently wrong with the difference, I am just translating.

Of course, your calculation is based on a somewhat questionable assumption of his 800 ability, a very questionable assumption of his 400 speed, and a somewhat questionable calculator. I have checked it out too - if you put in Rudisha's PRs it says he is in 3:27 1500 shape, indicating just maybe it over-estimates 1500 ability. So forgive us for questioning your calculation of Makh's 1500 ability...

killarney wrote:

and a somewhat questionable calculator. I have checked it out too - if you put in Rudisha's PRs it says he is in 3:27 1500 shape, indicating just maybe it over-estimates 1500 ability. So forgive us for questioning your calculation of Makh's 1500 ability...

The user of the calculator has to take into account what kind of training the athlete is doing.

For the example with rudisha -

He doesn't do the necessary training for his endurance to "last" to 1000m. Let alone 1500m.

So when you see the predicted 1500m time for someone like rudisha, you have to realize that he wouldn't run that because he doesn't train for his endurance to last to anything beyond likely 900m or so (just "enough" over-distance ability for pure 800m guy)

someone had to do it wrote:

The user of the calculator has to take into account what kind of training the athlete is doing.

For the example with rudisha -

He doesn't do the necessary training for his endurance to "last" to 1000m. Let alone 1500m.

So when you see the predicted 1500m time for someone like rudisha, you have to realize that he wouldn't run that because he doesn't train for his endurance to last to anything beyond likely 900m or so (just "enough" over-distance ability for pure 800m guy)

I get what you're saying but don't completely agree... his calculator is supposed to take into account just how much endurance and speed he has based on the two performances.

Thus because he has a 1:40.x 800 with superior 400 speed, that should be enough information that his ability is going to tail off greatly for 1500. The 45.15 400 should be enough information to tell you he is not doing the necessary endurance training for 1500.

It's not just Rudisha's PR that's like this - put in 1:46 / 13:16 (David Torrence's best times last summer) and you get a 3:32 1500, two seconds below his PR. And that 5000 was horribly paced (the infamous Lomong lap miscount race, Torrence tried to kick with him), and his 800 wasn't serious (ran 1:45-low the summer before)... taking that into account it predicts his 1500 ability at 3:30!

Thus, I am more inclined to believe his calculator over-estimates 1500 ability.

the calculator looks relevant for athletes who are a relevant force at distance under consideration

no

that is a gut feeling

low-45 with 1'40+ woud indicate some damn good 1500 potential

you then have to consider who you are talking about

if they have never run even a 1k let alone a 1500 in their life, why assume that this potential is of any relevance to them ???

i woudn't expect rudy to go anything better than ~ 3'35 if he actually had run his best 1500 last year miles from any theoretical 3'27 potential

no

it doesn't

because if he had the converse, of 48pb for 800, then you woud claim he's doing too much endurance training & get nonsensical 1500

you use calculator & commonsense together

i don't know the guy well but looked up his record

his stats look initially like a 800/1500 guy ( a 1'45.1pb of recent looks comparable to a 3'34pb )

that 5k was a surprise because he doesn't appear to have run 1 seriously before & you woudn't normally expect a 800/1500 guy's endurance to last well to 5k off presumed 800/1500 training ( & he probably hadn't got close to his likely 5k potential off 1 serious go )

his 1'46.9sb/3'35.4sb last year indicates possible shift to longer events

i'd have offered him some prelims last year of maybe

49.5 / 1'46.5 -> 3'32.5 , 13'09.6

or

49.2 / 1'46.0 -> 3'31.7 , 13'08.1

1st line looks better & i'd say he was fair value for a 3'32 last year if he'd got his "perfect" race

bottom line, it's highly unlikely he couda run anywhere close to his 1'45.1pb last year & you shoudn't be looking at lines with 1'45.1

( iassume you went for something like

48.6 / 1'45.1 ->3'30.5 , 13'07.5

which really doesn't represent him last year )

you have to use it with commonsense & for guys you feel can perform at distance

hicham ran 3'26wr of too slow a pace, being 2'32.8 at bell ( 3'28.4 pace ) & whipped in a 53.2

his prelim line that day was

47.6 / 1'42.8 -> 2'11.6 , 3'25.7 , 7'19.9 , 12'48.1

i woud not expect him to have approached those theoretical 3k/5k times in '98 as he was training for purely 1500 & not 1500/3k/5k as in years latter

i woud though have expected him to have gone sub-1'43 & 2'11wr off his 1500 as that is underdistance

Makhloufi is currrently training in Font Romeu, France, but his manager confirmed that he is NOT competing in Moscow due to the viral infection he contracted in Spain.

McGoofy is on the juice.