Does a fast 800m = sub four for a mile?

sorry but wrote:

You know very little about speed-based 800 runners and training, then. Rudisha, Solomon, Juantarena, Gray types can't just go and smash a 1500 any more than Merritt can just go smash an 800.

No, it is you who does not know. Rudisha is in not the same type of runner as a guy like Juantorena. Juantorena was much more speed based than Rudisha. I don't expect Merrit to smash an 800 because he is certainly a 200/400 type not a 400/800 type so I don't know what your point is.

Rudisha has 44 speed with 1:40.x 800m speed.

Juantorena was like 44 with 1:43 800m speed.

That is a THREE second difference. They are not comparable runners. They are significantly different runners.

If an injured Juantorena could muster 3:45, then a guy with a 3 second faster time over 800m can break 3:42 with no problem. Just a direct subtraction of that 3 seconds from 3:45 gives you 3:42. But differences in shorter distance speed get larger as the distance goes up so Rudisha should be significantly under 3:42. If you don't know this then you know little about running.

It is also worth stating that the 400m is further physiologically from the 800m than the 800m is from the 1500m. There is a reason so many double up over 800/1500.

Juantorena is a real outlier to be so successful over the 800m and 400m. It must be remembered though that 44.2 wouldn't win you anything these days and I'd put money on Rudisha breaking 45 in the right circumstances.

Amos is also extremely fast, maybe 44 mid on the right day. I reckon he could also just about break 4.

mark b wrote:

Not necessarily! A 400/800 runner cannot simply be assumed to have a good 1500 in him. After all, how many top class 400 runners could churn out a good 800?

As well as the male 800 guys who struggled, relatively, to run a good 1500, didn't Maria Mutola also struggle when she tried her hand at 1500?

Rudisha is not a 400/800 runner. He is pretty balanced. He is an 800m runner or maybe even a 800/1500 runner.

800m to 400m ratios (Rough estimates):

Webb 103.5/47.5 = 2.178

Juantorena 103.5/44.26 = 2.338

Rudisha 101/44.5 = 2.269

Rudisha 101/45.0 = 2.244

So you see that Rudisha is pretty balanced and is not really a 400/800 runner. Webb ran 3:30, Juantorena ran 3:45 while fighting injuries. Rudisha's ratio is right in the middle of them, so that points to ~3:37.5 for 1500. If you take Juantorena's injury into account, then maybe Juantorena was really in more like 3:42 shape, which would put Rudisha at ~3:36

TrackBot! PRs Boris Berian

If Rudisha's 400m speed is slower than 45.0, then I think you should consider the possibility of him being able to break 3:30 for 1500.

PRs for Boris Berian:

400 m (Outdoor): 47.34A on 14 Apr 2012

600 m (Outdoor): 1:16.14 on 18 Apr 2015

600 m (Indoor): 1:15.51 on 14 Feb 2016

800 m (Outdoor): 1:43.34 on 17 Jul 2015

800 m (Indoor): 1:45.83 on 19 Mar 2016

I am a bot. Info:

http://habs.sdf.org/trackbot

qqa wrote:

mark b wrote:

Not necessarily! A 400/800 runner cannot simply be assumed to have a good 1500 in him. After all, how many top class 400 runners could churn out a good 800?

As well as the male 800 guys who struggled, relatively, to run a good 1500, didn't Maria Mutola also struggle when she tried her hand at 1500?

Rudisha is not a 400/800 runner. He is pretty balanced. He is an 800m runner or maybe even a 800/1500 runner.

800m to 400m ratios (Rough estimates):

Webb 103.5/47.5 = 2.178

Juantorena 103.5/44.26 = 2.338

Rudisha 101/44.5 = 2.269

Rudisha 101/45.0 = 2.244

So you see that Rudisha is pretty balanced and is not really a 400/800 runner. Webb ran 3:30, Juantorena ran 3:45 while fighting injuries. Rudisha's ratio is right in the middle of them, so that points to ~3:37.5 for 1500. If you take Juantorena's injury into account, then maybe Juantorena was really in more like 3:42 shape, which would put Rudisha at ~3:36

3:36-3:38 is about right for Rudisha.

I feel he is more of a 400/800 runner than you give him credit for. Maybe a pure 800m runner but definitely not an 800-1500 guy.

Those guys typically have a 2.2 or under 800/400 ratio.

Metric Miler wrote:

qqa

Rudisha 101/44.5 = 2.269

Rudisha 101/45.0 = 2.244

Those guys typically have a 2.2 or under 800/400 ratio.

Looks like 2.2 to me. Especially if his 400m speed is 45.5. That would give him a 2.1 ratio.

whatsspeed wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

Those guys typically have a 2.2 or under 800/400 ratio.

Looks like 2.2 to me. Especially if his 400m speed is 45.5. That would give him a 2.1 ratio.

You may have to talk your maths through with me.

100.9/45.5 = ~2.22

Also 2.269>2.2

And 2.244>2.2

Maybe some more 'human' times that you can understand better may help you:

50 x 2.18 = 1:49.0

50 x 2.2 = 1:50.0

50 x 2.269 = 1:53.5

See the difference?

Metric Miler wrote:

You may have to talk your maths through with me.

100.9/45.5 = ~2.22

Also 2.269>2.2

And 2.244>2.2

Maybe some more 'human' times that you can understand better may help you:

50 x 2.18 = 1:49.0

50 x 2.2 = 1:50.0

50 x 2.269 = 1:53.5

See the difference?

101/45.5 = 2.19

2.269

2.244

These are all 2.2 or faster. I don't need any help.

whatsspeed wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

You may have to talk your maths through with me.

100.9/45.5 = ~2.22

Also 2.269>2.2

And 2.244>2.2

Maybe some more 'human' times that you can understand better may help you:

50 x 2.18 = 1:49.0

50 x 2.2 = 1:50.0

50 x 2.269 = 1:53.5

See the difference?

101/45.5 = 2.19

2.269

2.244

These are all 2.2 or faster. I don't need any help.

2.19 is faster than 2.2.

2.2x is not faster than 2.2. It is greater than 2.2.

To be "faster" than 2.2 the number must be less than 2.2.

whatsspeed wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

You may have to talk your maths through with me.

100.9/45.5 = ~2.22

Also 2.269>2.2

And 2.244>2.2

Maybe some more 'human' times that you can understand better may help you:

50 x 2.18 = 1:49.0

50 x 2.2 = 1:50.0

50 x 2.269 = 1:53.5

See the difference?

101/45.5 = 2.19

2.269

2.244

These are all 2.2 or faster. I don't need any help.

Ok now you must be trolling or something.

101/45.5 = 2.2197

2.2197, 2.244, 2.269 are all in EXCESS of 2.2. (What is 'faster' in this context??!)

Are you ok?

You are about to take the title for the most math illiterate poster on Letsrun ever.

That is saying something.

Metric Miler wrote:

Ok now you must be trolling or something.

101/45.5 = 2.2197

2.2197, 2.244, 2.269 are all in EXCESS of 2.2. (What is 'faster' in this context??!)

Are you ok?

You are about to take the title for the most math illiterate poster on Letsrun ever.

That is saying something.

I don't understand why you are often so negative and insulting. I didn't insult you.

Sure, 101/45.5 is 2.219. I typed 2.19. Any reasonable person would consider that I just made a typo and the second 2 didn't get pressed completely because the 1 and the 9 are both there. But you are too busy trying to insult people.

You are the math illiterate person. These numbers are not greater than 2.2. They are greater than 2.20. If you meant 2.20, then say 2.20. But no you are too busy wanting to insult people at the first opportunity.

whatsspeed wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

Ok now you must be trolling or something.

101/45.5 = 2.2197

2.2197, 2.244, 2.269 are all in EXCESS of 2.2. (What is 'faster' in this context??!)

Are you ok?

You are about to take the title for the most math illiterate poster on Letsrun ever.

That is saying something.

I don't understand why you are often so negative and insulting. I didn't insult you.

Sure, 101/45.5 is 2.219. I typed 2.19. Any reasonable person would consider that I just made a typo and the second 2 didn't get pressed completely because the 1 and the 9 are both there. But you are too busy trying to insult people.

You are the math illiterate person. These numbers are not greater than 2.2. They are greater than 2.20. If you meant 2.20, then say 2.20. But no you are too busy wanting to insult people at the first opportunity.

They are greater than 2.2.

Trailing zeros do not change the value of a number. They can be used to show the significant figures of a value but that is all.

2.269 would even be 2.3 to two significant figures; were you to misunderstand what '2.2' means.

This is really very bad. I hope you haven't finished secondary school yet.

Metric Miler wrote:

They are greater than 2.2.

Trailing zeros do not change the value of a number. They can be used to show the significant figures of a value but that is all.

2.269 would even be 2.3 to two significant figures; were you to misunderstand what '2.2' means.

This is really very bad. I hope you haven't finished secondary school yet.

No, trailing zeros can affect the value of a number. It can affect precision and interpretation. You are even contradicting yourself. You say trailing zeros are there to show the significant figures. In this case, 2.2 are the significant figures. By definition then, what comes after the first decimal is not significant.

This means that 2.2x can be included in 2.2, but not 2.20.

2.269 would be 2.3 if you were ROUNDING. You are confusing terminology and are ignoring the vagueness of your numbers. But no, instead of considering that, you decide once again to resort to insults and personal attacks. There is no reason for that. I didn't start off insulting or attacking you.

I have finished school. I am a professional scientist and engineer.

This is worrying.

2.269 to 2.s.f is 2.3.

2.21>2.2

'2.2' is not a range from 2.20 to 2.29!

There is no vagueness. 2.2 = 2.2.

There is no personal attack here, this is just some of the most math illiterate stuff I've ever read.

Metric Miler wrote:

2.269 to 2.s.f is 2.3.

2.21>2.2

'2.2' is not a range from 2.20 to 2.29!

There is no vagueness. 2.2 = 2.2.

There is no personal attack here, this is just some of the most math illiterate stuff I've ever read.

No, now you are lying. You DID do personal attacks.

It is not math illiteracy on my part. I am a professional. The issue here is your mathematical bigotry. 2.2 can certainly be a range from 2.20 to 2.29. You will often see people do this because there is uncertainty in the final digit, or because the previous decimal is the significant precision.

No, 2.269 is only 2.3 if you decide to ROUND UP as well as limiting the number of figures. Other options are to round down, or to just cut the final digit off. These all have their appropriate usage depending on what you are doing.

Without experience running the mile or 1500 I think some of them actually would not break four if they lined up right now and raced.

Think how Manzano would occasionally not break four at Pre and even Webb towards the end wasn't breaking four.

They all probably have the ability to break four within a year but not all could line up right away and do it.

Wow you're retarded. You should use your internet access to learn math.

DO YOU EVEN MATH BRO?