Food for Thought: The 1500m at the Olympic Level

Muger Cement wrote:

so, in hindsight, Steve Prefontaine had the right understanding of what it takes to win Olympic Gold at 5000m: try and run the last mile in 4:00, a very difficult feat.

As Ian Stewart said though, Pre's mistake was thinking he was the only guy who could do it.

I think that this is an interesting thread that brings up more interesting topics. Webb does not need a drastic improvement in his kick, however. Although he does need improvement. In the olympics it is whoever is best trained to go through the rounds in mile race who will win not neccesarily who can run the fastest mile.

In lydiards books he gives the example of Snell, better suited for the mile, being able to win the 800 having the least amount of speed. He was better trained to go through the rounds. Webb has proven that he can run a fast mile. He has not proven to be able to go through rounds and compete at top level competition.

But the thing is how much speed you need in this race. El G was not really known as a kicker. he started his push from 600 meters out and liked fast paced races. This race was slow for 800 meters. It was no suprize to me how fast the second half was but it was a suprize to see El G hold off the kickers. On the other hand it makes sence, he pushed with 800 since the pace was slow instead of the 600. if he would have waited til his normal point he may have lost.

He doubled with the 5k where he was the kicker. He was obvisouly best trained to make it through the rounds. I think that double may be the most impressive double in olympic history.

Point well-taken... as we have seen the potential medalists, usually just the final three, will be able to run as fast.

2005 World Championship 5000m race, a different tactical race, as we have seen Craig Mottram (AUS) has proven his closing ability, and thus his BRONZE medal in '05. Splits from that race, including Limo's breathtaking 3:57.5 last 1600m to capture GOLD in the slowest ever WC Final.

GOLD: Richard Limo (KEN), 13:32.55

12.8, 25.8, 53.8, 1:54.6, 2:56.3, 3:57.5

SILVER: Sileshi Sihine (ETH), 13:32.81

13.5, 26.2, 54.2, 1:55.1, 2:56.9, 3:57.7

BRONZE: Craig Mottram (AUS), 13:32.96

13.4, 26.2, 54.3, 1:54.9, 2:56.4, 3:57.6

(fastest last 1K in 2:25.7)

The next 6 finishers closed in 3:57.8 to 3:59.6!

In the Men's 1500m, lacking Hicham El Guerrouj in 2005, Rashid Ramzi (BAH), was able to capture GOLD by running aggressively in countering Alan Webb's move (9th place) and hitting the 1200m mark in the lead at 2:57.52. He did not kick the best, as once again Rui Silva and Adil Kaouch (MOR) closed in 53.8 and 53.1, respectively, compared to Ramzi's 54.1, but they just had too much ground to cover.

And, alas, Bekele closed in a solid 54.0 to out-kick everyone, waiting until the final 200m to turn-out a 25.8 last 200m in his 10,000m victory (remember he closed in 12:57.24 over his final 5000m in 2003 to defeat Gebreselassie's 12:58.8 push).

Reference: Track & Field News

Muger Cement wrote:

Official Splits for 2004 Athens 1500m Final via Track & Field News.

"Official"? Who appointed them?

Muger Cement wrote:

Hicham El Guerruoj (MOR), 3:34.18

60.9, 2:01.93 (61.0), 2:55.21 (53.3), 39.0

(13.1, 26.2, 51.9, 1:46.7, 2:49.2)

Bernard Lagat (KEN), 3:34.30

60.7, 2:02.1 (61.4), 2:55.4 (53.3), 38.9

(13.1, 26.1, 51.9, 1:46.8, 2:49.4)

Rui Silva (POR), 3:34.68

61.4, 2:03.2 (61.8), 2:56.2 (53.0), 38.5

(13.1, 25.9, 51.3, 1:46.3, 2:49.3)

While we are talking fine points here and T&FN's (if you say so) splits do come close to what is clear on the video record (most of those splits are off by a tenth or two, although I would tend to believe their 13.1 final 100 could be correct), they are off, and by quite a bit, in the case of Silva's final 800.

You can review the tape if you want. In order for Silva to run 1:46.3, he'd have to be 1:48.4 at 700. Here's a shot of the race at 1:48.2 and Silva has already taken two steps past the line.

Here's the shot at 1:48.4, which is where Silva would have to be in order to finish in 1:46.3. He's now three steps past the line.

Although it's difficult to see from a still photo (you should replay the tape and freeze frames yourself, Silva's white shoes makes the job easier), it's clear that Silva was at least 1:48.0 at the 700 mark. 1:48.0 plus 1:46.7 eaqual 3:34.7. Voila!

I'm not asking you to take my word on it.

You tell me, are you going to believe what you can see with your own eyes, or are you going to take the word of an obsolete magazine that employs volunteer retiree tourists with hand-held stopwatches and all of the inherent inaccuracies implied by such methods?

if you hate the magazine so much, then why do you post on their message board all the time?

the thing that is obsolete is that it took you three years to come up with these splits only to say TFN is a few tenths off? big whoop. No one cares.

tidal osaka wrote:

if you hate the magazine so much, then why do you post on their message board all the time?

the thing that is obsolete is that it took you three years to come up with these splits only to say TFN is a few tenths off? big whoop. No one cares.

I didn't say I hated the magazine. I said that it's not very accurate and obsolete in the age of the internet. How did it take three years? It only took a half hour of reviewing the tapes, and it was a quite enjoyable experience.

Why does it bother you so much that someone would point out inaccuracies. If any of the splits I've posted here (with the vido record to back it up) are wrong, I'd welcome the evidence. After all, that what track fans do, don't we?

It's obvious you care a lot. Maybe it's misplaced anger that drives your interest here, but you do care. The rest of us are interested in the facts as brought up by the original poster.

malmo,

Just "official" because 1) IAAF and T&FNews video analysis for splits by professionals (I'm assuming you're an amateur based on your photoshops), and 2) they actually media at Athens, not armchair quarterbacks.

In the pics you have posted, they are not giving clear torso clerance of the runner passing the start/finish line (need a side-shot for that like a finish line picture or sitting at the finish line)... very difficult to judge with a headlong shot, in "guessing" when Silva officially passed the line, electronically.

Anyhow, I will take Track & Field News any day of the week over an observer from the Internet.

why is it obvious i care a lot? it is obvious you dislike the magazine by calling them obsolete and a bunch of amateurs. don't reverse sugar coat your words.

you are the only who is interested in twiddling about a few tenths. no one else in this post needed some big analysis.

in fact, your analysis is even flawed because

1. you are looking at VIDEO at weird angles

2. and a video that doesn't always have silva in the picture

your conclusions and splits are fairly weak.

for all I know both of you are wrong but I will side wth TFN because they have been doing this much longer than you AND actually have the advantage of being trackside.

my point about 3 years, is how come it took YOU three years to do this analysis?

don't be hater, and don't pretend you didn't hate. that's incredibly hypocritical.

We are forgetting that from 800m to 1200m, that 400m segment was covered in 53.28 seconds... from 1100m to 1500m, that 400m segment was covered in 51.91 seconds (only 100m are over-lapped). So, in essence, you still have to cover 800m in UNDER-1:46 during the 1500m at the Olympic level to capture a medal.

T&F Subscriber wrote:

Just "official" because 1) IAAF and T&FNews video analysis for splits by professionals (I'm assuming you're an amateur based on your photoshops), and 2) they actually media at Athens, not armchair quarterbacks.

In the pics you have posted, they are not giving clear torso clerance of the runner passing the start/finish line (need a side-shot for that like a finish line picture or sitting at the finish line)... very difficult to judge with a headlong shot, in "guessing" when Silva officially passed the line, electronically.

Actually, in most cases, it's not very difficult at all to judge where the torso's are from head on screen shots if you know anything at all about running mechanics. At all times, for all runners, when the trailing knee is pulled even with the opposite knee the torso will right over the foot. Regardless, torso/foot differences will be less than a tenth of second anyway, rendering your point moot. It's also very easy to determine where an athlete's torso IS NOT when they've taken three steps past the line. If you disagree, please provide evidence?

As I said before, DON'T TAKE MY WORD ON IT. Review the tapes yourself, slow it down and take freeze frames.

tidal osaka wrote:

in fact, your analysis is even flawed because

1. you are looking at VIDEO at weird angles

2. and a video that doesn't always have silva in the picture

your conclusions and splits are fairly weak.

for all I know both of you are wrong but I will side wth TFN because they have been doing this much longer than you AND actually have the advantage of being trackside.

my point about 3 years, is how come it took YOU three years to do this analysis?

1. How does "weird angles" make my presentation 'flawed'? It's not. If an athlete is three steps beyond the line at a point where someone is claiming his torso must be, it's pretty obvious that someone missed the split. If an athlete's foot is on the line and his opposite knee is driving forward, you know that his torso is at or just past the line. As I stated earlier, that a moot point because even if you took the split at the touch of the foot, the torso will be less than a tenth of a second.

2. The video certainly does have Silva in the picture and I pointed him out in screen shot. Which screen shots are missing Silva?

How come it took me three years to do this analysis? Mainly because Muger Cement didn't start this thread until two days ago, and a poster claimed that Silva ran the last 800 in 1:44, which I found preposterous, so I decided to verify.

Why do you ask, am I supposed to analyze every race frame by frame right after they happen? That's quite a demand, don't you think?

Your analysis does not seem totally correct as in the video you linked to you can only see Silva's head at 700! He is almost totally obscured by the rest of the field. Therefore, you really can't draw any strong conclusions about his 700m split.

From my point of view, I would say he hit 700 at 1:48.1. Making both you and TFN wrong. But you really can't tell. This talk of video "EVIDENCE" does not really speak for itself.

malmo: do you think the guy being pointed to with the green arrow in that last photo is rui silva? It's not - Silva's behind (obscured) by the guy in the white jersey.

Im pretty sure the guy youre pointing at in this http://i14.tinypic.com/2uthhg4.jpg picture is the other Moroccan.

therealrui wrote:

malmo: do you think the guy being pointed to with the green arrow in that last photo is rui silva? It's not - Silva's behind (obscured) by the guy in the white jersey.

Good catch, you're right, I did mix the two up with 700 to go. Thanks. The best that you can tell Silva's foot touches at 1:48.1- 1:48.2, so give him a 1:46.5, and that's by eyeballing his place in relation to Kaouch (1:48.0) at the line. The best image of Silva is well past the line here at 1:49.2.

Which, from a different perspective is here:

Did Silva at travel (at a rate of 6.67m/s) to the hash mark 7.66 meters (using 1.22m as lane width) in 1.0 seconds? Or was it closer to 1.2s?

malmo wrote:

Did Silva at travel (at a rate of 6.67m/s) to the hash mark 7.66 meters (using 1.22m as lane width) in 1.0 seconds? Or was it closer to 1.2s?

What I meant to say was did Silva really travel 7.66 meters to the hash mark in 1.0 seconds, or was it closer to 1.2 seconds?

Figure he's traveling 6.67 meters per second (60 pace) and traveling more than 7.66 meters (using the IAAF minimum lane width of 1.22m.)

But I answered my own question. If they were already traveling at 53.0 second pace (7.547 m/s) at the 700 mark. It would seem logical that he would cover that mark in just over 1.0. About what we've specualted.

They actually cover that 100m segment in 14.4, which is 6.94 m/s, so that would take him 1.1 s to cover that distance, confirming a 1:48.1 time at the 700 mark.

If the lanes at Athens are 1.25m, that changes the math.

I wonder how long it will be before there is another Olympic 5000 final with the world record holder and standing gold medalist from the 1500, the 5000/10000 record holder and the defending 5000 champion and in the same race? That is truly remarkable and has to be one of the top 5000 races in history. Nice splits analysis. Shows whats really going on at that level.

Weird angles make it flawed because if the athlete is blocked or in a pack or the camera is focusing on the leader (and thus is not focusing on the person in question) it makes it much harder to tell where and when they cross the line, or in some cases where the line is at all!

I think this is perfectly apparent to you since for the very same reason you couldn't even pick out which guy was Silva! Makes sense now.

No offense, but it is pretty funny how you call out TFN for being obsolete and a bunch of amateurs on vacation with stopwatches when they actually had the right time all along, and could actually figure out who Silva is. I wonder who the amateur is here? Too bad it took two pages to come to this conclusion.

Seriously, don't badmouth TFN when you post there all the time.