my PB in the 800 is 2:08 and 1500m is 4:35. that's a big difference...
my PB in the 800 is 2:08 and 1500m is 4:35. that's a big difference...
I would further suggest that athlete's potential pbs for 800m and 1600m/ mile appears to be:
800m PB x 2 + 20 seconds = 1600m PB
22 seconds = one mile PB
When I was in high school, the two best guys on our team had these PBs:
Runner A- 800m: 1:54.1, 1600m: 4:07.7 (to win state champs)
Runner B- 800m: 2:00.x, 1600m: 4:20.x (8th at states, jun)
800m: 1:57.x, 1600m: 4:17.x (5th at states, sen)
Well, yeah that is pretty accurate for me....
Mile Formula: (1:49.28 x 2)+22= 4:00.56
Actual==4:00.21
[quote]GUH wrote:
I would further suggest that athlete's potential pbs for 800m and 1600m/ mile appears to be:
800m PB x 2 + 20 seconds = 1600m PB
22 seconds = one mile PB
My 1500m PR is almost exactly double my 800m PR (about 3 tenths off).
kewlioooo wrote:
my PB in the 800 is 2:08 and 1500m is 4:35. that's a big difference...
SPEED!
Probably room to improve on the strength side, unless you are a 400/800 man and the 1500 is just out of range for you.
I will call you Rudisha.
Saul Goodman wrote:
My 1500m PR is almost exactly double my 800m PR (about 3 tenths off).
STRENGTH!
I will call you Kiprop.
800: 1:54
1500: 3:49
So only +1 for me. But I ran a lot of 1500s and only a couple of open 800s. A lot of relay 800s but I'm not counting the times from those.
I think the term "true miler" is ambiguous. A better conclusion would be pure milers run around of 800*2 for their 1500. Speed based milers are more than two seconds over for their 15 whereas strength oriented milers are under 800*2.
My 800 PR is 2:03 and my 1500 is 3:56. That's probably not a good sign. I should work on my 800.
2:03 x 2 = 4:06
4:06 - 10 sec = 3:56
sports statistician wrote:
den bosch wrote:Seb Coe was 1:41. This makes him EIGHT seconds below.
Bad data! wrote:
Yes, even rounded to 1:42, it still works out 6 seconds! Which is outside the <5 secs the OP suggests. So the only man to win the Olympic 1500 twice and break the Mile WR 3 times in the post WW2 era was not a true miler! LOL.
You're right. We know Coe was one of the best milers we've ever seen. He was just ridiculously good at the 800, too, but pointing him out like this really is showing him to be the exception rather than the rule.
I guess my rule of thumb actually identifies runners whose mile is significantly better than their 800. Which, as some mentioned above, would catch 5000+ specialists, who of course are going to have 1500s that are a lot better than their 800s.
I would bet that the more speed-based 800/1500 guys have 1500s that don't make it inside this window. (If Centro had an 800 PR on the books, we could look into that...Maybe Wheating?)
Yeah, I was just being mischievous!
I think Coe didn't run enough fast 1500s, a lot less than all the other great milers, and when he pb'd with 3:29 he was past his peak. He got closer to his potential over 800 and was certainly capable of 3:28 for 1500. Then he'd have been within the 5secs rule you advocate.
1:41.7 x 2 = 3:23.4 + 5 = 3:28.4
That looks very plausible for Coe in 81 or 84.
I am very similar to you:800: 1:531500m: 3:47So I'm +1 as well.
dukerdog wrote:
800: 1:54
1500: 3:49
So only +1 for me. But I ran a lot of 1500s and only a couple of open 800s. A lot of relay 800s but I'm not counting the times from those.
Good data! wrote:1:41.7 x 2 = 3:23.4 + 5 = 3:28.4
That looks very plausible for Coe in 81 or 84.
drivel
there was no way coe was good for low/mid 3'28 in '84
his gold may have been close to mid-3'30 in a paced race & with rested/zurich maybe low-3'29
no way anything below 3'29
coe in '81 was maybe
45.7 / 1'41.4 -> 2'10.8 , 3'27.2
albeit, being a 800 guy, it's no surprise his endurance didn't "last" to 1500 - he was good for low 3'28 in '81 - 1s shy of potential
in '84, maybe :
46.3 / 1'42.5 -> 2'12.2 , 3'29.1
he didn't have speed of '81, so no real chance of 3'28
hicham in '98 :
47.8 / 1'42.9 -> 2'11.7 , 3'25.7
noah in '99 :
46.3 / 1'41.7 -> 2'10.8 , 3'26.2
asbel last year :
46.8 / 1'42.8 -> 2'12.2 , 3'28.4
you can work out a relationship from those...
you grant ngeny 1:41.7 in 1999. his pr is 1:44.49 in 2000, July 28, just two weeks before running his 1500m pr of 3:28.12. Sure, he should have run the former faster than mid 1:44, given his 1k record (2:11.96, not 2:10.xx), but he obviously could hold speed from 800 to mile (3:43.4) much better than Coe ever did.
predict my stuff wrote:
wait
plus less than 5 seconds? wouldn't that make every 5k/10k/marathon guy a miler also? their whole thing is that they have good speed endurance.
in order to make a classification system like you're suggesting, maybe you'd need cutoffs otherwise Bekele would be a miler also, no? maybe like 5 seconds means youre a miler, 4 seconds means youre a 5k guy, and 3 means youre a marathoner
Exactly, which is why this formula is meaningless. Any distance oriented runner is going to be "a true miler!"
he ran 1k off a suicidal 49.8 & 2/7 after a 3'29.1 win
he was in high-1'41 shape in rieti
Guppy wrote:
... this formula is meaningless. Any distance oriented runner is going to be "a true miler!"
It sounds like you are having trouble reading the posts.
As I said above:
"I guess my rule of thumb actually identifies runners whose mile is significantly better than their 800. Which, as some mentioned above, would catch 5000+ specialists, who of course are going to have 1500s that are a lot better than their 800s."
So, again as has been covered above:
1500 > (800*2)+5 ----> SPEED
1500 STRENGTH
800*2 < 1500 < (800*2)+5 ---- GREAT 1500 BALANCE.
(e.g. all of the great milers)
jjjjjj wrote:
you grant ngeny 1:41.7 in 1999. his pr is 1:44.49 in 2000, July 28, just two weeks before running his 1500m pr of 3:28.12. Sure, he should have run the former faster than mid 1:44, given his 1k record (2:11.96, not 2:10.xx), but he obviously could hold speed from 800 to mile (3:43.4) much better than Coe ever did.
That be down to the EPO!
I've always thought that if someone is a true miler than their 1500 should be their 800 times 2. I think my best event was the marathon (2:27 and 32 10k...) and my PRs were 2:06 and 4:13.
Link wrote:
I've always thought that if someone is a true miler than their 1500 should be their 800 times 2. I think my best event was the marathon (2:27 and 32 10k...) and my PRs were 2:06 and 4:13.
So, your 1500 is only 1 second more than 800x2 - showing pretty solid strength in terms of little fall-off from 800 to 1500. Totally consistent with your very solid road time.
This strength is increasingly rare in runners with faster 800 speed - if everyone had your strength, we'd have as many sub-3:50 1500 runners as we have sub-1:55 800 guys!
Impressive range overall, by the way.
slow guy2 wrote:
My 800 PR is 2:03 and my 1500 is 3:56. That's probably not a good sign. I should work on my 800.
2:03 x 2 = 4:06
4:06 - 10 sec = 3:56
Damn, thought I was going to take it with a -9.6 second differential. 800m 2:08.8, 1500m 4:08.