Nick Willis runs 1:46 in an 800 time trial!

This puts him around 3:29.8-3:31.6 considering he's a strength based 1500m runner

So about the same as last year (3:29)

The Monaco 1500m like always is going to be GOOD!

RIP Richard Chilemo

Yeah should've won over Skah. That was some shady stuff.

I hope he can go 3:25 too! I am also rooting for him.

Mr. Obviously wrote:

Ask Richard Chelimo how he feels about a lapped runner deciding to keep pace with the athletes who lap him.

]

Do you have his number?

i saw the time trial.

willis looked strong in the straight, had good pacing like he said.

if he had three big guys instead of one pacing perfectly like they did - it would have been a 145. or solo it would have been a 148 or 149,

and willis has some 5000 ability.

that means - if god is good - he can run a fantastic 1500.

if he can get in a race like Mo did, he can run 328.

He's been doing more a similar amount of 5km and iirc he said his 800m timetrial last year shortly before Monaco was about 1:48-49.

I'd like to think that he's faster than last year but that was a pretty near perfect race for him.

NoTactics wrote:

This is the one meet on the calendar where everyone throws out tactics and just goes all out from the gun. It's going to be fun!

Yes! Why is the Monaco race always so much faster than any other race?

Am I being cynical or could it be something to do with the fact Monaco is the HQ of the IAAF?

Everyone that runs there says it's super fast. Could it be that it's illegally fast (on purpose) ensuring times will make it the showpiece event of the calendar? I mean it's not as if corruption is something new to international sports organisations!

Let's look at the evidence.

Centro just bombed running a 1:49.

Kiprop has said he's only 70% fit and his form has been all over the place. He ran well at Eugene and Oslo, but has also struggled in other races and won few races.

Makhloufi and Kiplagat looked good in a well paced 3:30 race in Paris, but didn't look any better than 3:29 max.

Soulieman wasn't able to clock a good mile time off very decent splits for 800 and 1200 in Oslo mile. Has since looked good in a 1:43.0 800.

Let's see what they run in Monaco this week. I bet they all run beyond what their current form would indicate.

How can a track race be illegally fast??

willis has finished 10 weeks of 90-95miles with weekly long runs in the 18-20miles range . puh, that is huge. the effect will show up later. i am sure he can run a great 1500m race right now (3:29/28?), but even better with 2-3 more weeks with more speed work, less volume.

yyy wrote:

messi is correct. The convention of referrering as this to a 1:46 is wrong.

1:46.9 is 1:46

If you were a runner you would know this.

And if you knew enough math, you would understand that truncating is just as legitimate as rounding if you are consistent with applying it.

To say that 1:46.4 is 1:46 while 1:46.5 is 1:47 is just as arbitrary as saying 1:46.9 is 1:46 and 1:47.0 is 1:47.

If you consistently truncate then the range of 1:46.0 - 1:46.9 is 1:46; 1:47.0 - 1:47.9 is 1:47 and so on.

What is so special about of assigning 1:45.5 - 1:46.4 to 1:46; 1:46.5 - 1:47.4 to 1:47 and so on?

And how can you say the convention is wrong?

Convention in this case is an established technique or practice.

Runners truncate by convention. That's what they do.

The convention in math is different. This is the fundamental thing. Not what runners do. Runners have zero (measure) credibility in math

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_set

The track in Rieti is known to be short (Ovett) and people typically overachieve (Komen's record is approximately 7:25 on a real track). Something similar could be going on with Monaco?

yyy wrote:

The convention in math is different. This is the fundamental thing. Not what runners do. Runners have zero (measure) credibility in math

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_set

Math does not have a conventional way to approximate times.

Math has choices.

You can generally round to the nearest nth. which is what some here want to do.

You can round up - this is what they do for official track times.

Someone running 9.921 gets credited with running 9.93 while someone running 9.920 gets an official time of 9.92.

You can truncate - call a 3:59.85 mile a 3:59 mile.

Math doesn't care what you do.

What's important is that you pick a convention and stick with it.

If one person rounds to the nearest second while the other truncates, then times cannot be comparable.

If one meet decided 9.921 was 9.93 while another called it a 9.92 it just wouldn't work to keep times comparable.

I am sure chemistry has its conventions for measuring things so that prescription drugs and such can keep a good consistency.

You can't have individual chemists deciding how to measure on their own terms.

Long ago runners have truncated and if you want to talk running, it's best to stick with convention.

Of course math has conventions and it is not the one used in T&F.

OK, in math, what is the conventional way to approximate the number 5.67258163?

I think for him to run a 1:46.9 in practice is a nice feel good workout.

We may see a new national record for him if things go well.

His 800m PR is 1:45.54 so this is a pretty good sign for a workout.

It looked like he started with a running start (unless the video starts after he is already running) and it was hand timed so it would have been a 1:47 in a true race environment. Either way, he is fit and ready to roll.

6 if you are happy with the crudest approxmation. It is not 5.

but let us simply agree to disagree and be happy for Willis.