Blazing fast last laps at the CA state 1600

Yeah true from the data wrote:

Agreed` wrote:

Cortez can run sub 4, and would definitely beat Tamagno.

The optimizer says 3:59 1600 yesterday, and then a neg split 1:50 as the second race? A sub 4 miler now likely.

Uh, what optimizer is that?

Oh? wrote:

Yeah true from the data wrote:

The optimizer says 3:59 1600 yesterday, and then a neg split 1:50 as the second race? A sub 4 miler now likely.

Uh, what optimizer is that?

It estimates what the athlete could have run with splits optimized for the fastest time. Obviously, if you run 62 64 62 56, you could run faster than 4:04. The optimizer estimates how much faster. I don't know the formula.

There was a thread on it wrote:

Oh? wrote:

Uh, what optimizer is that?

http://timescalculator.appspot.com/optimizer

It estimates what the athlete could have run with splits optimized for the fastest time. Obviously, if you run 62 64 62 56, you could run faster than 4:04. The optimizer estimates how much faster. I don't know the formula.

Interesting, though really not sure I buy into whatever algorithm he is using. It looks like it only looks at two factors: how far from even splitting (in total) the race was ran, and how many laps were off. For example, if you put in 70-80-70-80 it comes out to the exact same as 70-70-80-80 and 80-80-70-70 (all would be a 5:00 mile in reality, but always a 4:52.31 in the calculator). I would certainly argue that negative splitting is more optimal racing than constantly surging and slowing down, or positive splitting.

I agree that the way the California race went suggests they could run faster, though I'm not sure how much faster they could have gone. I am in no way ready to say that the top five could have gone sub-4 with better pacing, regardless of what that little calculator suggests.

http://timescalculator.appspot.com/optimizer

It estimates what the athlete could have run with splits optimized for the fastest time. Obviously, if you run 62 64 62 56, you could run faster than 4:04. The optimizer estimates how much faster. I don't know the formula.

i've run a few miles in my time, but fail to see how this is obvious...

Well then, did you ever manage to run the last lap six seconds faster than any prior lap, while running close to your PR?

Lol this makes no sense whatsoever. You can make the case for cortes and always say that he got pulled by someone faster for his times back then. At the end of the day tamagno still is the overall faster runner. And gidabuday really? Lol he's a stud now but in HS he could barely hold his own against tamagno

55 at the end of 4:04 is sub 4 for sure. And doubling back with a negative split 1:50 is 1:48 fresh.

Cortez is sub 4:00/1:48 today. He wasn't losing yesterday, no matter the comp.

In 102 degree weather have you. It dropped to 99 for 800 though

3:52 is 4:10 wrote:

55 at the end of 4:04 is sub 4 for sure. And doubling back with a negative split 1:50 is 1:48 fresh.

Cortez is sub 4:00/1:48 today. He wasn't losing yesterday, no matter the comp.

i will not dispute his studliness--when you count his four races over two days, it's incredible.

but, the only "for sure" sub-4--at least according to track and field news, the (albeit self-proclaimed) bible of the sport--is 3:59.99 and faster on the track, hopefully with a rail or cones set up appropriately.

obviously there is list of "could've gone sub-4s" that i'm not aware of--i'll chalk it up to there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy...

You, socall Cush, sound like you never dropped a 55 second last lap while running a near PR, and within 10 seconds of sub four. You probably ran faster the first laps and held on the last lap for dear life.

socal cush wrote:

3:52 is 4:10 wrote:

55 at the end of 4:04 is sub 4 for sure. And doubling back with a negative split 1:50 is 1:48 fresh.

Cortez is sub 4:00/1:48 today. He wasn't losing yesterday, no matter the comp.

i will not dispute his studliness--when you count his four races over two days, it's incredible.

but, the only "for sure" sub-4--at least according to track and field news, the (albeit self-proclaimed) bible of the sport--is 3:59.99 and faster on the track, hopefully with a rail or cones set up appropriately.

obviously there is list of "could've gone sub-4s" that i'm not aware of--i'll chalk it up to there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy...

So Christian, in a pro race do you think Cortes could break 4, since you've done it?

It's how I set my PB.

Never could run four laps at even pace as fast as three laps and hammer.

Did the same thing in a 3000m - PB with the last lap 8 seconds faster.

If I tried to run even pace for the same time, massive blow-up

if i were a betting man, i'd be willing to bet on him, but i wouldn't bet the farm, and i'd want some odds. 5 second improvements don't come easy in my experience...

i suppose i'm pissing in the wind by debating the meaning of "for sure," but the beauty of sport is that there really is no "for sure"--if anything, and i don't presume to be an expert on sub-4s just because i've done it, i'd also emphasize the difficulty of it. why cortes would be a "for sure" when other studs like hall, stember, meb, german, oshier (who basically soloed a 4-flat, but couldn't go sub 4 with verzbicas) and up to this point tamagno couldn't do it in h.s. is simply not obvious to me despite cortes' impressive kicking ability. is he really more of a talent than any of the names mentioned? who knows? but maybe ventolin and other speculators have a different meaning of "for sure" than i do...

I think we can sum this thread up with:

1) very competitive hs 1600 at the ca state meet

2) it isn't obvious that tamagno would have won I'd he had run in it, but he would probably be the shortest odds (the fact that he was beating these other kids this year makes it less certain when you remember they've all developed over the season and he has been stuck at the same times)

3) it isn't obvious that Cortez could (or couldn't) go sub 4 right now. Unless he does it now, we'll never know if he could have.

What is the traditional "high school record" cutoff? Sometime in July?

Sdfsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

I think we can sum this thread up with:

1) very competitive hs 1600 at the ca state meet

2) it isn't obvious that tamagno would have won I'd he had run in it, but he would probably be the shortest odds (the fact that he was beating these other kids this year makes it less certain when you remember they've all developed over the season and he has been stuck at the same times)

3) it isn't obvious that Cortez could (or couldn't) go sub 4 right now. Unless he does it now, we'll never know if he could have.

What is the traditional "high school record" cutoff? Sometime in July?

early August, before any fall classes start. I believe for semester system schools that is something like the third week in August?

wasn't there a runner who set a HS mark before the cutoff date who had already started college classes?

that also makes me think about, what happens to an early high school graduate who starts college in the spring; can they set a HS mark in the summer?

What about Slagowski running 3:59 solo in the rain in the Portland? "For sure" he'd run faster at Pre in better weather in a competitive race, right? Well he didn't.

wait what wrote:

Again, nothing against Cortes. Great races. 2x state champion in the most competitive state in the country. Expect great things.

Which means Cortez > Tamagno.

Sad to see Mo Farah style championship tactics working their way to the HS level. Jog the race until the last 600 or so, then start racing.