Give me the cited evidence for one person who has a personal best of 1:53 plus who has broken the four minute mile. I'll wait....
What are you talking about? I'm saying 1:52 isn't fast enough for an 800 to run 3:59 in the mile. I don't know anyone who has a 1:53 PR that has broken 4 because you simply can't do it with a 1:53 PR. I thought I already told you everyone I know who ran sub-4 were 1:49-1:50 guys. All the 1:52 guys I knew ran 4:05-4:06.
Alright, I guess we'll have to agree to agree...sort of. I thought you were saying plus 1:53 could... never mind.
At any rate, here is a conversion tool that says 1:54 equates to sub 4:
To be fair, the Daniels tables all say 1:49.9-1:50. That includes all versions of books and Oxygen Power.
I don't agree with Jack Daniels, and it certainly doesn't agree with me. In all seriousness, I think he's one of the few that believes one would need to run that fast. But, it does support his training method, so it's a win for him. But the tables I posted tend to say you could run sub 4 and not go sub 1:53, which seems ridiculous to me also.
I just wish someone would post and say, "You know what? I ran 1:53.1 for a personal best, the best I could do, and I also ran 3:59.99. So, there's your answer."
Knew a guy who was the slowest very good distance runner I could imagine. In high school, could manage maybe a 52-53 open 400 split, 1:53 800, but he was in the mix for the best 2 miler in the country. Then in college was a D1 AA at 5000 (13:3x in the slower era). Don't think breaking 4 was a big priority but was as far away as Faith (4:06 PB, not at his absolute best), and I really doubt he could do it though I think he could've chopped a few seconds. So he was better at 800 and 5000 by a large margin and I doubt he could break 4. Something doesn't add up here, Faith doesn't have the speed to do this, unless the shoes are a game-changing factor.
To be fair, the Daniels tables all say 1:49.9-1:50. That includes all versions of books and Oxygen Power.
I don't agree with Jack Daniels, and it certainly doesn't agree with me. In all seriousness, I think he's one of the few that believes one would need to run that fast. But, it does support his training method, so it's a win for him. But the tables I posted tend to say you could run sub 4 and not go sub 1:53, which seems ridiculous to me also.
I just wish someone would post and say, "You know what? I ran 1:53.1 for a personal best, the best I could do, and I also ran 3:59.99. So, there's your answer."
There was a very good athlete from NZ named John Henwood - ran 27.45, 13.30, 7.54 and 3.59.35 for the mile. Represented NZ at the 2004 OG over 10000m.
Now his WA profile lists his 800m PR as over 2min which is clearly not correct and while he also didn't run a lot of 800m races, I can remember him running a few sporadically in his younger days. John is a tall guy (6'3ish), long stride, low cadence - John was not a sub 1.53.0 800m runner, I am almost certain that his PR/I remember him running in the low 1.53's (I'm beyond certain, I know).
But you can see how he got to a sub 4 mile. He clearly had a massive aerobic engine and he was also a very good cross country runner. I don't quite understand why this is so inconceivable - especially with the way athletes train today. I also knew quite a few athletes from back in the late 90's that were very strong 5-10, xc runners that got close to 4 (with a few like Henwood that broke it). Another name people might recognize is Jonathon Wyatt who is probably most "famous" for being a six-time world mountain running champion. Jon ran 4.01.5 and he was a 7.54, 13.27, 27.56 guy - JW was even slower over 800m, certainly not under 1.54.
And if these are two guys that just I know, there will be multiple others. You don't have to be that fast to run sub 4. But you do need to be that strong - and as it relates to Kipyegon she is clearly not. She isn't a sub 8 3000m performer, she's not a sub 14 5000m performer. Plus she might have been, at her absolute best, a low 1.55 performer over 800m - that isn't even as quick as those guys I named who are on the "slow" end of the spectrum as pertains to this discussion.
Unless they have secretly installed hydraulic jacks under this track that move around the track with her allowing her to literally run downhill the whole way, she has ZERO chance of doing this.
This post was edited 57 seconds after it was posted.
To be fair, the Daniels tables all say 1:49.9-1:50. That includes all versions of books and Oxygen Power.
I don't agree with Jack Daniels, and it certainly doesn't agree with me. In all seriousness, I think he's one of the few that believes one would need to run that fast. But, it does support his training method, so it's a win for him. But the tables I posted tend to say you could run sub 4 and not go sub 1:53, which seems ridiculous to me also.
I just wish someone would post and say, "You know what? I ran 1:53.1 for a personal best, the best I could do, and I also ran 3:59.99. So, there's your answer."
I think you two are kind of saying the same thing. Let me throw a joker in the deck. With newer and newer supershoes, will we reach a point where to reach a certain time in the 10k, 5k, mile, what have you, will they lessen the traditional requirement of a certain level of shorter event success? Will the tables have to be redone? Just a wild thought.
I honestly don't understand people posting one-offs. It's like saying Jakob can only run 1:46 in the 800 but he ran 3:26.73 and 7:17.55. The big giants of exercise phys took data from THOUSANDS OF RUNNERS to make the charts. Obviously this individual was capable of faster than 1:51. I don't get you ppl on here. You seek out ONE individual with no other data or anything and are like "Yeah but this dude ran 1:51 then 3:55 even though he only ran the 800 like twice but the mile like dozens of times." This site really sucks sometimes.
Give me the cited evidence for one person who has a personal best of 1:53 plus who has broken the four minute mile. I'll wait....
Just wondering if the same "rules" regarding 800/mile times apply for a male trying to break 4 as for a female. I guess we don't know for sure
I agree that we don't know this. Statistically, for whatever reason, the 800m is the women's weakest event compared to the men. The 1:53.28, set by Jarmila Kratochvílová of Czechoslovakia in 1983 is more than 11% slower than Rudisha's and everyone agrees that that Kratochvílová was drugged to the gills or an XY individual. Quirot's 1:54.44 is probably the real world record if we eliminate the XY individuals (which is 12% slower). Whereas Kipyegons record is only 10% slower than El Guerrouj's and more similar to other events.
Thre is something special about the 800. Possibly because it is on the edge of being an aerobic vs an anerobic event.
Women are slower at the 800 compared to the men by a larger margin than any other distance, its 10% for basically every other track event give or take a fraction of a percent.
Just wondering if the same "rules" regarding 800/mile times apply for a male trying to break 4 as for a female. I guess we don't know for sure
I agree that we don't know this. Statistically, for whatever reason, the 800m is the women's weakest event compared to the men. The 1:53.28, set by Jarmila Kratochvílová of Czechoslovakia in 1983 is more than 11% slower than Rudisha's and everyone agrees that that Kratochvílová was drugged to the gills or an XY individual. Quirot's 1:54.44 is probably the real world record if we eliminate the XY individuals (which is 12% slower). Whereas Kipyegons record is only 10% slower than El Guerrouj's and more similar to other events.
Thre is something special about the 800. Possibly because it is on the edge of being an aerobic vs an anerobic event.
Women are slower at the 800 compared to the men by a larger margin than any other distance, its 10% for basically every other track event give or take a fraction of a percent.
Thank you for these details. I realize that the correlations for men are relevant, but there are bound to be physiologic differences that disrupt these correlations. Like Chepngetich has a 5000 pr of 15:26. Does this performance typically correlate with a 2:09 marathon in men??
This post was edited 38 seconds after it was posted.
I agree that we don't know this. Statistically, for whatever reason, the 800m is the women's weakest event compared to the men. The 1:53.28, set by Jarmila Kratochvílová of Czechoslovakia in 1983 is more than 11% slower than Rudisha's and everyone agrees that that Kratochvílová was drugged to the gills or an XY individual. Quirot's 1:54.44 is probably the real world record if we eliminate the XY individuals (which is 12% slower). Whereas Kipyegons record is only 10% slower than El Guerrouj's and more similar to other events.
Thre is something special about the 800. Possibly because it is on the edge of being an aerobic vs an anerobic event.
Women are slower at the 800 compared to the men by a larger margin than any other distance, its 10% for basically every other track event give or take a fraction of a percent.
Thank you for these details. I realize that the correlations for men are relevant, but there are bound to be physiologic differences that disrupt these correlations. Like Chepngetich has a 5000 pr of 15:26. Does this performance typically correlate with a 2:09 marathon in men??
Ruth's 15:26 5000 pb is pretty irrelevant. She split 15:00/30:14 in 2024 and 15:11/30:40 in in 2022 at the Chicago marathons. She was splitting rediculous 5k/10k splits in the middle of the marathon multiple times well before she ran her 2:09:56, where she finally just held on to what we all thought was her typical suicide pace. Since she's been splitting her 5k PB for the last 6 years of marathons, who knows what she'd be able to run in a true all out 5k, but it definitely starts with a 14 at the slowest. And I think you are right that most men who can break 2:10 have 13:XX 5k pbs, so there is a difference in the longer distances.
To be fair, the Daniels tables all say 1:49.9-1:50. That includes all versions of books and Oxygen Power.
I don't agree with Jack Daniels, and it certainly doesn't agree with me. In all seriousness, I think he's one of the few that believes one would need to run that fast. But, it does support his training method, so it's a win for him. But the tables I posted tend to say you could run sub 4 and not go sub 1:53, which seems ridiculous to me also.
I just wish someone would post and say, "You know what? I ran 1:53.1 for a personal best, the best I could do, and I also ran 3:59.99. So, there's your answer."
Doping changes the equation by increasing endurance.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Look, we're all fans of this sport. And the idea that we'd get to see barriers broken like this would be something we should all look forward to. Why else are we keeping records? But given the state of the sport and concerns about doping, how in the world could anyone paying attention really enjoy this if it were to happen?
It's just a bummer that this would be met with a collective "meh" because of what the sport has done to itself.
These gimmicks do reach more than just running fans. A lot of non-runners and hobby joggers followed the marathon thing.
I wonder if she's done some workouts that show that she can break 4:00.
Like most people here I'm thinking it's impossible given what she's been running. But why do it if they're going to be 4-5 seconds off?
And moderators- remove the doping accusation posts. They're not based on anything factual concerning her.
You can trim this thread down to the intelligent people who want to talk running.
Robert Johnson says no way, but I wonder if two years ago someone told him a woman would run a 2:09 marathon in a couple years what would he have said? Or that two years from now a woman may run a 2:08 marathon. If NIKE and Fath are putting this thing together they must see something in her training or some indication that this could happen. Neither one would want to be humiliated. I don't doubt what any woman can do esp. after that 2:09 marathon. What she ran that 4:07, the world record was 4:12 and her best must have been a second or two slower than that and she lopped almost 7 second off her personal best and she looked fresh at the end. We'll see :)
I agree the 2:09 seem/seems preposterous.
As or Nike seeing something in her training I doubt it. She just opened in 2:29. That isn't crazy for her but it's not 2:25.
When she ran 4:07, her previous best was 4:16 but that was only because the mile isn't run that much.
But Yunxia QU had run 3:50 in 1993 and Dibaba 3:50 in 2015 pre super spikes. Give them super spikes and they still aren't at 3:42.
If they said they were going to openly dope her I might think she could break 4:00. Otherwise I don't think it's going to happen.
But I still fallback on they just read the study that said 3:59 is possible with the right drafting. Maybe they have a slightly better shoe so they said let's give it a shot. Most of us in the sport think that study was too optimistic.
