BRAZIER Confirmed for Monaco!!!

friendojamin wrote:

sub-1:41 or bust?

You're free to dream.

1:52 high. 56/56 even split.

You’re either too old to have worn the new spikes or too young to know anything about the old spikes/tracks.

John Wesley Harding wrote:

The chances of somebody (whether it’s Brazier, Cheptegei, Warholm, Ingebrigtsen, Hassan, etc.) bringing an eye-popping performance at Monaco seem very good. For one, the incentive to run fast is as strong as ever since this could be the one opportunity to salvage a year of their careers—like, losing the 2020 Olympic season to coronavirus wouldn’t be so hard to stomach if you can get the WR as a consolation prize.

Brazier has looked phenomenal in 2020, but it takes a phenomenal athlete to run 1:42.x, let alone the WR. My wager for Monaco is that he guns for 1:41 and fades to 1:42-high FTW, super impressive considering the circumstances of this season.

If I had to pick a particular WR at Monaco 2020, it would be Warholm in the 400h.

I like your logic and intuition here - and I actually agree with you. Running the 800m WR is no joke and needs at least one or two forays into the twilight zone of 49.0-1.14.0 before we start talking sub 1.40.8. The expectation of Brazier isn't really that fair here.

But there is a a guy who is also in shape and knows what it takes to run the WR and it's Warholm. How he deals with the change up in circumstance (lack of a true competition, crowd energy etc) will be the determining factor.

Why is nobody mentioning that the track has been relaid? It's going to be even faster this year. We could see some crazy times even by Monaco standards.

not banned wrote:

Advancements in technology are part of all sports. You complain about his shoes and tracks being faster than those of Coe and Kipketer, but where is the hate for Coe and Kipketers massive technological advantage over Elliot? Surely they couldn’t be that much faster than him on talent alone?

They're not. It's a shame we can't compare the times of guys who ran on dirt tracks vs. synthetic, which is why we should avoid developments like that when possible.

Yeah I think the 800m is constantly the most underrated record by distance fans. It is at least as strong as the 1500m WR, if not stronger.

Let's ignore doping, because there is no reason why the 1500 would be more doped than the 800 IMO.

Since 1981 the 800m WR has dropped by 0.82 seconds.

There have only been 15 sub 1:42 times run all time across all athletes. And 7 belong to Rudisha. The 800 takes an extremely specialised type of athlete.

A sub 1:42 time is extremely rare. I think Brazier is capable but the reality is it is very difficult to execute the perfect 800m. The pacing is extremely particular, slightly too fast and you cook it. Slightly too slow and you won't make up the time.

What is interesting is in his personal best time Brazier ran 49.1 and then 53.1. Rudisha ran 49.2 and then 51.7.

The difference is stark.

I believe if Brazier is to break 1:42 he needs to split almost exactly 49.5.

suppose he's not trying out for handegg just yet

You say your an experienced track fan and have seen “enough track and field in your time”. Yet you clearly don’t know that there wasn’t any World Champs in 1985! They were not hold every 2 years in the 80’s. Coe had 2 opportunities of running in them but was ill in 83 and out all season in 87. So Brazier has already run in more Worlds than Coe at 23.

Coe’s timing was not suspect. Anyone with a stopwatch can time it from the video and get a time well below 1:42. They could have ratified it as a 1:41.6 HT, but chose to go with the photo cell time as the official electronic timing malfunctioned.

There was nothing wrong with the track except it was old and worn. There would have had to have been a certificate to prove measurements in order for ratification. It was also the home track of the IAAF’s official statistician, Roberto Quercetano, who was present that night and so I’m pretty sure everything was in order.

It doesn’t matter whether or not Brazier used prototype Nike spikes in Doha. It is a fact that any top design spike in 2020 is better than any from 1981. You can’t seriously sit there and state that there has been no advances in show technology in the last 39 years?

Same with tracks. Everyone knows that elite 800 and 1500 guys run about 1 (800) or 2 (1500) seconds faster at Monaco than anywhere else. Regardless of why that is, all top meet track today would be of the latest Mondo material, which are certainly faster than those synthetic ones from 1980.

I too think Brazier is an incredible talent and will likely go on to break the WR, but one is in denial if they believe he hasn’t got a slight technological advantage over those that came (many decades) before him, just like Coe and Cram has technical advantages over Snell and Ryun, who were both likely to have run 1:42 high/1:43.0 (Snell) or 3:29/3:47 (Ryun) on 80’s synthetics.

Agreed! See my prior post. Elliott could have probably run 3:32 on synthetic in 1960!

Agree. I think 49.5 is the ideal split for a 1:42 flat or faster. I think 200m should be between 24.0 and 24.3.

Hardloper wrote:

not banned wrote:

Advancements in technology are part of all sports. You complain about his shoes and tracks being faster than those of Coe and Kipketer, but where is the hate for Coe and Kipketers massive technological advantage over Elliot? Surely they couldn’t be that much faster than him on talent alone?

They're not. It's a shame we can't compare the times of guys who ran on dirt tracks vs. synthetic, which is why we should avoid developments like that when possible.

Bro your "BQ" was a downhill marathon with Vaporflies. GTFOH

I think they are quite interesting sportsmen..

letsrunfortrump wrote:

There is no such thing as peaking

Uhhmmmmm ..... yes there is.

Yeah 100%. You would think after reading some of the expert "hot takes" on this board that running sub 1.42 was a pretty standard sort of thing on a seasonal basis but as you mentioned, it's only been done 15 times over 19 years and again as you said, Rudisha did it 7 times over the course of 2010-2012.

The logic of "But look at how strong Donovan is - he ran 3.35 with a 37 last 300m - he must be able to do it" is kind of funny to me. Yes clearly this points to him being in great shape but that tightrope you walk when you start running around 49.5 seconds for the first lap is a long and shaky one to say the least. Even a few tenths too fast for any 200m split can be the difference between death or glory (just ask Nijel Amos) - it would have to be a sensational and lucky pace judgement exercise to get close to 1.41.0 having never really attempted to be on this pace at 600m before.

I don't know what the plans are tonight in Portland for him, but if he wants to run under 1.42 in Monaco (and forget the WR that isn't happening until he gets at least a handful of low 1.42/mid 1.41 races underneath him exactly the way Rudisha had before he ran 1.41.09 in 2010) - they really should be targeting 49.5/1.14.6-7 at 600m and really committing to hammering the 3rd 200m. If he blows up and runs 28.xx for the last 200 (quite possible, he's only human) who cares - he will still run a world class time and he will at least have made that step onto the playing field of the WR.

In Doha he was 49.21 and then 1.15.18 (25.97 for the 3rd 200m) then closing in 27.16. You said it - the difference is still stark.

But good luck to him and hope he goes well. Would love to see a fast one in Monaco

Deanouk wrote:

It was also the home track of the IAAF’s official statistician, Roberto Quercetano, who was present that night and so I’m pretty sure everything was in order.

Everyone knows that elite 800 and 1500 guys run about 1 (800) or 2 (1500) seconds faster at Monaco than anywhere else. Regardless of why that is, all top meet track today would be of the latest Mondo material, which are certainly faster than those synthetic ones from 1980.

Quercetani was IAAF's "official statistician"? Can you please give a source for this?

OK, let's add a second to Monaco 800m times and compare the winning times to the completely normal Rieti times:

2009

Monaco 1:44.50 / Rieti 1:42.01

2010

Monaco 1:44.11 / Rieti 1:41.01

2011

Monaco 1:43.63 / Rieti 1:41.33

2012

Monaco 1:44.13 / Rieti 1:43.74

2013

Monaco 1 :44.72 / Rieti 1:43.93

2014

Monaco 1:43.46 / Rieti 1:43.83

Average 2009-2014

Monaco 1:44.09 / Rieti 1:42.64

According to this rule, the best times ever: Monaco 1:42.89 / Rieti 1:41.01.

Monaco has had always close to perfect pacemaking in the 800m (always mid 49 at 400 for the PM) . Last year for Rieti was 2015 with already weak (even for Rieti standards) fields.

So, the winning times from Rieti from the period 2009-2014 would be whopping 1.43 seconds faster than from Monaco - good that everyone knows that a second must be added.

For the 1500m lets add the two seconds to the winning times:

Average 2009-2014

Monaco 3:31.16 / Rieti 3:31.44

OK, the two second rule seems to make sense - if we just totally ignore that Monaco is one of the biggest meetings in the calendar and Rieti just was a (at best) 2nd rate meeting.

But, what's the origin of this rule at all? Why 1/2 seconds? Why not 1.5/3 or 2/4 or 2.5/5 or ... or 0/0?

This rule is just complete nonsense and not "everyone" knows it.

Monaco has seen great times in the last decade, especially in the 1500m. The most likely explanation for me is , that they have had the best pacemaking, regularly the by far deepest field of the season, top weather and maybe most important at all: some psychological effect. Athletes focus on this meet while they have seen the great results from others in the previous years.

To state as some fact, that the times in the 800m/1500m are 1/2 seconds faster than anywhere else is just made up and not rational.

Swaglord_the_real_one_1 wrote:

Brazier is gonna be running on excitement, plus peak form.

I'd say he goes out in 49-low and pops a 1:41.95.

I respect the prediction, but believe he will go 1:41low. If I believe he will go 1:41low, my heart will lower the prediction to a 1:40.88. I actually believe he could get the 1000m world record this season as well, if the opportunity arises. 2:10 is going 1:44 and closing in 26, which are unlikely splits for the distance; but, I’ve seen him run 1:43 and 1:44 way too many times with MONSTER finishes.

Running that 3:35 with a 52 second last lap is more impressive when you watch the video, and see that he didn’t make his move until 250m to go. He went through 1200 in 2:57high, waited 50 meters (7.4 seconds) until he got to 3:05point. From 3:05, let’s call it, he got to 3:35.9. That’s 30.9 seconds for 250 meters, or 49.4 400M pace. He was looking over his shoulder, seemingly comfortable. I believe he could hold that pace for like 675 meters on fresh legs, and have room to fade to the record.

SPLIT PREDICTIONS: 49.1, 1:14.3, (1:27.0 at 700) 1:40.88.

Absolutely. Those effects are far, far more powerful than slight differences between modern track surfaces.

We saw it with a fast 5k in Paris in 2012 and Brussels in 2018. Nothing special about those tracks or meetings. No 'circular wind' as one super troll poster likes to claim.

It is very simply a combination of good weather, several big names all up for a big run on the night, perfect pacemaking and very little focus on racing.

The pacemaking cannot be understated, we have seen up to 3 pacers in the 1500 with the last man taking the athletes as far as 1100m at WR pace. You just don't get that anywhere else.

Everyone goes out hard from the gun, there is rarely tactics at Monaco in recent years. Athletes turn up to run their fastest.

This. He needs to get to 600m in 1:15 no matter what