if they trained for it. The record for 1000 meters is around 2:29, so it's not much beyond this. So around 1100 meters? (2:45)
I'd be interested to know how one would even test this. Is the timing technology good enough that a system could record split intervals down to the meter?
> 1100m and < 1200m …… and my guess would be 1140m +/- 10m
At her best Genzeba Dibaba ran 3:50 for 1500m, averaging ~ 62 sec per lap for 3.75 laps. If you had knocked off those that last 0.75 laps (300m), there's no way she could've run 3 successive laps a full 2+ sec faster. Just no way.
Here’s the derivation for a bound assuming the 1000m and mile records remain unbroken. The 1000m record implies a speed of ~6.71 m/s. The 1609m record implies a speed of ~6.38 m/s. Speeds decrease convexly with distance, ie they drop sharper first and then further drops with distance are slower. Even if you optimistically assumed that speed dropped uniformly from 1000m to 1609m, you will hit the target speed of 400/60 ~= 6.67 m/s at the linearly interpolated distance of
Here’s the derivation for a bound assuming the 1000m and mile records remain unbroken. The 1000m record implies a speed of ~6.71 m/s. The 1609m record implies a speed of ~6.38 m/s. Speeds decrease convexly with distance, ie they drop sharper first and then further drops with distance are slower. Even if you optimistically assumed that speed dropped uniformly from 1000m to 1609m, you will hit the target speed of 400/60 ~= 6.67 m/s at the linearly interpolated distance of
Thus, that distance is also a bound under convexly dropping speed with distance.
Plugging in exact values for the WRs (2:28.98, 4:12.33), the mile distance (1609.344) and using higher decimal precision gives a slightly higher distance of 1083.13 m.
I would love to see challenge races for this. The meet directors can use the pace lights on the rails of the track that they often use in major races. As a runner falls behind the light, they have to pull off the track. You can use different colored lights so the runners know when they're close to falling behind pace.
I could not run sub 2:30 rn I dont run all that much anymore. In college I comfortably could althought i don't think I ever ran an all out 1,000 but I have a 1:48 high 800 PR so I dont think running low 2:20s would have been that difficult back then.
I do think this record is relatively weak in the sense that the distance isn't raced all that often and I think someone in 1:55 / 3:50 1500 shape could run 2:28 on a good day with pacers.
Here’s the derivation for a bound assuming the 1000m and mile records remain unbroken. The 1000m record implies a speed of ~6.71 m/s. The 1609m record implies a speed of ~6.38 m/s. Speeds decrease convexly with distance, ie they drop sharper first and then further drops with distance are slower. Even if you optimistically assumed that speed dropped uniformly from 1000m to 1609m, you will hit the target speed of 400/60 ~= 6.67 m/s at the linearly interpolated distance of
Thus, that distance is also a bound under convexly dropping speed with distance.
I'm a mathematician. This is not an upperbound. An upperbound is a calculation where every assumption you make, while doing the calculation, favors a larger value.
The problem is you used the 1,000m and the mile as your end points, which are rarely run, and therefore slower than would be expected. These are the points you would use if you were calculating a lower bound.
Redoing your calculation with the 800m and 1500m records yields the following calculation. The 800m world record is 7.75 m/s and the 1500m world record is 6.52 m/s. Applying your linear function (which I agree is optimistic) you get.
So that is an upper bound. Now I don't think that is what could ever be achieved, but that is the point of doing an upper bound calculation, it shouldn't look achievable, if it does you did the calculation wrong.
We know that your upperbound is wrong because Dibaba's fastest 1100m during her 3:50 world record was 2:45 (unless you view her 64 sec, second lap, as a recovery jog that made her run the second half faster than if you just chopped off the distance).
Here’s the derivation for a bound assuming the 1000m and mile records remain unbroken. The 1000m record implies a speed of ~6.71 m/s. The 1609m record implies a speed of ~6.38 m/s. Speeds decrease convexly with distance, ie they drop sharper first and then further drops with distance are slower. Even if you optimistically assumed that speed dropped uniformly from 1000m to 1609m, you will hit the target speed of 400/60 ~= 6.67 m/s at the linearly interpolated distance of
Here’s the derivation for a bound assuming the 1000m and mile records remain unbroken. The 1000m record implies a speed of ~6.71 m/s. The 1609m record implies a speed of ~6.38 m/s. Speeds decrease convexly with distance, ie they drop sharper first and then further drops with distance are slower. Even if you optimistically assumed that speed dropped uniformly from 1000m to 1609m, you will hit the target speed of 400/60 ~= 6.67 m/s at the linearly interpolated distance of
Thus, that distance is also a bound under convexly dropping speed with distance.
1000m and mile records are “weak” compared to the 1500m record
Exactly! If you do blugh's calculation using the normal 1500m and 800m world records you arrive at 1,415 m! Not saying a woman can run that far at that pace, but it goes to show how depenent his calculation is on using those two soft records. See post a few above for full derivation.
I could not run sub 2:30 rn I dont run all that much anymore. In college I comfortably could althought i don't think I ever ran an all out 1,000 but I have a 1:48 high 800 PR so I dont think running low 2:20s would have been that difficult back then.
I do think this record is relatively weak in the sense that the distance isn't raced all that often and I think someone in 1:55 / 3:50 1500 shape could run 2:28 on a good day with pacers.
According to IAFF scoring tables the 3:50 is worth 2:26.
Kipyegon closed the final 800m of her 1500 in Rio in 1:57, Dibaba has also ran 1100m of her 1500m world record in 2:45 (removing the second lap). I agree with most here, roughly 3 laps, definitely more than 1100m.
I would love to see challenge races for this. The meet directors can use the pace lights on the rails of the track that they often use in major races. As a runner falls behind the light, they have to pull off the track. You can use different colored lights so the runners know when they're close to falling behind pace.
Scoring tables mean nothing for this. Remember the pace has to be sub 60 the entire time. A runner who goes through the 800 in 2:00.1 and then finishes the next lap in 59 would be out at the 800 meter mark. I strongly suspect that when the woman's 1000 world record was set the pace was probably at some point between 850 and 925 meters over 60 second lap pace and she kicked in so it would have been less than 1000 meters.
Here’s the derivation for a bound assuming the 1000m and mile records remain unbroken. The 1000m record implies a speed of ~6.71 m/s. The 1609m record implies a speed of ~6.38 m/s. Speeds decrease convexly with distance, ie they drop sharper first and then further drops with distance are slower. Even if you optimistically assumed that speed dropped uniformly from 1000m to 1609m, you will hit the target speed of 400/60 ~= 6.67 m/s at the linearly interpolated distance of
Thus, that distance is also a bound under convexly dropping speed with distance.
I'm a mathematician. This is not an upperbound. An upperbound is a calculation where every assumption you make, while doing the calculation, favors a larger value.
The problem is you used the 1,000m and the mile as your end points, which are rarely run, and therefore slower than would be expected. These are the points you would use if you were calculating a lower bound.
Redoing your calculation with the 800m and 1500m records yields the following calculation. The 800m world record is 7.75 m/s and the 1500m world record is 6.52 m/s. Applying your linear function (which I agree is optimistic) you get.
So that is an upper bound. Now I don't think that is what could ever be achieved, but that is the point of doing an upper bound calculation, it shouldn't look achievable, if it does you did the calculation wrong.
We know that your upperbound is wrong because Dibaba's fastest 1100m during her 3:50 world record was 2:45 (unless you view her 64 sec, second lap, as a recovery jog that made her run the second half faster than if you just chopped off the distance).
Any model has assumptions, and I stated mine in the first sentence, and under those assumptions, it is an upper bound.
As a mathematician, I’m sure you know a model’s assumptions can yield very different assumptions. You are disputing the legitimacy of the 1000m and mile WR, which is a fine criticism. I have no issues using my model with WRs boundary points you think are more compelling as you did. My point of laying out the model was to present a mathematical approach to deriving a bound, which no one seemed to be doing despite 3+ pages into the thread.
Dibaba’s 1100 however doesn’t count, and neither does any part of a run unless it was a strict prefix of a run (from a halted start).
Here’s the derivation for a bound assuming the 1000m and mile records remain unbroken. The 1000m record implies a speed of ~6.71 m/s. The 1609m record implies a speed of ~6.38 m/s. Speeds decrease convexly with distance, ie they drop sharper first and then further drops with distance are slower. Even if you optimistically assumed that speed dropped uniformly from 1000m to 1609m, you will hit the target speed of 400/60 ~= 6.67 m/s at the linearly interpolated distance of
Thus, that distance is also a bound under convexly dropping speed with distance.
1000m and mile records are “weak” compared to the 1500m record
You are welcome to use the model choosing any pair of WRs as boundary points that you think of as harder to get broken, with the caveat that the further apart the boundary points are, the less accurate the derived upper bound would be, e.g., an 800-1500 interpolation is going to slightly overestimate the distance compared to a 1000-1609 interpolation.
An even more accurate model would do a nonlinear interpolation instead of a linear interpolation based on a logarithmic curve fit over pace-distance data for WRs; doubling the distance roughly decreases pace by ~10% in middle distance regimes.
I would love to see challenge races for this. The meet directors can use the pace lights on the rails of the track that they often use in major races. As a runner falls behind the light, they have to pull off the track. You can use different colored lights so the runners know when they're close to falling behind pace.
It would be a fun idea. I'd love to see it too.
There would have to be a grace period/distance for the athletes to get up to speed. Starting from a standing position... the gun goes off... the light starts moving and they are all behind the light and the event ends because they failed to match the pace over the first five meters.
That's easy to fix. They have to cover 200 meters under 30 seconds and then the light comes on and they have to stay ahead of it. Once the light passes them, they are out.
The best way to run it would be to cross 200 meters in 29 to 29.8 seconds and stay ahead of that light at an even pace.
Scoring tables mean nothing for this. Remember the pace has to be sub 60 the entire time. A runner who goes through the 800 in 2:00.1 and then finishes the next lap in 59 would be out at the 800 meter mark. I strongly suspect that when the woman's 1000 world record was set the pace was probably at some point between 850 and 925 meters over 60 second lap pace and she kicked in so it would have been less than 1000 meters.
You do you, but I chose to interpret the question as how far could a woman run at 60”/lap average pace, which I think is interesting enough without becoming just silly.
Scoring tables mean nothing for this. Remember the pace has to be sub 60 the entire time. A runner who goes through the 800 in 2:00.1 and then finishes the next lap in 59 would be out at the 800 meter mark. I strongly suspect that when the woman's 1000 world record was set the pace was probably at some point between 850 and 925 meters over 60 second lap pace and she kicked in so it would have been less than 1000 meters.
You do you, but I chose to interpret the question as how far could a woman run at 60”/lap average pace, which I think is interesting enough without becoming just silly.
I also interpreted it as average pace of course, but while we are at inventing fantasy sports, I suppose it could also be interesting to watch without being silly even if defined as having to always be ahead of the last pace light and the pace light snake was say 20m+ long to allow some but not unlimited instantaneous pace flexibility.
Scoring tables mean nothing for this. Remember the pace has to be sub 60 the entire time. A runner who goes through the 800 in 2:00.1 and then finishes the next lap in 59 would be out at the 800 meter mark. I strongly suspect that when the woman's 1000 world record was set the pace was probably at some point between 850 and 925 meters over 60 second lap pace and she kicked in so it would have been less than 1000 meters.
You do you, but I chose to interpret the question as how far could a woman run at 60”/lap average pace, which I think is interesting enough without becoming just silly.
That's absolutely foolish. so someone could go through 200 at 37, then run the second 200 in 22 and be considered still running the correct pace? No way. Plus, the OP didn't say AVERAGE pace.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.