Kerr on LRC pod: Mile WR is harder than 1500 WR

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

I know and heard from the mouth of a very well respected 1500m runner/miler of that era that trained in Ifrane with Kadas group, that he saw El G run under 1:43 for 800m as a training TT where his pacers rotated in and out to help him record the time. And the guy who I heard say this is not the kind of guy who would make sh-t up, he just wasn't. I've never understood why the notion of El G being this fast over two laps (in a TT, not a race which adds so many other elements) is even remotely controversial considering he did run 3.26.12 (3.26.00) for 1500m and closed out a 3.34 Olympic final in 1.46.8 in his last ever 1500m when he was past his absolute peak in terms of straight out speed (his fastest time after the year 2002 was "only" 3.27.64). I mean if Steve Cram was comfortably under 1.43, El G wouldn't be? Heh?

Which getting back to you point, is why I believe(d) Jakob could have in either 2003 or 2004 (but especially '04 for obvious reasons) could have run 3.42.8/9 if he really focussed on it. 3.26.73 top end 1500m ability + 7.17 3000m ability - that points to being able to run 3.27.9/3.28.0 en route and run the 14.8/14.9 or so for the final 109m which all the top guys do/have done historically in blazing fast miles (Morceli 14.82, El G 14.92, Jakob 14.97)

Begging the Lagat question, but I can guess why you think that his ability with such low 800 speed was possible. Also of course he did get to draft…

perfect assessment wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

So the more I hear from this guy (Kerr) the more disappointed I get that even he knows in his heart of hearts he has very little shot at doing this, and therefore it is becoming a WWE style promo/marketing push for primarily himself framed up under this guise of "Brooks Innovation".

You are right that both records are really difficult. EVERY world record is extremely difficult - but for a number of reasons the mile is simply not as difficult as the 1500m mark and you'd have to have no interest in the sport and mens MD running to think the alternative - which is why he's latched on to this distance and is framing it up as this lifelong career dream and goal when I've never ever heard him talk about the mile every before.

And now trying to create this context that it's even harder of course serves him well in every facet right? If (when) he doesn't break it, well "it's even harder than the 15, so what do you expect" or in the fantasyworld when he does it's "the greatest MD run ever because it's a harder record than the 15 which nobody has touched in 27 years".

Yawn.

3.27.79 does not equate to 3.43.13 (or under) any way you want to frame it - especially when we all know the interim for that WR was 3.28.21. A 3.27.8 guy would probably need 4.40 2000m strength to endure that split time and still run another 109m at sub 55 speed. Or he'd need to be in mid 3.26.X shape which Josh Kerr never has been and never will be in his lifetime.

The more he builds his "hype train" on this, the more it becomes apparent what this really is to him. And I guess by a number of metrics it's working - Citius, LRC, Running Effect, all the British tabloids are cupping his nuts on this and giving him air and face time so fair play to him. But these comments are quite revealing in my opinion.

Completely agree. His interview on Running Effect was basically an extended ad for Brooks, and the more he speaks, the more it becomes clear this is primarily a marketing stunt. Kerr isn’t stupid. He knows as well as we do that his odds of running 3:42 are extremely long, 3:26.00 > 3:43.13, etc. This is about creating “content” and getting people talking.

And I hate to be that guy, but I have to bring up Jakob here because the contrast is striking. He’s broken 6 world records/bests across 5 races indoors and out, and in none of those did we get this sort of marketing push. He simply announces his attempt, downplays his chances and shows serious respect to the existing record in all his interviews, and then goes out and destroys it.

McRunnin wrote:

In addition to marketing, Kerr seems to be trolling. During the podcast, he didn't lead with saying the mile WR is harder than the 1500m WR. His first comment re: the difficulty of the mile WR was, "It is the hardest world record right now and the oldest world record right now in athletics."

Kerr was factually incorrect about the mile WR being the oldest (El G broke the 1500m nearly a year before he broke the mile WR), and he didn't qualify his opinion to only distance records. If he was referring to all track events, I think Bolt might like a word!

When he was talking about the mile vs the 1500m, I thought Kerr would try to argue that the mile WR is harder to break because there aren't many opportunities to race it. I don't know if I would buy that argument, but I might consider renting it. But Kerr didn't say that at all. Instead, Kerr's argument was:

• the mile is an extra 109 meters, and "it is frustratingly annoying to work out that nine meters"
• there are more variables in a slightly longer race
• it's harder to start on a bend than it is to start on a straight

That last point is actually solid, but I don't think it's enough to outweigh the reality of 54.93 laps vs 55.46 laps.

I think where his argument really falls apart is his belief that running 3:27 in Paris was an indicator that, "it's not out of the realm of possibility that I could have done it [break the mile WR] that day." Even after taking into account the rounds and having to sleep in uncomfortable beds while in Paris (reasons Kerr gave for why he thinks he can run faster than he did in that Olympic final), saying 3:27.79 indicates that you can break the mile WR isn't good support for believing the mile WR is harder to break than 3:26.00.

.kq wrote:

McRunnin wrote:

In addition to marketing, Kerr seems to be trolling. During the podcast, he didn't lead with saying the mile WR is harder than the 1500m WR. His first comment re: the difficulty of the mile WR was, "It is the hardest world record right now and the oldest world record right now in athletics."

Kerr was factually incorrect about the mile WR being the oldest (El G broke the 1500m nearly a year before he broke the mile WR), and he didn't qualify his opinion to only distance records. If he was referring to all track events, I think Bolt might like a word!

When he was talking about the mile vs the 1500m, I thought Kerr would try to argue that the mile WR is harder to break because there aren't many opportunities to race it. I don't know if I would buy that argument, but I might consider renting it. But Kerr didn't say that at all. Instead, Kerr's argument was:

• the mile is an extra 109 meters, and "it is frustratingly annoying to work out that nine meters"
• there are more variables in a slightly longer race
• it's harder to start on a bend than it is to start on a straight

That last point is actually solid, but I don't think it's enough to outweigh the reality of 54.93 laps vs 55.46 laps.

I think where his argument really falls apart is his belief that running 3:27 in Paris was an indicator that, "it's not out of the realm of possibility that I could have done it [break the mile WR] that day." Even after taking into account the rounds and having to sleep in uncomfortable beds while in Paris (reasons Kerr gave for why he thinks he can run faster than he did in that Olympic final), saying 3:27.79 indicates that you can break the mile WR isn't good support for believing the mile WR is harder to break than 3:26.00.

For a lot of dudes, 9 meters is ONE stride #CaballoBlanco y Rudisha.

kiltedrunner wrote:

Hobbyhurdler wrote:

THIS. I remember him in an interview after the Eugene 2022 final (5th place) saying: "I'm in 3:27.high shape right now" Such hyperbole. I know he eventually did that two years later, but no way he was in that sort of shape in 2022. (His season best that year was 3:30.60 (from the WC final) and his finishing splits were pretty ordinary if I remember correctly, 56.flat in the final 400m, and 14.2ish in the final 100m. Also, he did finish 12th (last) in the Commonwealth Games final a couple of weeks after Eugene.) 3 seconds is A LOT.

You'll need to provide a source for that claim. I think I remember 3:27 chat (from Danny Mackey, not Kerr) before the 2021 Olympics, but around 2022 I distinctly remember a downbeat Kerr being very up front about not being in shape, particularly after WC by saying he simply wasn't in the shape he needed to be in. But happy to be corrected.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Aouita 84 wrote:

Did El G say anything about wave lights? I believe his exact quote was "The mile is completely different. If you're not strong physically and mentally, you cannot run it well".

Again, a lot of talk about how the 1500m is the harder event, but I've yet to see anyone post as to why. Seriously!, why is the 1500m more difficult than the mile? Anyone who's run a fast 1500m and a fast mile will tell you that the last 109m is brutal. I'm not buying all the "where you start", or "who cuts in" stuff. That's part of trying to run a WR, dealing with all the variables. I do believe the wave lights help, with them you don't need to be concerned with if you've gone out too fast or slow, although these guys know pace like the back of their hand, not having to think about it at all is a plus. Part of the appeal of running a WR is knowing how to exert just enough energy at the right time to achieve a fast time.

I'd like to see what some of the greatest 1500/Miler guys think which WR is harder. Cram, Coe, Aouita, El G (Mile), Kerr (Mile), Hocker, Nuguse, Jakob, etc... I will happily defer to the consensus of those guys.

IMHO, it's the Mile, and yes, I've run a few quick times in both, not WR pace, but fast enough to know and feel the difference.

I think Kerr has a good chance to make a run at it. I think the hype he creating is a good thing, being in the UK it heightens the drama and can be self motivating for him. Is he "over marketing" the event? Sure he is, as he should be, that's what sponsors look for, that's called entertainment and good business.

It's not about what is the tougher event - because whats the metric or measure of that? I'm not here to blow up the great El G's comment on the mile but you can't run a great 1500m (or 2000m, or 3000m) if you're not strong physically or mentally either. Right?

Sure if you have a 1500m PR of 4min00 and you try and run a mile going through 1500m in 4min00 then you are going to have a big problem. But that's why nobody does that. That's why when El G had already run 3.26.00* (or in the very least 3.26.45) he went through 1500m over 2 seconds slower en route to his 3.43.13

Either way what we are literally discussing in this thread which is the harder record - not the "tougher" event.

The 1500m record is harder primarily because the event is run so much more than the mile. I don't know the exact numbers but I would guess that for every run run at the elite level, there are either 3 or 4 elite 1500m's run. I mean look at Jakob - he has been so obsessed with the metric distance I can't remember one meet where the mile wasn't traditional (like Pre, London, Oslo) that he asked for the 1500 to be changed to the mile. In fact he once did the opposite when he asked for the Golden Mile at Bislett to be a 1500m (2023 when he ran 3.27.95).

Summary, both distances are incredibly hard to run at their respective WR levels, no distance easier or harder than the other. But the 1500m record is a better one and because of that more difficult to break.