Andrew Wheating - Under 3:29 this season or not?

the unfortunate thing is that we don't have a 400 time for him from last year ( did he run any 4x400 relays ? )

he has 3'30.9 & 1'44.5 pbs, but both were slower than he shouda run - the 1500 he got impeded by some guy & lost a few meters & that 800 was not in great conditions & there were some other problems with it which i can't remember ( i think he mighta again got impeded &/or left his kick too late )

i think consensus last year was that he probably was a 1'44.0 - 1'44.25 & 3'30 - 3'30.25 guy

if anyone can find a 400m time for him, then we can get an idea of what he coud go for 1500 this year ( as hopefully he has had a good winter's training )

trying

http://www.jundo.co.uk/

with say 1'44.00 - 1'44.25 & from experienced eye, you need at least 47.5 - 48.5 speed to do that ( for a primary 1500 guy, which i assume his 3'30 warrants him being called ) :

1'44.00 - 1'44.25

with

47.50 ->3'30.3 - 3'31.2

47.75 ->3'29.5 - 3'30.4

48.00 ->3'28.6 - 3'29.5

48.25 ->3'27.8 - 3'28.7

48.50 ->3'26.9 - 3'27.8

find any sort of record of a 400 time & we can think about one of those lines above

ventolin^3 wrote:

the unfortunate thing is that we don't have a 400 time for him from last year....

find any sort of record of a 400 time & we can think about one of those lines above

47.5 seems fair to use

I am the other end of this bet with... In Need of a Beverage.

After reading some of the stats you guys are pulling out... i'm stoked i've made it. Looks like a precious glass of Penfolds Grange is on the cards.

But in all seriousness, i think he's a chance, but it's unlikely he'll run the time. USA record, one of few to go under the magical mark. it's not probable. but it is a chance. which is why it's such a great bet!

magical world wrote:

You idiots think that because he ran a good race once will magically come back and run a 3:28 wow!! How ignorant people are about the sport!! It takes numerous times of good performances we are not talking about 3:31-2s we are talking about 3:30- 29s to be able to crack into those times I think is possible for him to run 3:29 but that's as fast as he will ever run. His style of running is not appropiate, he needs to stay up in the front closer to the leaders and to change that its going to be hard. I think its more likely for Asbel kip.. to crack on those time the question should who is more talented Asbel or Andy ?

This is what I originally wrote, "ignoramus," but you joined the thread late:

"The original question should've been, "Can Wheating break 3:30 this season?" He is an immense talent, who only last year discovered his penchant for the 1500 and just had one international attempt at the distance. So, he is certainly capable of it, IF he has had a solid string of uninterrupted training. If not, then I would tend to agree that he won't revisit his PR from last year. But he is a runner with the potential to go 3:28 some day."

Now, will it be this year? Possibly. I don't think you should dismiss it so easily. On the other hand, a tad under 3:31 to a 3:28.xx is quite a leap, so it's hardly a given, even with a steady block of training. Let the guy break 3:30 and 1:44 first. Those would be awesome feats and confidence boosts heading into 2012.

ventolin^3 wrote:

he has 3'30.9 & 1'44.5 pbs, but both were slower than he shouda run - the 1500 he got impeded by some guy & lost a few meters & that 800 was not in great conditions

Yeah, because that'll never happen again.

Here's my final attempt to add some reason to this craziness ...

If you had bet that someone (anyone) would break 3:29, you would have lost that bet in each of the last SEVEN years. And that's a much easier bet to win than the current wager, since here it has to be Wheating that does it.

I would love to be able to bet real money with all you guys who are saying "oh, it's a lock."

Sagarin wrote:

Now, will it be this year? Possibly. I don't think you should dismiss it so easily. On the other hand, a tad under 3:31 to a 3:28.xx is quite a leap, so it's hardly a given, even with a steady block of training. Let the guy break 3:30 and 1:44 first. Those would be awesome feats and confidence boosts heading into 2012.

a drop from 3:30.9 to 3:28 is not something any sane person would predict for a mid career distance runner with years of 3:31/2/3/4's. But for someone new to the European scene who dropped his pr 8 seconds last year??

He ran 3:38 (closing fast) in 2008, 3:40 in 2009, and 3:30 in 2010. Moreover, he ran indoors, out, and Europe in 2010. Training for just one peak in 2011 and 2012, he should do something impressive, if healthy.

See his progressions below:

Another way to say it wrote:

People love to lie about how great they are. After I run a 1:52.99 I naturally want to tell everyone I ran a 1:52. With everybody doing it, lying becomes the norm. Well, that and stupidity.

So you are saying that someone who runs 1:52.99 should say that they ran 1:53.

Following this logic, a person that runs 1:53.50 can say that they ran 1:53 but the person that runs 1:53.51 should say that they ran 1:54.

So given the following results:

1st- 1:52.99

2nd- 1:53.50

3rd- 1:53.51

You would summarize this by saying the first two guys ran 1:53 and the third guy ran 1:54.

jjjjjjjjjj wrote:

Sagarin wrote:

Now, will it be this year? Possibly. I don't think you should dismiss it so easily. On the other hand, a tad under 3:31 to a 3:28.xx is quite a leap, so it's hardly a given, even with a steady block of training. Let the guy break 3:30 and 1:44 first. Those would be awesome feats and confidence boosts heading into 2012.

a drop from 3:30.9 to 3:28 is not something any sane person would predict for a mid career distance runner with years of 3:31/2/3/4's. But for someone new to the European scene who dropped his pr 8 seconds last year??

He ran 3:38 (closing fast) in 2008, 3:40 in 2009, and 3:30 in 2010. Moreover, he ran indoors, out, and Europe in 2010. Training for just one peak in 2011 and 2012, he should do something impressive, if healthy.

See his progressions below:

http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=USA/athcode=240291/index.html

Again, I don't disagree with the logic, but I'm just tempering the enthusiasm. The guy's got to be feeling a lot of pressure since he's grabbed the torch as America's next great 1500-meter runner. I would be happy to see him simply break 1:44 and 3:30 this year and compete well at Daegu. That would reinforce his confidence. Frankly, the guy could run anywhere from 3:28-3:33 this year. If he's capable of taking well over a second off his 800 PR as you assert, then why not discuss the possibility of a 3:27.99? Imagine that?

Let's start a new thread. "Andrew Wheating - Under 3:26 during his career or not?"

the much better question is whether or not he will be able to run like a 3:30 guy for any extended period of time. If he runs 3:30 pt. this season and holds that fitness you gotta call that a great year.

Nope

The first post-collegiate season is often a tough season. He's used to dominating and last year he ran on the European circuit in peak shape after racing the entire collegiate season. Now he has to step in and compete with the big guns without the benefit of a season of confidence boosting wins. I predict he struggles this season but bounces back with some PRs next year.

Wheating actually entered training camp for the New York Jets. He's trying to get a spot on the roster as a wide receiver. He just declared on the IAAF website that he's done with track. Weird.

the terms : "low", "mid" & "high" make best sense & have an easy demarcation

applied to a 3'30 guy :

low - 3'30.00 - 3'30.33

mid - 3'30.34 - 3'30.66

high - 3'30.67 - 3'30.99

I'm surprised the semantics argument took over this thread, but let's just put it this way -- There's an ENORMOUS difference between a 3:29.99 guy and a 3:30.01 guy, even though there's really no difference.

So you are saying that someone who runs 1:52.99 should say that they ran 1:53.

Following this logic, a person that runs 1:53.50 can say that they ran 1:53 but the person that runs 1:53.51 should say that they ran 1:54.

So given the following results:

1st- 1:52.99

2nd- 1:53.50

3rd- 1:53.51

You would summarize this by saying the first two guys ran 1:53 and the third guy ran 1:54.

First things first. Let's remember that 1:53:50 would round UP to 1:54 if you're rounding to the nearest second. So you're example should've used 1:52.99, 1:53.49 and 1:53.50.

With that said, there is a more important point here. There is an inherent flaw to this rounding discussion. You need to carry a certain amount of significant digits to reduce error. We could round all three of the times to the nearest minute and call every runner a 2:00 guy. But I'm sure we can all agree that's silly. Timing systems record times to the ten-thousandth of a second in the event of a tie. We're already rounding (not truncating) the times as is. To do so further only introduces more error into the equation. If you're going to round any further at least keep the tenths of a second. A dishonest runner would call his 1:52.99 a 1:52, implying 1:52.00. An honest runner would call his 1:52.99 a 1:52.99, and could call himself a a sub 1:53 guy, which he is. If he rounds to 1:53 he can no longer say he is a sub 1:53 guy which is not the case, because he is. So the point here is DON'T ROUND YOUR TIMES! There is a difference between someone who runs 1:53.00 and 1:53.01, and rounding makes them appear equal when in fact they're not. Is this sinking in?

This is not a rounding discussion from my perspective.

It is a discussion on how to express a time in minutes and seconds.

There are a number of ways to express a time this way.

You can round it to the nearest second.

You can round up.

You can round down.

You can truncate it.

All legitimate math fuctions.

People are just not going to say or even write the full time in most cases in conversation.

Convention will decide which of the above methods will be used for comparative reasons.

If you actually talk with runners they will say that Alan Webb ran 3:46 for the mile. I'd be surprised to find too many that would say 3:47.

Convention dictates truncation.

We are not already rounding the times as it is.

Times recorded to the 1/100 second are measured to the 1/1000 of a second and rounded "up" to the next 1/100 not rounded to the nearest 1/100.

That is, a time of 9.990 will be a 9.99 but a time of 9.991 will be a 10.00 even though rounding it would produce a 9.99.

That's the rule.

If faced with the question, how many people have run 3:30 or better for the 1500, you could get a variety of correct answers because the criteria is not specific enough.

There is no standard default, technically.

But I bet most would put Wheating on that list.

I absolutely HATE it when people say Bekele is a 26:17 10k runner, when he ONLY ran 26:17.53.

There is a bit of an issue of scale here, tenths of a second aren't nearly as necessary to specify in the 1500m as in the 400m, which is why we drop it. No 46.99 guys say they are "46 second runners", because they know the bits matter in that events. People know the bits don't matter nearly as much in the 1500m.

'Unfortunately it does not work like that, becasue you ran a one time 3:30.9 chasing down the leaders, dosen't make you a legit 3:30 guy'

Hey?

Don't explain there is only so much bs I can read in 1 day

Not happening. If he runs 3:32 more than once this season it would be a suprise. This young man is more of a 400-800m runner than a 1500m runner and he should focus on the 800m but who would want to try and tackle 1:40-1:41 territory, I mean that has got to hurt something terrible to put the training in necessary to go after those times. So, the 1500m is soft, for the 1500m, and he will stick with that and do well, but sub 3:29? Really? While there maybe many races going after the A standard for next year I don't see too many races going after sub 3:29 when 3:35 will do.