FOR TRUE MILERS, 1500 PR < (800 PR * 2)+5 ---- WHAT ABOUT YOU?

800 time is a 1:58, 1600 is a 4:37

1:58 x 2 = 3:56

3:56+4=4:00

Never run a 1500 before and I'm not sure how competitive that a 4:00 would be, but I always felt at home in the 800 even though I loved running the mile a bit more. Guess I'm an 800 guy??

sports statistician wrote:

Guppy wrote:

... this formula is meaningless. Any distance oriented runner is going to be "a true miler!"

It sounds like you are having trouble reading the posts.

As I said above:

"I guess my rule of thumb actually identifies runners whose mile is significantly better than their 800. Which, as some mentioned above, would catch 5000+ specialists, who of course are going to have 1500s that are a lot better than their 800s."

So, again as has been covered above:

1500 > (800*2)+5 ----> SPEED

1500 STRENGTH

800*2 < 1500 < (800*2)+5 ---- GREAT 1500 BALANCE.

(e.g. all of the great milers)

I only read up to the post I quoted, and you did not say or imply the above in your original post. Even with this addendum your formula is meaningless as it tells us nothing we didn't already know. Obviously El G was more of a miler than an 800m runner. Obviously Coe's 800m PR was superior to his 1500m time. Duh. We don't need a formula you cooked up to see that.

You might analyze all the top 1500m runners over the years who've run the 800m frequently enough to conclude their 800m PR was essentially what it should be and find what the average value is for n is in 800m time X 2 = 1500m + n. Is it truly 5? I doubt it given the info you've present thus far.

but he still needs a cutoff though, doesn't he? otherwise he will call non-true milers as true milers (aka 5k, 10k, marathon guys).

so maybe 4-5 for true milers, 3-4 for 5k guys, 1-3 for marathoners. unless i'm reading all of this wrong

twitched wrote:

but he still needs a cutoff though, doesn't he? otherwise he will call non-true milers as true milers (aka 5k, 10k, marathon guys).

so maybe 4-5 for true milers, 3-4 for 5k guys, 1-3 for marathoners. unless i'm reading all of this wrong

You have got it right. That "guppy" guy above obviously didn't read all the posts, because I think he's missing the point, but that's OK.

I like your categories. People with a big inclination toward strength, like 5000/10000/marathon guys who have also run the 8/15, seem to have 1500s that are barely over their 800x2, and sometimes even less - that's from what people are posting here, anyway.

800 guys and 800/1500 guys coming from the speed end seem to have 1500 times that are more than 5 seconds slower that double their 800.

Finally, what I'm calling the "true milers" seem to be in that pocket of 800x2, plus 3 to 5 seconds. I went with 5 for the thread title, but the guys in my very first post are mostly 3-5.

I'd love to collect more examples, but a lot of the time people who were way stronger in the 800 or 1500 never really raced to their potential at the other distance, so it takes some estimation like what Ventolin is doing.

eh ?

all those times are "maybe"

find any poster around here who thinks coe had potential all the way down to low-3'27 in '81 - that's a big "maybe", but what calculator says, so i'll go with it & add 1s for being a better 800 runner than 1500

moron

because they didn't run a 400 in those seasons doesn't mean they didn't have a 400 ability at the time

idiot

asbel ran a low-48 at few 1000' of nairobi altitude on a poor quality dirt track

no one who saw the vid doubted he wasn't good for ~ 47-flat at sea-level on synthetic

this estimate gives him just 0.2s faster which woud come from a coupla attempts at this race to judge optimal pace

moron

for a start, coe's '84 best was 3'32.5 & asbel's 3'30.4

that's already a huge 2s advantage on bests for asbel

coe was good for low-3'29 at best that year

he's a 1500 runner, that's all the estimates need to go upto & his over-distance endurance is good enough to get close to his 1500 potential

moron

watch vid properly

splits were absurd for him :

~ 55.0/54.9/56.7/43.85

flattened-out they give 3'30.20, but the 300/700/1100 & last 200 split, woud get it to at slowest 3'30.0

next, pacing was shit : wabbit didn't even last to 800, leaving him 300 short of expected pacing to 1100, which is another ~ 0.75s -> 3'29.25

i'd also add the wabbit got too far ahead of him from about 200m in to the near 800, which is ~ 600m without expected 2m drafting gap - that's a loss of 1.5s

i woudn't claim he is owed the full 1.5s ( meaning 3'27.75 ) as pacer may have been close enough at points to offer some benefit, but ~ is 0.75 - 1s owed

that gives

3'28.25/3'28.5

nonsense

he went 3'32.5 in '84 & 3'29.77 in '86

the assertion he was a better athlete in '84, meaning over 1500, is ludicrous

moron

'86 had no injury/illness concerns in build up

he was 30y & may have lost fraction of 800 speed, but compensated for by accumulated endurance

he ran 2.75s faster over 1500 than in '84 - if that isn't enough evidence to believe he was a quicker 1500 guy in '86, then you are an idiot

moron

whatever he may have "focused" on, the reality was that he smashed his 1500pb in '86, meaning that whatever his plan had been, his 1500 improved the most, managing only 1'44.10 for 800 - nothing great there & he got whupped that year by gray 1'43.84 to 1'44.17 in stockholm

drivel

no chance of that

uote]ventolin^3 wrote:

eh ?

all those times are "maybe"

[/quote]

No, you specifically stated "maybe" for both of Coe's stats, but did not use this term for the other athletes.

If you're now asserting that "maybe" applies for ALL, then it goes to show that the implication is that all your stats are hypothetical, thus not to be taken seriously.

Never mentioned anything about 81 form/potential for 1500m!

Are you really that obtuse!? That's the whole point! You credit all the others with vastly inflated 400 potential based on what? Nothing concrete, just what you want them to be capable of to fit in with what they may have done at 800. We've already established on another thread this past week that Cram was capable of around 48 flat (give or take a few tenths) when he ran 1:42.8, based on what he was doing in training and what he has said about his 200/400 ability himself. Your constant assertion that he could have run anything from 46.3-46.7 (depending on what mood you are in and which thread you look at on here from the past 2 years), to which the vast majority on here treat with disdain, underlines that your methods for finding potential DO NOT WORK for every athlete.

Coe ACTUALLY ran a 45.6 relay from a standing start with no drafting and 90 mins after a solo 1:44.0 in the first weeken in June. Yet you claim he had a 400 potential that year 0.1 SLOWER than what he actually ran! You are claiming that his peak that year was actually not as good as what he achieved that night. Utter nonsense.

The same with 800m. You give him an absolute limit of 1:41.4, when his race in Florence was worth at least 1:41.5 bar for him running wide to pass Konchellah on the bend.

Coe, it would seem in your eyes, reached his absolute limit in practically everything, whereas as you chop seconds off other runners pbs at the drop of a hat. You be grudge taking 0.3 off his potential for 800m, while taking 9 seconds off what Ryun actually ran for 1500m. Everyone can see how ludicrous this is.

Yeah, off a makeshift track which some posters debated as to whether it was actually 400m long. A few thousand feet altitude helped runners run 400 faster in Mexico City, did it not? But for a Kenyan it slows them down!? Rubbish.

You're the only person who can take a hand held 48 sec training run on a suspect track and convert it into 46 something, while taking an official 45.6 in a proper meet on a certified track and turn it into a 45.7. You're off your bl**dy head.

Factually wrong. Coe's best recorded time was 3:32.3 in 84, not 3:32.5. And his Zurich run was worth much faster with a composite 1:48.0 800m in it and a last 100m of 12.5. His LA and Zurich runs were far more impressive than anything Kiprop has ever done.

Coe ran faster over 800 and 1500 in 85 than he did in 84 or 86. That doesn't mean he was better that year. In fact he was actually a lot worse. So your argument doesn't hold. An athlete will sometimes get close to what their capable of in one season and in others, for a variety of reasons, get nowhere near.

LOL. He was paced to 800m. If you want to start being pedantic with more than 2m giving no drafting then you can take a lot more time off many athlete's best times, including Coe's Rieti run.

That sort of mentality is the reason why you are not taken seriously. Coe was 0.7 secs faster over 800m in 1988 compared to 1980. Are you really suggesting that he was a better half miler at the age of 32 than he was at 23?

Coe did have injury and illness concerns in the build up to 86, you idiot. He had to scrap from the Commonwealths with a chest infection, losing 2 weeks training.

He had lost little speed over 800 in 86, and the idea he had suddenly improved his endurance markedly is ridiculous. His European win in torrential rain in 1:44.5 was after covering about 809m in that race, ruuning in lane 3 for most of the penultimate bend. That was worth at least 1:43.3 that day, and with a last 200 of 24.7, then he was easily capable of sub 1:43 in a paced race with good conditions.

See above! He was narrowly beaten by Gray when he didn't go with the pace in Stockholm. Coe avenged that defeat within a few days in London, winning by a much greater margin. Coe's 1:44.10 that year was of little importance, hence the reason why he was still world ranked # 1 by statisticians with the ability to see beyond just the fastest time he ran.

Coe was a better athlete over 800 and 1500 in 84 than 86. I don't care what your calculator says. It is irrelevant.

Works for me.

I was an 800 runner moved up to 1500.

My 1500 time was double plus 12.7 and I got it down to double plus 2.7.

I would say double plus 5 is where I became a true miler.

moron

"maybe" applies to everyone

you must be an imbecile if you don't know that these are hypothetical - did coe ever run 3'28 let alone 3'27 ???

hypothetical doesn't in any way have any implication as to how seriously to take them

that is a judgement based on experience & intelligence - something you lack

idiot

i did with 1st estimate

imbecile

nothing inflated

coe's comes out at 45.7 in '81 & ovett i get as ~ 47.0 in '78, when he ran 1'44.pb - there is nothing inflated about ovett's estimate as i've seen plenty of claims on boards for him for 46.0+

ovett's 400 is far slower than his great kick suggested

moron

nothing has been established

just you imbecile, quoting non-related comments - nothing about what he believed his 400 speed was in zurich

your peabrain can't comprehend that possibly repping in 23s is consistent with 46.5 ability

moron

the range is given because we don't know how fast his 800 potential was in zurich or his career peak day of oslo, where he mighta been

moron

that was a hand-time

45.6 is upto 0.24s slower auto, which woud give upto 45.84

that is consistent with 45.70 theoretical in firenze - get it into your numbskull

that 45.6 is not even an official clocking - couda been 45.7

more like 1'41.5-low

swerving past billy wasn't worth 0.25s

& there is still huge concern about his time that day - having to wait 1/2 hour for his time to be confirmed - not a "standard" auto-timing in place

f*cking idiot

the 1st estimate gives coe as low-3'27 in '81 with caveat he wasn't as good at 1500 as 800, he wasn't as his 800 time is still top 3, his 1500 isn't, so ~ 3'28.0 is value for him in '81 as possible actual time

idiot

questionable timing & a track hardly ever used for an elite meeting makes a 1'41.4 limit very generous - that race doesn't have same provenance as of having been run at a zurich/oslo/rome/brussels - unquestioned tracks & timing

moron

it coud have been equally probable long rather than short

moron

i do not believe sprint times were helped overall by mexico

the wind/altitude calculator only considers the lower air-resistance due to altitude, it takes no account of the lack of oxygen for running - even 100m runners breathe in a 100m

hines & smith were also running career peak races

- hines 9.95 was probably worth same as sea-level

- smith was postulated as a 19.6 guy sea-level & he went 19.83

- evans 43.86 to me was no slower than what he couda run at sea-level - imo he was in 43.6 shape that day

moron

the race is there for anyone to time

it's a low-48

imbecile

there were no official splits in relays in those days - whatever hand-time any observers thought

there is nothing official about coe's 45.6

get it into your numbskull

drivel

a 3'30.4, which coe only ever beat once, run solo last 700m with poor drafting in 200 - 800 stretch off a far too fast opening 800, is as good any 1500 coe ever ran or couda run in '84

coe's '85 best was 3'32.13

nonsense

he was worse at 1500 in '85 than '84 or '86

his 800 in '86 was shit at 1'44.10 compared to '85 with 1'43.07

no proof at all his '85 800 form was inferior to '86

moron

i'm not talking a 8y gap between times when age has invalidated comparisons, but successive years when ageing isn't a significant factor

idiot

2/52 loss of training is nothing mid-season

all it means is skip a meet & go for a later one

the hard training is done in the previous winter

rudy showed that with missing early season last year, but still able to go 1'41.3 in the end

moron

he mighta been good for high-1'42 in '86, but i quoted a 1'42.5 estimate for him in '84

there was a loss of speed betwen those 2y

a few tenths loss for a 800 guy is a huge number

a 1'43.84 v 1'44.17 is a decent beating, nothing narrow about it

coe isn't that dumb he knew gray was going to charge from the gun, so he clearly didn't have the ability that day

nonsense ranking

cram nearly 1s faster, with 2 fastest times of the year & that awesome 1'43.22

giving coe the 1 ranking because he won only encounter

on a clearly subpar cram day without the quality times of cram was a travesty

imbecile

he wasn't over 1500 in '84

2:08x2=4:16

4:16+5=4:21

Actual 1500, 4:11. I'm more of a 5k guy than 800 though and never ran an 800 the year that I ran the 4:11.

Ultimate Miler wrote:

2:08x2=4:16

4:16+5=4:21

Actual 1500, 4:11. I'm more of a 5k guy than 800 though and never ran an 800 the year that I ran the 4:11.

Sounds like you a true strength man, man!

How about this to see if an 800m runner has moved up to become a miler:

1500m PR= 800m PR X 2.04

1:45 guy runs 3:34.2

1:50 guy runs 3:44.4

1:55 guy runs 3:54.6

2:00 guy runs 4:04.8

2:05 guy runs 4:15.0

A little quicker than double plus 5 (you could use 2.05 to be closer).

But it regresses the 1500m time you need as your 800 gets slower.

Both of these formulas judges an 800m runner moving up and doesn't say much about whether a distance runner should be considered a miler.