Do any elite men see the 1500 and mile WR's as attainable?

But as people have repeatedly pointed out - the only reason that your model "fits" for those athletes is on the basis of you arbitrarily deciding for some athletes that they "should" have run faster. The actual data does not agree with your model.

I'm not going to continue arguing as you don't understand what you're doing or have a cogent grip of the arguments. Again when you're dealing with "extreme values" - which 3:26 athletes are then you don't have "500 athletes" to base your predictions on but single digits.

You just don't have a solid grip of statistical theory and regressions necessary to do the theoretical work needed - your athletics knowledge is fine apart from your ludicrous attempts to arbitrarily decide new values for athlete's PBs - but the model just isn't good enough and especially around 3:26 level performances.

ventolin^3 wrote:

get your wallet out & try this :

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

3'26.0 with

1'47.0 ->7'03.9 , 12'01.0 , 24'41.5

1'46.0 ->7'08.0 , 12'13.0 , 25'19.2

1'45.0 ->7'12.2 , 12'25.0 , 25'57.0

1'44.0 ->7'16.3 , 12'36.9 , 26'34.7

1'43.75 ->7'17.3 , 12'39.9 , 26'44.1

1'43.50 ->7'18.4 , 12'42.9 , 26'53.6

1'43.25 ->7'19.4 , 12'45.9 , 27'03.0

1'43.00 ->7'20.4 , 12'48.9 , 27'12.4

1'42.75 ->7'21.5 , 12'51.9 , 27'21.9

1'42.50 ->7'22.5 , 12'54.9 , 27'31.3

1'42.25 ->7'23.5 , 12'57.9 , 27'40.7

1'42.00 ->7'24.6 , 13'00.9 , 27'50.1

those are enough

do your own analysis of those & come up with your own conclusion

Conclusion

------------------

A meaningless list of figures.

ventolin^3 wrote:

Obviously Like Duh wrote:

EPO boosts performance to the degree to which an event is aerobic. This is why 1:44-1:46 types can run 3:26ish times in the modern (post EPO) era. The argument that "you need 1:43 speed to run 3:26" may well hold true for hypothetical clean athletes, but of course those running 3:26 are not clean.

that is not correct

800m has a significant aerobic component ( obviously less than 1500m )

This was his point. You are just too stupid to understand.

BrynR wrote:

But as people have repeatedly pointed out - the only reason that your model "fits" for those athletes is on the basis of you arbitrarily deciding for some athletes that they "should" have run faster. The actual data does not agree with your model.

Ventolin never lets reality interfere with his models.

obviously you can't read

i said you have to look at the races some of these athletes ran & take into account factors such as no effective wabbiting or significant pace variations to estimate what their "true" ability was

classic example is jim ryun who ran a 3'33.1wr which was beaten by bayi & then many others

if you'd bothered to look at his splits, you'd realise he jogged the initial 300 & blasted the last 1200 - a time "flattened out" using accepted power output models as ~ 3'30 on dirt, worth several secs faster on synthetic

nonsense

i have tried it on countless "extreme values" at other events, "comparable" to 3'26 :

a 3'29/12'39 predicting 7'20

a 12'37/26'17 predicting 3'31/3'32

a 12'39/26'22 predicting a 3'30

a 4'01/8'22 predicting a 30'01

a 1'56/1'57 with a 3'51 predicting a 8'06

in a decade or 2 time, a runner may go 47.0/1'42.0, it predicts that if he can run 1500 as well as those, he can expect upto ~ 3'24.9

it also works for equine athletes, predicting secretariat ( [running at nearly x 2.5 the speed of a 3'26 guy ) couda run within 0.5s of dr fager's then mile record of 1'32.2 - just what many horse-racing experts have predicted

nonsense

if you think trying out close to 500 elite performers in running/horse-racing & swimming & not finding one which was significantly in error taking into account race histories, then i'm afraid you are the one without a clue about staistics - work out the error function of that

predictors do quite well outside of the extremes, which is why you get some very odd predictors for the best runners extrapolated to 3k sometimes (7:20 is very solid and others haven't come close, despite many attempts, yet your predictor suggests 7:18 or better), or if we go down and look at what a mid d runner should run in the sprints. El G didn't run 800s and he crushed the last 800m in a championship race (or 10x400 w/30s rest, in 53/54: I'll give him a fast 800), but Lagat has really run a lot of 800s with nothing sub 1:46, so I can't give him better than a 1:44 in 01/04 at his peak.

worth looking at hicham's 1 serious shot at the 3k

he ran 7'23 but it was the most appalling wabbited race - iirc, they went thru a derisory 1k in about 2'29/2'30 & he then put in a stupendous 2nd k of near 2'23 for a 4'53+

at the time, i thought that was a suicidal km & he woud die a terrible death in the last km & lucky to get close to 7'25

to actually rally to 7'23 was a herculean effort

anyone who saw that race wouda have no doubt he couda gone 7'20 that day off 2'27/4'54

it also works for equine athletes, predicting secretariat ( [running at nearly x 2.5 the speed of a 3'26 guy ) couda run within 0.5s of dr fager's then mile record of 1'32.2 - just what many horse-racing experts have predicted

This just demonstrates what a pile of crap that calculator is. How do you account for the facts that Secretariat carried 126 pounds and Dr. Fager 134, and that Secretariat ran on the mile and a half track at Belmont, while Dr. Fager ran at the mile and a furlong track at Arlington? What about the fact that Secreatriat was a 3 year old and Dr. Fager was 4 when they set their records.

I can't believe how ventolin has been able to hijack this thread.

Why people entertain him, I'm not certain.

Maybe it's an undying belief in the value of rational discourse and argumentation, and that everyone can be "shown the light".

Such a hope completely discounts various personality types, and motives.

Ventolin should be as ignored as he is ignorant.

I think you 're right Sprint Geezer- it's impressive as I don't think many people would pay much credence to anyone who just put numbers into Mcmillan and kept on arguing them in the face of significant evidence that they're wrong. You're totally right though - just need to totally ignore the bloke.

Going back to the original question in the thread- I think it's a combination of two things mainly...

Firstly that the athletes right now just aren't physically able to run the lightning-fast times of the past. I think that can be seen in the way Lagat still manages to stay competitive despite being some way off his prime. I think that Kiprop looks like a very talented individual but doesn't seem hugely interested in chasing times. This may change in the future

Secondly the field is too level. A lot of the really fast times seem to come from races where El G went with fast pacemakers and the other athletes knew they just needed to cling onto him for as long as possible. At the moment I don't think anyone is as confident as El G could be to go out dead with the pacemakers and know when they drop out you'll be sitting there for everyone else to go past.

I think that when an athlete more capable (or as kiprop matures) comes along then we'll see more races taken out fast and other runners just hanging on. Oddly enough I have a feeling it's more likely to come from Kaki than Rudisha.

Obviously Like Duh wrote:

EPO boosts performance to the degree to which an event is aerobic. This is why 1:44-1:46 types can run 3:26ish times in the modern (post EPO) era. The argument that "you need 1:43 speed to run 3:26" may well hold true for hypothetical clean athletes, but of course those running 3:26 are not clean.

BS. 3.26 has been runner by clean runners and can be broken by a clean runner. You have been brainwashed by the druggie paranoia brigade.

no idiot, it demonstrates you are clueless about horse-racing

i suggest you look up the age-for-weight scale & find out for yourself :

1) why it exists

2) what it is for 3y ole v 4y ole over 1 mile & 1 1/2 miles

the rotational force difference between tracks of this size are negligible

more significant is the degree of uphill/downhill, which for american tracks is minimal compared to legendary euro courses hundreds of years ole - most notable being upward segment of the straight rowley mile at newmarket, home of premier 1 mile classic for 3y oles, the 2000 guineas, or the large uphill of tattenham corner of the legendary epsom course ( the original derby )

see above

& the record books don't discriminate on age - you run a wr, they'll list it, along with the handicap weight & age

BrynR wrote:it's impressive as I don't think many people would pay much credence to anyone who just put numbers into Mcmillan and kept on arguing them in the face of significant evidence that they're wrong

clueless

i have never used the macmillan calc in my life & it's results are laughable from what results i've seen quoted here on this board by people

that jundo calc is nothing at all like macmillan

Great thread! I have absolutely no problem believing El G, Ngeny and Lagat had the fitness to run 1:43.xx in their career. I also think that any runner who runs 3:26 is capable of hitting the same mark in the 800.

Just look at it this way:

Bernard Lagat

3:26.34 1500 = 55.02sec/400m

1:46.00 800 = 53.00sec/400m

That's 2.02 seconds slower per 400 moving up from 800m to 1500m. More exactly, it's a slowing of 3.6% for every 400m. Unbelievable! Extrapolate that:

For a 1:50 800 runner:

(1:50/2) x 1.0373 x 3.75 = 3:33.94 1500m

How many 3:33 1500m runners do you think there are who cannot break 1:50 for the 800.....

For a 2:00 800m runner:

(2:00/2) x 1.0373 x 3.75 = 3:53.39 1500m

Again, I don't know anyone with an 800 PR over 2:00 that can run a 1500m at 62.2/400m pace.

If you think Bernard Lagat, who has a 1500m 3 seconds faster than Seb Coe, would at his best lose to Coe in an 800m by more than 4 seconds, you are absolutely idiotic.

Drugs or no drugs, it is impossible for someone to only slow 2 seconds per 400 when moving up from 800 to 1500.

hehe ur funnneeeee : - )

come on now, its all in good fun. im just a big teddy bear, i love you guys. ur all silly like me. tee hee :D

Sprint Geezer wrote:

I can't believe how ventolin has been able to hijack this thread.

Why people entertain him, I'm not certain.

Maybe it's an undying belief in the value of rational discourse and argumentation, and that everyone can be "shown the light".

Such a hope completely discounts various personality types, and motives.

Ventolin should be as ignored as he is ignorant.

i suggest you look up the age-for-weight scale & find out for yourself

Since the Belmont is a Stakes race and Dr Fager ran his record in a handicap, Weight for Age scales don't apply.

the rotational force difference between tracks of this size are negligible

Maybe at human speeds, but at racehorse speeds the difference is very, very important.

the large uphill of tattenham corner of the legendary epsom course

Err ... obviously it's not that legendary, since Tattenham Corner goes downhill!

& the record books don't discriminate on age - you run a wr, they'll list it, along with the handicap weight & age

a) Secretariat didn't run under a "handicap weight" - the Triple Crown races are run at level weights.

b) Horse racing speed records don't differentiate between age groups, because such records are essentially meaningless. Records are just as likely to be held by claimers as by stakes horses. But the difference between ages 3 and 4 in the Thoroughbred is the equivalent between junior and senior competition in humans, so it needs to be accounted for.

If you are comparing Secretariat's run in the Belmont (when he was 3, and still immature) in June to Dr Fager's run in the Washington Park Handicap, in August, when he was 4, you are going to have to take their ages into account.

c) The biggest problem you face is the fact that Dr Fager ran his record in a handicap - a race designed so that, if the handicapper has it right, then the result is a multiple dead-heat. If you are contending that Secretariat would have beaten Dr Fager, then in the handicap Dr Fager would be carrying less weight, so he'd be able to go faster.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble again, but any answer your crapulator gave you about Secretariat is just as bogus as your silly human calculations.

ventolin^3 wrote:

...the large uphill of tattenham corner of the legendary epsom course ( the original derby )...

My poor kid had to run several XC races in the "Epsom Downs League", which pretty much goes around the top half of that course.

I can verify that it's a bleak, windswept, rain-lashed monster hill that grinds on forever and the perfect way to put U13 kids off cross-country. You certainly couldn't compare a lap on that to a sheltered flat course. Good thing the horses have no choice ;-)

And it's quite clear that yourself and "wellnow" are just aliases for the idiot Ventolin/Eldrik who owns the Jundo predictor. The other posters are right, he/you are best ignored.