What if Mo Farah had gone for a WR 1500m

Deanouk wrote:Edit. I made a mistake

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

big surprise'

That's the difference between him and you .He admits his mistakes like a man You don't despite coming up some howlers.

eg A 'junior' Ethiopian about to set a world record off the back of a short world xc course

Or getting the start point of a 1500m wrong

Or saying Kiprop could run a WR for 800m

Deanouk wrote:

..

Coe ran sub 1:42 on a certified track and ran sub 3:30 for 1500. No one else has done this.

A good example of a meaningless statistic. You arbitrarily picky two numbers out of thin air and imply a certain standard that doesn't exist.

There is NO reasonable relationship b/n sub 1:42 and sub 3:30.

How many people have ever run sub 3:27 and sub 1:44?

See how easy that is?

Wtfunny wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

..

Coe ran sub 1:42 on a certified track and ran sub 3:30 for 1500. No one else has done this.

A good example of a meaningless statistic. You arbitrarily picky two numbers out of thin air and imply a certain standard that doesn't exist.

There is NO reasonable relationship b/n sub 1:42 and sub 3:30.

How many people have ever run sub 3:27 and sub 1:44?

See how easy that is?

It's definitely not a meaningless statistics, but I also see your point.

What Deano wants to say is, that nobody has bettered both Coe's PBs over 800m and 1500m. For sure many others can say the same about themself: El Guerrouj, Rudisha, Kipketer, Lagat, Morceli, Kiprop, Ngeny, Makhloufi, Baala, Souleiman, Cram, and some more, I'm sure. Yes, a not so small group, but still something unique, if your PBs are as good that nobody else has bettered all of them (or just two of them).

And the combination of Coe's marks over 800m and 1500m probably still is the best (Kiprop very close). And Coe has set his marks well over a quarter century back!

see also:

Intersting also to note that our good old friend madman^3 has found something new which is statistically very relevant: the number of lanes of a track is very important for the times you can achieve on this track. It seems he really is the first who pointed on this issue. Nobody of the experts of the last decades could figure this out - but thanks to the oldman^3 the world now is informed. What we now need is a formula which converts a time achieved on an n-lane track to the similar time on an m-lane track. Where the case m=8 seems to be the most important. Really, how is it explicable, that so far nobody realised that the missing of two outside lanes heavily improves the times you can achieve on the inside lane? We all must be blind over so many years,

Also important seems to be more research on the question regarding how times on Mickey Mouse-tracks convert to times on Goofy-tracks, Donald Duck-tracks or Speedy Gonzales-tracks.

Haha nice post.

Yeah I think Deano was pointing out that only one man has ever broken 1:42 and 3:30 in real life, but Venty likes to pretend that it is pretty much a given that these 3:28 and faster guys could all run 1:41.

Basically, Ventolin dislikes Coe with such a passion (maybe he upset him once in the 80's) that he has a three pronged approach to disregarding his achievements:

1. Go on about the track apparently being small.

2. Disregard the electronic and 3 hand times of the event as inaccurate (all were sub 1:42 times).

3. Say that every middle distance runner ever could have run 1:41.5 anyway.

I guess it keeps us all occupied.

Basically, all that says is the top 800m runners aren't running 1500m races today. probably because being a 3:30 1500m runner in a world where the WR is 4 seconds faster than that won't be as useful as it once was.

Sub 1:42 isn't an equitable time with sub 3:30. It's like saying how many people have run sub 19.7 and 44.5.

That statement puts Michael Johnson and Xavier Carter on (a) their own pedestal and (b) equal footing.

If Ventolin said that, you'd call it absurd and meaningless (with good reason).

5 people have EVER run under 1.42.

25 have run under 3:30.

If we take the top 5 1500m athletes, that time would be 3:27.64 .. more than 2 seconds faster than Coe ever ran.

In other words, Coe was an exceptionally rare 800m runner with a great 1500m time.

Here's another example of how pointless this stat might be.

Wayde van Niekerk has ever run sub 10 and sub 43.5. No one else in the world ever has done this.

But do you not think that the fact that only Coe has broken 1:42 and 3:30 shows how difficult it is? And that Ventolin claiming Souleiman, Kiprop, Guerrouj, countless others could easily break 1:42 is absurd based on that statistic. It is clearly a very rare achievement.

If 1:42 and 3:30 are equal times, is not very important for this point. Coe is the only runner who has bettered both. Running some 30 years back. (sub 1:42 might be superior to sub 3:30, but not as much as your numbers indicate - I still believe that the 1500m level is little superior to the 800 level. But that's not very important for the subject at all). And forcsure is sub 3:30 still a fantastic time. There are seasons where nobody betters thisctime.

If it's a meaningless stat for you, that's fine, for me it's not meaningless at all.

You can change the stat to: only runner sub 1:42.88 (25 athletes) and sub 3:30... And he has bettered one of these marks by big margin.

WvN only runner sub 10 and sub 43:50? Great statistic. MJ could have done this too, but he hasn't.

Do you really see Kipketer, Rudisha, Amos... in the class of Coe over 1500m? I don't. Even while trying.

Sure, Coe is the only runner who has bettered both. But unless there's some reasonably comparative relationship between the two numbers, it's meaningless. As it is, the only real relationship is that they're two numbers that only Coe has run faster than. No one else. If we lower the 3:30 by less than 3/tenths of a second, nobody has run faster than both. It's just an arbitrary parameter.

Just shift the sub 1:42 a little the other direction, and Coe isn't alone at all. It's simply picking a parameter to make a point. Stats should work the other way.

How is sub 1:42 not as superior to sub 3:30 as the numbers indicate? You're sounding an awful like ^3 now :)

Rudisha over 15? I don't know. Kipketer? I think so. Who knows. Do I see Coe in their class over 800m? Absolutely not. Do I see Coe in the class of Kiprop, Lagat, El G, Ngeny over 1500m? Absolutely not. I don't think he'd have beaten Daniel Komen over 1500m. And Komen would've walked his socks off over 3000m and 5000m. So what does that say? Really? Nothing.

Coe was a great runner. There's nothing gained by drawing some arbitrary number and defining him by that.

I don't get your point. Only Seb Coe has run under 3:30 and 1:42 so therefore it is extremely hard to do.

? Confused wrote:

I don't get your point. Only Seb Coe has run under 3:30 and 1:42 so therefore it is extremely hard to do.

Ahhh .. that's the standard? "extremely hard to do"?

Running under 3:32 is "extremely hard to do".

Running under 13 is "extremely hard to do" too .. and so hard Seb Coe didn't do it?

The logic is peculiarly circular. Pick a metric that only Seb Coe has met, and then use that metric to define his uniqueness? it seems pointless to me unless there's some other relationship between the two (otherwise) arbitrary numbers.

wtfunny wrote:Absolutely not. I don't think he'd have beaten Daniel Komen over 1500m

komen's career best performance may actually the berlin mile of '97 where he ran 3'46+ ( already quicker than coe )

he was nearly fell over twice at start in criminally large field, as a result turned straight R into lane 3 !!!

then he made a suidical sprint in lane 3 to get near pacer !!!

he used his finishing sprint in 1st coupla 100m of race !!!

there was also some lack of drafting as pacers too far ahead & passed way before bell & he paced hicham

he ran ~ 10+m extra in that race with a wrecking suicidal sprint at the start, some lack of drafting & still finished with ~ 54-low !!! for last 400m with wide running last bend & still managed to clock 3'46-low !!!

if that had been a small field with no hicham to obscure tactics & smoothly paced to bell, komen coud probably have gone at worst

~ 3'44-flat

& possibly into the 3'43s

no

his firenze run had no auto-time

no

learn to read

a "pure 1500 guy" who runs 3'28.00, i'd expect 800 of

~ 1'43-flat

nonsense

i only offer objectivity

i'm afraid unknown meet with 6 lane track is a laughable

there are no 6 lane tracks for any serious meet nowdays

6 lane track shows a track just been stuck into a stadium which likely has other main sporting priority rather than track

lack of seriousness on stadium-owners part

there is reason iaaf not interested in them nowdays

utter nonsense

what auto-time ???

there was no auto-time !!!

the time submitted was photo-electric which iaaf have never accepted for ratification purposes

it was not a full auto-time

hand-times can be way off :

see rono's hand times for his 13'06.20WR

the hand-times for a 1'54.85 women's wr of era included 1'54.6 !! & 1'54.5 !!!

hand times were way off compared to auto-timing for a contemporary 800 wr on distaff side

nonsense

learn to read

Souly shows that a 1500 guy can run ~ 1'41.5 intrinsic off mostly 1500 training & only coupla years of serious 800 running !!!

any guy who runs 3'26/3'43 as "pure 1500 guy" shoud expect a time ~ 1'42-flat with +/- depending on their individual characteristics

Kiprop has run the 800m at least once every year but these are his best marks. Go ahed and waste your time finding an excuse why he didn't run sub 1:42 or your potential WR in each one:

2015

Performance

1:45.11

Place

Doha (Hamad Bin Suhaim)

Date

15 MAY

2014

Performance

1:43.34

Place

Paris Saint-Denis (Stade de France)

Date

05 JUL

2013

Performance

1:45.54

Place

Roma (Stadio Olimpico)

Date

06 JUN

2012

Performance

1:45.91

Place

Sydney (SOPAC)

Date

18 FEB

2011

Performance

1:43.15

Place

Monaco (Stade Louis II)

Date

22 JUL

2010

Performance

1:43.45

Place

Doha (Hamad Bin Suhaim)

Date

14 MAY

2009

Performance

1:43.17

Place

Doha

Date

08 MAY

2008

Performance

1:44.71

Place

Lausanne (Pontaise)

Date

02 SEP

wtfunny wrote:

? Confused wrote:

I don't get your point. Only Seb Coe has run under 3:30 and 1:42 so therefore it is extremely hard to do.

Ahhh .. that's the standard? "extremely hard to do"?

Running under 3:32 is "extremely hard to do".

Running under 13 is "extremely hard to do" too .. and so hard Seb Coe didn't do it?

The logic is peculiarly circular. Pick a metric that only Seb Coe has met, and then use that metric to define his uniqueness? it seems pointless to me unless there's some other relationship between the two (otherwise) arbitrary numbers.

You don't agree with that poster on any level? I too am unsure of the point you are making.

Of course sub 3:32 is a great achievement but surely you can compare that sub 3:32 < sub 43.3 for example?

Remove Seb Coe from it. Only one man has run under 9.6 so it is extremely hard. Only one man under 1:41 so it is extremely hard. Only one man under 19.2 so it is extremely hard. Only one man under 7:23 so extremely hard. Only one man under 3:30 and 1:42 so that makes it extremely hard and a very rare achievement.

It is just an observation. It is like saying it is rare to be over 7ft tall. If you are just being pedantic over the language then replace 'extremely hard' with 'unique' or 'rare'.

The fact that it is a rare achievement means that it isn't as easy as Ventolin thinks, out of all the middle distance runners ever who ran both the 800 and 1500 only one has had the speed and endurance balance to achieve sub 1:42 and sub 3:30. This means that even for Kiprop who has run 3:26, sub 1:42 will be extremely hard.

What's your counter argument? That is isn't hard? That more have run both under 1:42 and 3:30 but everyone forgot? Or that more should have but didn't? What's the point?

I sound like the madman^3? Maybe you can explain that. Do you really think any nth best performers in any event have achieved performances of equal level? Definitely not.

LJ Nr 40 all time 8.45m

1500 Nr 40 all time 3:30.40

The first is much further behind the WR and I think the 2nd is of much higher quality.

800m Nr 5 all time 1:41.77

1500m Nr 5 all time 3:27.64

Again, I believe the 1500m mark is of higher quality. This might be wrong. But it also is not very important for the point in discussion.

Rudisha is the only athlete under 1:41.00. While changing the time for 9 resp. 12 1/100 the statement would be wrong. So I choose the numbers just for clarifying my point (Rudisha is the fastest all-time over 800m). Only under 1:41.04 also would be true, but I think most people like more "even " numbers.

But I agree that the numbers 1:42 and 3:30 are not perfectly choosen. Coe also is the only one under 1:42 and 3:34.5.

Or under 1:42.8 and 3:30.

I also don't understand your point regarding Komen at all. He might be win against Coe more often over 1500m and maybe would lap him over 5000m. And so what?

The point is Coe's uniqueness over 800m/1500m.

You also could have stated that Coe would have no chance against Lewis in LJ, Bubka in PV or Pele in football and Ali in boxing. But again: and so what?

So if the point is that this feat is extremely hard to do, well that doesn't really narrow it down, does it? Almost everything elite athletes do is "extremely hard to do". But if we just pick arbitrary numbers, we can broaden that field to include tons of people simply by changing parameters.

The parameters are drawn to narrow the field down to one. And we can do that almost endlessly.

Sub 1:42 is a phenomenal time. Today, guys that are capable of that time have zero incentive to run a 1500m, because a 3:30 time isn't going to win them much of anything against guys who are 2 or 3 seconds faster.

Do I think Kiprop can run sub 1:42? If he focused on the 800m for a season and got in the right race, yes. But his focus is on running sub 3:26, not sub 1:42.

Coe's PBs put him on par with Wayde van Niekierk as an athlete over varied distances.

The point about Komen is simply to reillustrate that when we define parameters with such arbitrary numbers, the conclusions aren't necessarily very useful.

Sub 1:42.8 and sub 3:30 = Coe.

Sub 1:43.2 and sub 3:27 = Asbel Kiprop.

We can perhaps conclude Coe was a faster 800m runner and a slower 1500m runner than Kiprop.

Kiprop is about 3/4 sec off the WR in the 1500m. Coe is about the same from the 800m WR.

Numbers aren't super important unless there is some meaningful relationship between them.

I think you're overstating the greatness of sub 3:30.

Coe's uniqueness over the two distances is better measured by his WRs and his medals than some arbitrary times. IIRC, no one else has held both WRs, correct?

wtfunny wrote:

I think you're overstating the greatness of sub 3:30.

Coe's uniqueness over the two distances is better measured by his WRs and his medals than some arbitrary times. IIRC, no one else has held both WRs, correct?

Maybe, but I generally think the level over 1500m is little bit higher than the level over 800m.

Otto Peltzer has held both.

Peter Snell has held the 800m, 1000m and Mile and was 2nd fastes ever over 1500m (which he almost never ran)

Jim Ryun has held the 1500m and Mile and his 880y at least was even to the 800m WR.

1:42 is an arbitrary time correct. All marks are arbitrary. But the discussion here (despite the thread title lol) was about whether Kiprop could break 1:42. And following that someone pointed out that only Coe has gone sub 3:30 out of the sub 1:42 guys. This shows that it is difficult to have both the speed required to break 1:42 and the endurance required to break even 3:30. They are related, I'm not saying only one man has broken 1:42 and can solve a Rubik's cube in under a minute, we are talking about middle distance running here.