I post on here fairly often and am not associated with ventolin. I made one post, and it's not even up for argument: A runner who can't break 1:45 will not be the one to break the 1500m WR.
I post on here fairly often and am not associated with ventolin. I made one post, and it's not even up for argument: A runner who can't break 1:45 will not be the one to break the 1500m WR.
It is certainly attainable and in fact it is perhaps more attainable than many other records; however, I don’t see anyone out there now or on the horizon who will come with 2 seconds of the record. I thought Lagat had the best chance, but when El G retired, he didn’t have a rabbit anymore. A couple years ago, I though Webb, Komen (#3), Alex Kipchirchir or Choge would get close, but they all ended up going backwards. No one talks about getting the record, because you can’t discuss running 3:26 if you are only 3:30 and until you have a couple of sub-3:30s guys push each other, you want even get to 3:28.
I agree with what some people have said that it will with take someone with 1:43 800m capabilities and/or the strength to run a world class 5K. Even though Lagat and ElG did not have great 800m credentials, I don’t think anyone seriously believes that both of them didn’t have at least 1:44 800 capabilities in their prime.
It will definitely be broken because every couple of years there is some incredibility talented African phenom who comes along; we just need to wait for the next one. Or you get someone like ElG and Paula Radcliff for example will come along who lives a monastic life singularly focused on one pursuit. I think Komen’s 3K and KB’s 5K records are stronger when you consider the best athletes in world only run 7:30 and 12:50 now-a-days.
'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.'
No, but if you think a runner who has on numerous occasions failed to run faster than 1:46 can run 1:43.0 what does that make you?
I am dealing in the facts, you are dealing in idle speculation
If you look at Kevin Sullivan back in his prime (2000), he ran 3.31.71 off of a PR of 1.47.06. His multiplier was 1.98x 800m = 1500m (1.47x1.98=3.31.9), so that would put (the reverse) Lagat/EL G (same ages as Sullivan, both born in 1974)at 3.26/1.98 = 1.44! All three were "endurance" guys, even if their 5000m times didn't show it, how many 5000's did these guys even run at that point? Sully could surely have run low-13's, he just didn't give a damn as the 1500m/Mile was THE event to him (as it was to Lagat and El G).
Lagat is too old to get anywhere near that 3.26 now, and in fact might have been capable of sub-12.50 back in the early 2000's (if his mileage supported this level), again he isn't the runner now at 37 this year (why should he be) that he was then (nor is Sullivan for that matter), and he ran 12.54 this year.
As to the OP's question, I don't see anyone right now capable of it, it will require good endurance (good 5k - sub 12.50) and good speed (sub 1.44), and the right competition!! El G was (as the previous poster rightfully surmised) the catalyst, with his obsessive desire for records, along with Ngeny and Lagat pushing him to his limit. I don't think that Kiprop has the strength, and too many other Kenyans (think Choge) will burn out too soon after stellar Junior careers.
A more middle-distance oriented guy (like Coe/Cram) who has 1.42 speed might have a chance - the Coe/Cram/Ovett era spent too much time avoiding each other, and guys like Walker and Scott raced too damn much to have a chance - BUT too few M-D guys double seriously enough to also develop that speed, the 800m has become a specialist event on the GP circuit. I thought that Webb might get there, but seems unlikely now as he hasn't appeared this year and will be 28 next year (getting a little older), and each year removes him from his best in 2007.
I didn't say he could run it today, I said that he was capable of a sub-1:44 in his prime. That is a fact. Not speculation. By your logic, if you gave Seb Coe drugs, then he would run 3:17 for the 1500 because he would've had Lagat's ridiculous 2-second endurance. Since he was a whopping 12 seconds away from his potential, then he must be considered a tremendous failure in the 1500m.
Think about this, if 1:46 was Lagat's absolute best potential performance, then what would have been his best possible 400m?
Again, Coe and Cram, who had above average endurance for 800m runners, averaged about 4 seconds slower per 400m when moving up to 800m.
Give Lagat, another strong endurance runner, that same 4 second conversion and you get a 400m best of 49 seconds. 49! A double olympic gold medal winner and the second fastest man ever at 1500m could only run a 400 in 49?!?!?
I'd like to think Lagat could run at least a 47.0 for the 400m, but then you have the conundrum of him dropping 6 seconds per 400m when moving up to 800m, and then having the greatest endurance improvement ever when moving up to the 1500m. It just doesn't add up. Have you ever run competitively?
47 - 1:43.5 - 3:26.5 = makes sense
49 - 1:46.0 - 3:26.5 = terrible speed and simultaneously atrocious lack of 400-to-800 improvment and the greatest 800-to-1500 endurance ever. In short, makes no sense, and if you take it as some sort of fact, you are a dummy.
The 1500 and mile records are attainable, it's the nature of the sport.
Lagat's last 800 in Athens was 1:46.8.
Let's use our brains here guys. I know his best open 800 is 1:46.0, but doesn't closing in 1:46.8 indicate that he was capable of significantly faster than that? Seriously. I hate to agree with ventolin because he is a douche and invents pr's for people, but Lagat was capable of faster than 1:46, any reasonable person would agree based on Athens 2004.
I won't venture a guess how fast, but let's stop with the 1:46 BS.
Lagat like ElG started out running long distance and worked their way down to the 800. As a pro, they never focused on the 800, didn't train for it and never ran it in big events. But, Lagat ran 1:46 flat when he was in the NCAA back when he was running 3:55 in the mile. Now, if you think Lagat was still only capable of a 1:46 800 when he got down to 3:47 in the mile...then I've got some beach front poperty in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
You simply can't run a 3:26 1500 with 1:46 800 capabilities. Most of your top NCAA milers are 'capable' of running a 1:46 800.
only me wrote:Since the Belmont is a Stakes race and Dr Fager ran his record in a handicap, Weight for Age scales don't apply
err...
they woud if secretariat had run in it as either a 3y ole or a 4y ole
Maybe at human speeds, but at racehorse speeds the difference is very, very important
no
learn some physics : v^2/r for 16 - 17m/s at curves of radii 160m+ has very little effect on slowing the horse
Err ... obviously it's not that legendary, since Tattenham Corner goes downhill!
it goes uphill before it goes downhill
a) Secretariat didn't run under a "handicap weight" - the Triple Crown races are run at level weights
why are you posting the absolute obvious ??
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
few if any carry more than 126 - dr fager as a 4y ole was exceptional - no horse has run faster on dirt 40y later despite most carrying far less
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
why are you posting the absolute obvious ?
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
i asked you for the weight-allowance - where is it ??
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
why are you stating the absolute obvious ?
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
it depends totally upon whether secretariat wouda run the race as a 3y ole ( where he woud have been given weight to dr fager ) or as a 4y ole
impress me, what do you think he woud have been handicapped as a 4y ole over a mile ???
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.
nonsense
you clearly are clueless : those are predictions for secretariat as a 3y ole based on his runs at churchill downs & belmont park carrying the obvious 126 thruout - using that he is 1/2s shy of dr fager
if you had a clue about handicapping, you wouda realised that if he'd run as 4y ole, he wouda been handicapped with a weight commensurate to give him exact same time as a 4y ole
hicham has even slower listed pr of 1'47.18 !
watch this race :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTNBLDrkJH8
his 1st lap is ~ 53.3 ( from someone who i trust & analysed a better quality vid )
his last lap from same guy's analysis was 52.6
that is a composite
1'45.9
also, he ran ~ 28.8 for 900 - 1100m segment ( my analysis ), which means a composite 1k
2'14.7
compared to his pb of 2'16.85 !!!
You need to read my response again
You asked do you really think he would be more than 4 seconds slower than Coe.
I replied 'No':
No, but if you think a runner who has on numerous occasions failed to run faster than 1:46 can run 1:43.0 what does that make you?
I didn't say he could only run 1:46 I said there is no way even at his best that he was running 1:43.0. Even you have him slower than that
If you look at the sub: 3:29 runners they have an 800m pr a lot slower than you would expect
TrackCoach wrote:
Lagat like ElG started out running long distance and worked their way down to the 800. As a pro, they never focused on the 800, didn't train for it and never ran it in big events. But, Lagat ran 1:46 flat when he was in the NCAA back when he was running 3:55 in the mile. Now, if you think Lagat was still only capable of a 1:46 800 when he got down to 3:47 in the mile...then I've got some beach front poperty in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
You simply can't run a 3:26 1500 with 1:46 800 capabilities. Most of your top NCAA milers are 'capable' of running a 1:46 800.
He also ran 1:46 when he was running 3:28 and 3:30. He ran many 800's in his career and never broke 1:46. I seem to remember Scott was a 3:47 miler but I can't remember him breaking 1:45.
I don't doubt that Lagat had the potential to run faster than 1:46, but the fact is that he didn't, despite being in many 1:44 races. He had ample opportunities to do so. The claim he coulds, shoulda run 1:43.0 is based on someone's insistence that he must have been in order to validate a system which is not proven to work. You can't rely on a universal system that cen be applied to all athletes. It might give you an idea, but nothing is full proof, and it doesn't work for many athletes in reality, forget about some fantasy parallel universe where everyone runs there fastest in perfect conditions with perfect wabbiting, etc.
The fact that Lagat could run 3:26 in an era when EPO was rife (regardless of testing coming in in 2000 - the test certainly didn't catch everyone)does not guarantee 1:43.0 ability for 800m. Maybe if he'd run low 1:44's in those races he was in, one could give him the benefit of the doubt, but he came nowhere near. If he'd run a 47.** 400m then that could be used to justify a 1:43 potential, but no such evidence exists.
Given perfect pace and competition at his peak, you can give him no more than mid 1:44.
ventolin^3 wrote:
hicham has even slower listed pr of 1'47.18 !
watch this race :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTNBLDrkJH8his 1st lap is ~ 53.3 ( from someone who i trust & analysed a better quality vid )
his last lap from same guy's analysis was 52.6
that is a composite
1'45.9
also, he ran ~ 28.8 for 900 - 1100m segment ( my analysis ), which means a composite 1k
2'14.7
compared to his pb of 2'16.85 !!!
Yeah I know! Wasn't EPO great!!!!!!
UKFA Adidas wrote:
You can't rely on a universal system that cen be applied to all athletes. It might give you an idea, but nothing is full proof, and it doesn't work for many athletes in reality, forget about some fantasy parallel universe where everyone runs there fastest in perfect conditions with perfect wabbiting, etc.
The only "system" on which I'm relying is the fact that a runner cannot just double his 800 PR, subtract six seconds, and get his 1500m PR.
Try that with any runner you have ever known or heard of. It's universally impossible.
Name me one 3:42 1500m runner who can't break 1:54.
Tell me one person you know who has broken 5:00 in the mile who can't break 2:23.
That's what we're dealing with here.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
UKFA Adidas wrote:You can't rely on a universal system that cen be applied to all athletes. It might give you an idea, but nothing is full proof, and it doesn't work for many athletes in reality, forget about some fantasy parallel universe where everyone runs there fastest in perfect conditions with perfect wabbiting, etc.
The only "system" on which I'm relying is the fact that a runner cannot just double his 800 PR, subtract six seconds, and get his 1500m PR.
Try that with any runner you have ever known or heard of. It's universally impossible.
Name me one 3:42 1500m runner who can't break 1:54.
Tell me one person you know who has broken 5:00 in the mile who can't break 2:23.
That's what we're dealing with here.
I wasn't actually referring to your system. I was talking about Ventolin. I'm sure what you said has merit. But I don't hold much faith in a system that says if X runs A for 1500m then his best at 800m must be B.
Check out:
Carl Lewis's 400 PR
Wilson Kipkiter's 400/1500 PR
Sebastion Coe's 3k/5k PR
Matt Teg 10k PR
Ritz 10k PR
Bekele 1500 PR
Defar/Dibabia 1500 PR
Michael Johnson's 100M PR
...the term I used was 'capable', not what they actually did it. Only a fool would think Carl Lewis was only capable of 47 is the 400. One would reasonable expect he was at least capable of ruuning a 45 400 under the right circumstances. These is no doubt in my mind that when Defar/Dibabia were in world record shape that could not have run sub-4 in the 1500, but they didn't and most likely never will. It is possible Ritz may never improve on his 27:27 10K PR, but that does not mean that's all he is capable of.
So why after all of this discussion have we not had a anyone close to 3;26 & 7; 20 & for that matter more runners into the mid 12:44-46 range now ...? DR#gs
Maybe the point needs to be that many good 1500/mile runners do not often run the 800. Maybe if they improved the 800 (would have to run it much more often) they then could bring their 1500 times lower. I watched Falcon a bunch in the 80's and early 90's and to my knowledge he ran a 2:18 or so in the 1000, but never ran an 800 under 1:50. I saw him in hs run a 1:52. Obviously, he was capable of 1:46 or so (3:49+ PR in the mile) Maybe the good milers do not like to "get blown away" in those fast 800 races, but they could get in some B races in Europe, etc. and work on that 800 speed that would undoubtedly help their 1500/mile.
This thread started out with such potential. goddamn you ventolin.
UKFA Adidas wrote:But I don't hold much faith in a system that says if X runs A for 1500m then his best at 800m must be B.
i woud normally agree, but from a physics perspective, there is a relationship which works well for 1500 - M ( the 1500 -> 3k needs a bit of faith, but it works for komenesque's ( & maybe according to physics he was ~ "perfect" as a 1500/3k guy ?! ))
speed Y = speed X * ( X / Y )^0.06917
it has surprising results for 3'30 upto M
So, after all of this, are there any current 1500/mile runners who have specifically and seriously said either that they would like to go after the WR, or are working towards going after it, or is it all just about winning races right now?
If the answer is "no" to both the above, who are the youngsters worth watching? Is it even possible to know who will emerge from Africa in the next, say 3 years or so?