1500 to mile

17-19 seconds depending on the pace

I agree, 17-20 seconds depending upon pace, however, I seem to remember Seb Coe once covering the distance (accutrack @ both 1500 m & mile finish line) in some godlike time of :14.7 or :15.1 or a similar time. Could this be possible? Does anyone remember this?

That is a very real possibility. In a slow race with a fast kick it'd be very easy to see someone covering 109m in 14.7 or 15.1. I mean, El G's average 100m in his 3:43 mile WR was 14.0 seconds. You'd think in a 4:00 mile each 100m would be roughly 15 seconds, but that extra 109m will slow you down if you're running balls to the wall. So, yes, it's possible to run from the 1500m mark to the mile marker in 15.1 seconds.

If you want to be statistically proper, you multiply your 1500 time by 1.08 (or divide mile time by 1.08 to get 1500). This is T&FN's rule used for many years and I think accepted by the sport's international statistical body. Obviously, this isn't figuring it out by assuming how fast you'd "kick it in" or continuing at the same pace. It's assuming a modest slowdown in concordance with the extra distance (about 6 percent further) or visa versa when coverting down.

Hence:

3:28.00 1500 x 1.08 = 3:44.64 mile (+16.64)

3:42.00 1500 x 1.08 = 3:59.76 mile (+17.76)

4:06.00 1500 x 1.08 = 4:25.68 mile (+19.68)

or

3:45 mile /1.08 = 3:28.33 1500 (-16.67)

4:05 mile/1.08 = 3:46.85 1500 (-18.15)

and so on...

dsman has got it right. 1.08 is the accepted factor for converting 1500 to mile and vice versa.

Here's some trivia: In the famous '01 Prefontaine mile, El G went through 1500 in 3:35.24 en route to 3:49.92, covering the last 109.35 meters in 14.68 seconds. Webb did it in 15.17 (3:53.43 - 3:38.26).

Look at a 3:45 1500m. You are averaging 15.0 s. per 100m or .15 s/m. A mile is 109m farther so multiply .15 X 109 and you get 16.35 to go the further distance. Then figure that if you are going the further distance you have to hit the 1500 about 1.5 s slower (3:46.5) to keep going to the mile at 4:02.85. That gives you a 17.85 s conversion but 1.5 s is a rough estimate. Going the other way, a 4:00 mile equates to a 3:42.2 1500. The faster you go the smaller the conversion. For more empirical evidence, both Morceli's and El G's 1500 and mile world Records were about 17.0 s. difference. I would add at most 17.5 s. to Krums 3:31.9 giving a 3:49.4 mile (far better than Webb's 3:53 which is technically the fastest American mile in the past two years). Once you get over 4:00 for 1500m I would just add 20 s. to get a mile time.

Uh, yeah. That 1.08 thing works too.

El G needs to drop the mile WR to 3:42.48 to make the 1.08 conversion fit but that's sure possible. (And that brings Krum's conversion down to 3:48.85)

I agree the 1.08 is the proper conversion, but I was assuming the original poster was looking for a quick loose guide such as "I just ran a 3:55 1500, generally how fast is that for a mile since that is what I grew up running?" Even though he probably grew up running that bastard 1600m. With a little more thought, I don't doubt Coe finished that fast, but it would not necessarily figure into a conversion. If the athlete goes all out to get to the finish & they are now asked to run another 109 yards, they must slow some. If not, then they didn't go all out the first time. This explains why the 4:00 mile conversion to 1500 is not 3:45, or :15 100 meter splits.

How many times will runners have to prove that the 17 second theory is not enough time? Here are some runner's/1500m PR's:

Seneca Lassiter: 3:33

Steve Holman: 3:30

Paul McMullen: 3:33

Jason Pyrah: 3:35

Gabe Jennings: 3:35

Don Sage: 3:39

Michael Stember: 3:35

Brian Berryhill: 3:35

Andy Downin: 3:36

Tim Broe: 3:38 (or faster, not sure)

ALL of these high-profile runners have mile PR's that range from 20 to 23 seconds slower than their 1500m PR's. Granted we can find a few runners, like El G. and some truly gifted racers, who are closer to the 17 second rule, but they are the exception, not the norm.

I am completely dumbfounded on how we keep stating that a 3:35 is equivalent to a 3:52. No it is not. Unless it is El G., or Lagat, etc...then a 20-21 second rule realistically applies and is proven every year, repeatedly.

Interesting observation by ttc, however it does not consider the fact that the 1500 is run far more frequently and the oppertunities for fast miles are few and far between. Over the last decade anyone with a mile pr that is equivalent or faster than their 1500m pr would be the exception. This of course applies to those on faster end of the spectrum (sub 3:40?).

it completely depends on the runner, for example look at alan webb he's pr is 3:38 and 3:53, do the math that's only 15 seconds

You are correct, xcr, that the mile is not run very often outdoors....but if you add 17 seconds to those 1500m times, I just do not see most of those runners coming very close to the "equivalent" mile time, even with greater opportunities.

As for the 'faster end of the spectrum' that you mention, I would agree with the concept, but say it applies to maybe a sub-3:33...in other words, just the world's elite.

Adfgfds,

The Pre mile Webb ran was by far his best race ever.

But to illustrate my main point further, the 3:53 was one of the best American miles ran in quite a while....But would a 3:36 have been one of the best 1500m's run in quite a while???

El G's 3:43 mile is 17 seconds slower than his 3:26, and is one of the very few exceptions, but remember this: How many times has he run around 3:28, versus 3:45?

First, no way was Webb?s 3:53 was the same as a 3:33.

Second, many 1500 guys will go the whole season without running a serious mile. There is a good chance that the guys you listed would run 3:50 ? 3:53 if they ran it 10 times in a year.

El G has run a lot more 3:28?s than 3:45?s ?cause he has run a lot more 1500 races than mile races.

The 1.08 factor is very accurate if the races were to be run under the same conditions.

Granted there are not many mile races run, but the mile races that ARE run, (Dream Mile, Pre-Mile and probably another couple that I cannot recall) are extreme time-trials. The opportunities to run a blazing mile are there every year.

In addition, the tactics and sharpness in a mile/1500m are very similar, so these runners do not exactly need to run several mile races to pop in a good time. In other words, the 1500m races are very sufficient in getting them ready to run their best mile, especially in the type of races I described above...However I will admit that there are not many 2nd chances in an outdoor season at this distance.

Also, I have to say that I disagree there would be a good chance for the runners I mentioned (earlier post) to be running 3:50-3:53. That's what Kevin Sullivan runs, not those guys.

Remember that when Webb did pop in that 3:53, he was about 5-6 yards from El G., before losing by only 4 seconds, going into the last lap, and was a fraction of a second away from Bernard Lagat. Especially with those facts in mind, 3:53 being equivalent to a 3:33 sure seems pretty close to me.

Webb wasn't anywhere near El G in that race at any time.

I read that he was....although I never saw the race, except when it was live. But I will take your word for it.

Anyhow, no one is going to lose to El G. by 4 seconds in a rabbitted race, if they run a 3:36 (which is what the 17 second rule says is the 3:53 equivalent)....In addition, no one is going to finish almost even with Bernard Lagat in that circumstance either. Another reason that 3:53 is clearly better than 3:36.

The 17 second rule is not accurate for all of the reasons I have posted on this thread.

ttc wrote:

Remember that when Webb did pop in that 3:53, he was about 5-6 yards from El G., before losing by only 4 seconds, going into the last lap, and was a fraction of a second away from Bernard Lagat. Especially with those facts in mind, 3:53 being equivalent to a 3:33 sure seems pretty close to me.

Not quite. In that race, El G got the bell at 2:55.6 with Webb 2.8 seconds back at 2:58.4. El G had just completed a 60.0 lap and was accelerating to what would be a 54.3 closer. Webb had just completed a 60.6 and would close in 55.0. Assuming a velocity of 7 meters per second ( = 57.1 seconds per 400) at the bell, Webb was:

(7 meters per second) x (2.8 seconds) =

19.6 meters behind El G going into the last lap.

At the tape, Webb was 3.51 seconds behind. Thats about ( 7.3 meters per second) x (3.51 seconds) = 25.6 meters.

People have already said this.. but the only reason the 17 second doesn't appear to work is because the 1500m is run a lot more. It's as simple as that. For world class milers, multiplying by 1.08 is about the same as adding 17 seconds, and that 1.08 rule is widely accepted.