Aside from the obvious extra 109m/ ~15secs, does strategy/pacing change much?
Aside from the obvious extra 109m/ ~15secs, does strategy/pacing change much?
not a miler wrote:
Aside from the obvious extra 109m/ ~15secs, does strategy/pacing change much?
It's more like 20 secs if you consider 3:30 and 3:50 as strong runs. Maybe 18 if you figure 3:30 is closer to 3:48, and 3:28 good for 3:46. That means the pace is slightly less. You can't just tell someone finishing a 1500 that the line is over there, keep going.
Well the start is a lot different.
1500 - you start on a straightaway
Mile - you start on a curve
Run hard, Turn left wrote:
Well the start is a lot different.
1500 - you start on a straightaway
Mile - you start on a curve
This. And the first lap feels quicker, thus making the race seem like it goes by a lot faster.
Run hard, Turn left wrote:
Well the start is a lot different.
1500 - you start on a straightaway
Mile - you start on a curve
Actually the mile is started on the straightaway 9m before the finish line.
pace is different by something close to a half second per lap.
Depending on the size of the field they sometimes split into two staggered groups for the mile start (on or near the curve) and I've never seen that for the 1500 because of the long straight.
Actually the mile is started on the straightaway 9m before the finish line.[/quote]
Assuming you have a 400m track. The local H.S. still has a 440yd track.
HappyJack wrote:
Actually the mile is started on the straightaway 9m before the finish line.
Actually the mile is started on the straightaway 9.34m before the finish line on a standard 400m track. There, fixed it for you.
to be clear: NO one gets a ~15 second conversion, except for maybe steve scott (15.93 between PRs). el g gets 17.13; morceli gets 17.07; john walker gets 16.8; herb elliott 18.9.
i think it's a better argument that steve scott, prolific at the mile, never ran his best 1500m than the others not running their best mile.
anyway, mere mortals are lucky to get an 18-20 second add, though the old 1.08 is likely the most accurate estimate.
personally, i've never felt the races were different pain-wise or tactically, and i've run more than my fair share. i did have some knucklehead on this board try to convince me years ago that by running a 109m shorter, you avoid that burn you feel in the mile, no matter how clearly i tried to explain to him i (and any other miler i know) have felt that burn over the last 100m in any distance race if i'm timing my kick right. oh well...
that's my story and i'm sticking to it,
cush
I would think that starting with 100m of straightaway to jockey for position in the 1500 alters the strategy at elite levels fairly significantly
Same advice I once got for running a 1000m - PR for 800 and hold on.
So PR for the 1500 and hold on.
Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:
I would think that starting with 100m of straightaway to jockey for position in the 1500 alters the strategy at elite levels fairly significantly
in theory you are correct. in practice, though, it doesn't seem to work out that way. look at the first 100 of some of the olympic 1500s (2012 comes to mind) and you'll see as much jostling (or more) as any mile race. all it takes is one idiot that decides NOT to take the tangent and mayhem can ensue. like i said, at least from personal experience, i've not had any more or fewer issues with the start of the mile than the 1500m. maybe others have had a different experience...