And Jakob ran his PB as a track season opener in a quasi-exhibition/time trial race in 2020. Ngeny ran his 3 weeks after running 3:43 in the mile at the peak of his powers. Thanks for proving my point.
Thanks for ignoring the post that was directed towards you. Did you realize your take on Kipsang’s 2k was terrible?
Even if I grant that Ingebrigtsen has a higher ceiling in the 2k than Ngeny, the latter still clocked the 10th fastest time in history. And again, big difference jumping from 1500 to 2000 vs 1500 to 1609. Nice try though.
As they would say in Harry Potter, reductio ad absurdium. If there’s no difference from 1500 to 1609, then there should be no difference from 1609 to 1700, and none from 1700 to 1800, and none from 1800 to 1900, finally none from 1900 to 2000 which means there’s none from 1500 to 2000.
At this point I have to believe you’re either just a troll or so dumb that you’re no longer worth responding to, it would be like trying to teach calculus to your pet rabbit.
Thanks for ignoring the post that was directed towards you. Did you realize your take on Kipsang’s 2k was terrible?
Even if I grant that Ingebrigtsen has a higher ceiling in the 2k than Ngeny, the latter still clocked the 10th fastest time in history. And again, big difference jumping from 1500 to 2000 vs 1500 to 1609. Nice try though.
As they would say in Harry Potter, reductio ad absurdium. If there’s no difference from 1500 to 1609, then there should be no difference from 1609 to 1700, and none from 1700 to 1800, and none from 1800 to 1900, finally none from 1900 to 2000 which means there’s none from 1500 to 2000.
At this point I have to believe you’re either just a troll or so dumb that you’re no longer worth responding to, it would be like trying to teach calculus to your pet rabbit.
If there is no difference between 1500 and 1609, it absolutely does not follow that there is no difference between 1500 and 2000. We are talking about a ~7% increase in distance vs 25%. This is your argument and I’m the one trolling?
Insulting someone you disagree with is a real hallmark of intelligence. Not sure why you’re getting so worked up over the opinion of a random nobody on the internet when you can walk away from the discussion at any time.
Thanks for ignoring the post that was directed towards you. Did you realize your take on Kipsang’s 2k was terrible?
Even if I grant that Ingebrigtsen has a higher ceiling in the 2k than Ngeny, the latter still clocked the 10th fastest time in history. And again, big difference jumping from 1500 to 2000 vs 1500 to 1609. Nice try though.
As they would say in Harry Potter, reductio ad absurdium. If there’s no difference from 1500 to 1609, then there should be no difference from 1609 to 1700, and none from 1700 to 1800, and none from 1800 to 1900, finally none from 1900 to 2000 which means there’s none from 1500 to 2000.
At this point I have to believe you’re either just a troll or so dumb that you’re no longer worth responding to, it would be like trying to teach calculus to your pet rabbit.
What kartelite said.
Another way to look at it: Say Usain Bolt is in great shape for 100-200 and Eliud Kipchoge is in great shape for the marathon. Let's say they compete at various distances using their full abilities. Let's say we have accurate PRs for them over a range of distances.
If Usain Bolt is racing Eliud Kipchoge, there is some theoretical race distance (maybe 520 meters, who knows?) where if they raced, they would tie. Any distance shorter than the hypothetical 520m, Bolt wins. Anything longer, Kipchoge wins.
So with Ingebritsen's PRs and anyone else's PRs, if someone has a faster PR at the 800 but a slower PR in the 5000 compared to Ingebritsen, you can figure out the distance (1333 meters or whatever) where they would tie.
Now, I remember Renato writing about a guy (runner A) who had faster PRs at the over and under distances (say 400 and 1500) compared to another guy (runner B), but runner B was better at the 800 compared to runner A! Renato's explanation was that runner B had better specific endurance at the 800 vs runner A. In other words, Runner B was a true 800 specialist. So I guess that's possible too.
Renato also made the point that an athlete's PR in an off event is not always an accurate reflection of his ability. Like, maybe Seb Coe could have broken 14 minutes for the 5000 even though he never did. Of course, Ventolin had Jim Ryun theoretically down to 44x for the 400 if I recall correctly!
You’re wrong about this, and you clearly don’t understand the subtle physiologic difference between the events. It really should be quite obvious that a 3k star facing an 800 star at 1609 will have more advantage than at 1500. It’s a simple sliding scale and straightforward physiology. While it’s NOT dramatic, these things matter when you have the top 5 finishers within 1.5 seconds. At the pro level, these differences can be significant. Even it’s a half second advantage between runners, that’s the difference between 2nd and 5th yesterday. A second? The difference between 1st and 2nd.
7% is not negligible, and runners who look at the 1500 the same as the mile are approaching it as amateurs. Not to offend, this is what I tell my athletes too.
As they would say in Harry Potter, reductio ad absurdium. If there’s no difference from 1500 to 1609, then there should be no difference from 1609 to 1700, and none from 1700 to 1800, and none from 1800 to 1900, finally none from 1900 to 2000 which means there’s none from 1500 to 2000.
At this point I have to believe you’re either just a troll or so dumb that you’re no longer worth responding to, it would be like trying to teach calculus to your pet rabbit.
If there is no difference between 1500 and 1609, it absolutely does not follow that there is no difference between 1500 and 2000. We are talking about a ~7% increase in distance vs 25%. This is your argument and I’m the one trolling?
Insulting someone you disagree with is a real hallmark of intelligence. Not sure why you’re getting so worked up over the opinion of a random nobody on the internet when you can walk away from the discussion at any time.
You’re wrong about this, and you clearly don’t understand the subtle physiologic difference between the events. It really should be quite obvious that a 3k star facing an 800 star at 1609 will have more advantage than at 1500. It’s a simple sliding scale and straightforward physiology. While it’s NOT dramatic, these things matter when you have the top 5 finishers within 1.5 seconds. At the pro level, these differences can be significant. Even it’s a half second advantage between runners, that’s the difference between 2nd and 5th yesterday. A second? The difference between 1st and 2nd.
7% is not negligible, and runners who look at the 1500 the same as the mile are approaching it as amateurs. Not to offend, this is what I tell my athletes too.
THOUGHTSLEADER is 100% right here.
Good post.
I love this thread, and thanks to ummm for making it entertaining. You have one simpleminded poster who can’t wrap his mind around an obvious concept (because 1500 and mile are practically the same! Duh!) and he’s arrogantly doubling-down on his ignorance to the point I almost want to yell at my computer. This is why I spend all my free time on these boards.
Abel ran 3:30.9 at altitude, so he was in magnificent shape. Of course, he's running too many races, but that performance alone and multiple wins suggested he could give a much better account of himself here. Hocker was boxed or at least chose not to try to go around, unlike Hoare, as he was waiting for one to go ahead to give him the space. That never happened. Had he gone around, Kipsang and Tim would have been fourth and fifth, instead of third and fourth. Good showing for Hocker. I'd like to see what Jakob can run in Oslo now. And will he finally get that 1:45 in the 8? I think he will.
3.30.9???
Did Kipsang run another race at altitude after his 3:31.01 performance?
You’re wrong about this, and you clearly don’t understand the subtle physiologic difference between the events. It really should be quite obvious that a 3k star facing an 800 star at 1609 will have more advantage than at 1500. It’s a simple sliding scale and straightforward physiology. While it’s NOT dramatic, these things matter when you have the top 5 finishers within 1.5 seconds. At the pro level, these differences can be significant. Even it’s a half second advantage between runners, that’s the difference between 2nd and 5th yesterday. A second? The difference between 1st and 2nd.
7% is not negligible, and runners who look at the 1500 the same as the mile are approaching it as amateurs. Not to offend, this is what I tell my athletes too.
THOUGHTSLEADER is 100% right here.
Good post.
I love this thread, and thanks to ummm for making it entertaining. You have one simpleminded poster who can’t wrap his mind around an obvious concept (because 1500 and mile are practically the same! Duh!) and he’s arrogantly doubling-down on his ignorance to the point I almost want to yell at my computer. This is why I spend all my free time on these boards.
Yeah I enjoyed the discussion too. I have seldom seen this exact topic discussed which makes it all the more enjoyable. There are dozens of threads talking about the inadequacies of 1500 to mile conversions, yet I don't think I've ever come seen a discussion of a 1500/5000 guy having an edge over a 1500/800 guy in a mile vs. 1500. And yes, it's an obvious concept even if the edge is slight.
Through time, at least since the beginning of the IAAF points system, when the mile was run at Grand Prix meets, how many 1500 guys who have run the mile have run as fast as their IAAF extrapolated points from the 1500? I'd submit, not very many.
Abel ran 3:30.9 at altitude, so he was in magnificent shape. Of course, he's running too many races, but that performance alone and multiple wins suggested he could give a much better account of himself here. Hocker was boxed or at least chose not to try to go around, unlike Hoare, as he was waiting for one to go ahead to give him the space. That never happened. Had he gone around, Kipsang and Tim would have been fourth and fifth, instead of third and fourth. Good showing for Hocker. I'd like to see what Jakob can run in Oslo now. And will he finally get that 1:45 in the 8? I think he will.
3.30.9???
Did Kipsang run another race at altitude after his 3:31.01 performance?
The time is adjusted for altitude. Time goes faster in altitude. It is a consequence of Einstein relativity science stuff.
" First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster.
Abel ran 3:30.9 at altitude, so he was in magnificent shape. Of course, he's running too many races, but that performance alone and multiple wins suggested he could give a much better account of himself here. Hocker was boxed or at least chose not to try to go around, unlike Hoare, as he was waiting for one to go ahead to give him the space. That never happened. Had he gone around, Kipsang and Tim would have been fourth and fifth, instead of third and fourth. Good showing for Hocker. I'd like to see what Jakob can run in Oslo now. And will he finally get that 1:45 in the 8? I think he will.
3.30.9???
Did Kipsang run another race at altitude after his 3:31.01 performance?
The people on this site could easily turn a lump of coal into a diamond. There is no more retentive site in the world. 3:30.89 was Ronald Kwemoi's altitude record. Kipsang ran 0.11 slower than I said.
boss for running a 3:49 at Hayward Field? These guys should be capable of 3:45.
if I had a nickle for every time a 3:49 was hayward-hyped to be a big deal, I'd have lots of nickels.
Why do they try to make the mile the big event? It will never be a fast. Too early, too windy.
Correct. 3:49 for these guys is tactical.
Even Centro ran 3:49!
Didn’t Centro run that in a time trial, with pacing, in ideal conditions, as an AR attempt? Imagine what Jakob would run the mile in at a time trial set up, with pacing, in peak form later in the season - lord have mercy
Yeah I enjoyed the discussion too. I have seldom seen this exact topic discussed which makes it all the more enjoyable. There are dozens of threads talking about the inadequacies of 1500 to mile conversions, yet I don't think I've ever come seen a discussion of a 1500/5000 guy having an edge over a 1500/800 guy in a mile vs. 1500. And yes, it's an obvious concept even if the edge is slight.
I think I remember a thread here several years ago discussing if there was ever a runner who was best in the world at 1500m but second best at the mile. In the epic 'Coe vs Aouita' thread, it gets mentioned that Aouita might have the edge over a mile, but Coe would likely win over 1500m.
Although I agree that it's obvious that the more endurance guy would have a better chance to win over an 800/1500 guy at a mile than 1500m, Cram and Aouita in 1985 gives me some pause for thought. Cram's best distance was arguably the mile, and his pbs suggest that too. He ran his mile 3:46, which likely could at least have been a second faster, in the same period he ran his 1:42 800m. He pipped Aouita over 1500m in Nice earlier in the season, then ran a near effortless 3:46 mile slowing down at the end, and it being a real race rather than an even paced WR attempt. Aouita then had a crack at Crammy's mile WR, went all out and looked set to smash it with a lap to go but then ran out of gas and mised it by nearly half-a-second. A couple of days later, he took down Cram's 1500m WR by nearly 3/10ths.
Partly it was obviously due to Cram being in even better shape at the time he ran his mile WR and 800m pb than in Nice when he faced Aouita, but it seems to me that the mile was Cram's perfect distance, enabling him to utilize all his strength and endurance while retaining some of his 800m speed. I can't see any version of Aouita living with Cram that night in Oslo, even if he would be able to chase him to the wire over 1500m. Given that Aouita was on a different level to Cram over 3000m and 5000m, that doesn't make sense.
Way to omit the key part of my statement, "or at least chose not to try to go around, unlike Hoare."
Whether he chose to or not still doesn't make your "would have" statement any less of a joke. But I'll give you a pass, cos you probably meant may have, possibly could have, with a bit of luck maybe...
Hocker was boxed or at least chose not to try to go around, unlike Hoare, as he was waiting for one to go ahead to give him the space. That never happened. Had he gone around, Kipsang and Tim would have been fourth and fifth, instead of third and fourth.
Is that what you mean by "The people on this site could easily turn a lump of coal into a diamond."
