Could a fit Alan Webb break 3000M WR?

When you think of the 3k world record you have to take into account that it`s rarely run. The WR is 2 back to back 3:40`s which is an amazing. I think what Webb would have going for him is he has shown he is good in time trail-pace set races. He has the mile AR 3:46 only 3 seconds off the WR that`s impressive run in a paced race in Belgium. So he knows how to run fast there as for WC and OG they are tacticle races so I don`t see how they bare any affect on someone`s chances of setting a record. I think the 3k WR is really hard and it seems that alot of great athletes gave it a shoot, but if El G had went for it a few more times I think he would have gotten it. Nobody goes out looking for a WR and gets it on the first go. Look at the 800m this summer you get close then you knock it down. I just don`t think the 3k is run enough and that runners will focus more on the 1500 or 5k and the training for a 3k would be different then both those races if your goal was to run a WR you`d have to train specifically for the 3k which I don`t see any athlete doing.

Once again Ventolin. You are an intellectual midget who is not worth the time. Please get off the boards and stop trying to flog your calculator. I'll happily put this on every thread I read that might be interesting until you post your usual nonsense.

Kartelite - I agree with your queries. Unfortunately Ventolin has no capacity to learn or even accept he might be wrong. Originally I thought it was a novel approach to try modelling it all. Unfortunately he has little understanding of statistical theory or the realities of applying models to real life and precious little else to contribute to the discussion.

When will Webb and Rupp quit creating posts about themselves on LetsRun?

so ?

you are stating the obvious

most runners have a distance beyond which their endurance doesn't "last"

for a start, i'm not sure he ran a quality field 400 when he was in 800pb shape

the 5k possibilty is given in previous answer :

rudy ran 45.5/1'41.01 last year

that ->3'26.5

even he admits he is not a 1500 guy & 800 is his best distance & therefore a 1500 time is only of theoretical interest

if he said/showed evidence that his 800 ability "lasts" to 1500 ( a 2'11 woud be a good start ), then his 1500 hypothetical time moves somewhat out of the realms of theory

the only "factor" is whether they "last" the distance

that is a trivial consideration - anyone with a passing acquaintance with the sport woud know it is virtually 100% certain a 51/1'55 school-kid is unlikely to "last" to 5k, whereas a mature, experienced M runner has a good chance of doing so

you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for insignificances

eh ?

all i stated was that runners try to train to maintain ( or even improve ) speed & improve endurance

this is the fundamental goal of training, nothing to do with any calculator

you are introducing unrelated concepts

if you found a 41.5 guy who coud pace mj, then i'm sure he wouda come close to that time

it's one reason 45+ open 400 guys can produce mid-43 relay legs behind someone else

if you can refute that research, impress me...

no idea

email them

BrynR wrote:Once again Ventolin. You are an intellectual midget who is not worth the time..

all i've seen you do is post drivel

if you have something worthy of intellectual consideration then post it

otherwise f*** off & don't waste my time

You calculator is bogus: 51/1:55 means 15:34? Just to give you some of my old friends' times from high school:

53/1:58/15:25

52/1:55/15:50

49/1:53/16:25

52/2:01/16:40

51/1:53/15:30

52/1:56/16:50

People can be all over the place.

those are high school kids with little chance of running ideally paced 400s or 800s

you have over a 1'30 variation in 5k there suggesting few if any ran their optimal races at any distance

if you want "machine" like times for 1500/3k/5k with absolute best current 400/800 times say 51 speed with various 800s around 1'55

51 with

1'57 ->4'04.9 , 9'06.1 , 16'19.2

1'56 ->4'01.4 , 8'55.2 , 15'56.4

1'55 ->3'57.8 , 8'44.3 , 15'33.6

1'54 ->3'54.2 , 8'33.4 , 15'10.8

1'53 ->3'50.6 , 8'22.5 , 14'48.1

a 1s difference in 800 time makes 23s difference in 5k - that shows how precise you gotta be with any suggested 800 times in addition to sub-optimally run 400/800 race times

666EnergyDrink wrote:

I don't think you realize the level of aerobic endurance that is necessary to run back to back 2 back to back 1500's in 3:40.

Watch the video of Komen doing it on youtube. It's truly breathtaking.

Jason

Completely agree with this. Komen was lightyears ahead of anyone around today besides Bekele. No, what I'd really like is to see Bekele try his hand at the 800/1500/3000 for a season. I wouldn't be shocked to see 1:43, 3:29 and 7:23.

I teach kindergarten and I'm used to being able to put kids in timeout. It would be so sweet to put Ventolin Kartalite and TSLR in timeout right now. They need a coolout period.

ScottEvil wrote:

Completely agree with this. Komen was lightyears ahead of anyone around today besides Bekele. No, what I'd really like is to see Bekele try his hand at the 800/1500/3000 for a season. I wouldn't be shocked to see 1:43, 3:29 and 7:23.

I teach kindergarten and I'm used to being able to put kids in timeout. It would be so sweet to put Ventolin Kartalite and TSLR in timeout right now. They need a coolout period.

There's absolutely no way Bekele would have run anywhere near 1:43 for 800 at any time in his career! Period! He hasn't got the 46/47 sec leg speed needed, no matter how good his endurance is.

He could have come close to 7:23 at his very peak, but 3:30 would be beyond him too. Kiprop hasn't broken 3:30 yet (although he hasn't been in the correct paced race to do so), and Bekele isn't as good as him over 1500.

I don't think anyone will approach Komen's mark anytime soon, but then I find it hard to believe it was a legitimate mark in the first place. Yes I'm being cynical, No I can't prove anything.

Ventolin,

First of all Komen's WR was wind aided, it's clearly been documented in the record books. He had a circular tail wind and it has been estimated by most experts that his time was equivalent to a 7:21.5 to 7:21.7 on an unassisted day...so let's not give him credit for any 7:20s just yet.

So get off your horse extrapolations. Komen was simply too much of a slow twitcher to ever run faster than 7:20 legit. It's been well documented.

Secondly, with regard to Webb - his fibrous type is 2AB as documented at the Cornell Institute after they ran extensive lab tests on him in early 2003 and concluded that he was predispositioned to be a 600/800 runner. His aerobic capacity is good enough to run a decent 10K, but it's been proven that his theoretical best event is the 600/800. His 1:43 has already proven this. There will be no fast 3000s in our lifetime by Webb.

Darnell

How would "they" prove this? Looking at muscle fiber composition and then making a prediction based on ... what? You would have to do the test at a young age (like 15 - because all these Kenyans run 26:50/12:55/8:05/3:32 by age 18 now - haha) and then have the runner specialize in EVERY event from 100 to the marathon and then note the fiber-type and which event they did best. This would be made impossible by the fact that you are dealing with a human. Also that as they age their capacity for some events wains. Also, even if you could do this kind of testing you would have to do it to 1000s of men in order to infer correctly what event they would be good at any better than your HS coach could now. Clearly this kind of testing has never been done thoroughly enough that you can declare (within 200m) what event someone is best at. Who can say that 2AB is IDEAL for the 600-800? There are other considerations, like height, build, lever lengths, etc.

My point is that nobody can say (from the lab) with absolute certainty WHAT event someone is best at. All his 1:43 "proved" is that he ran a 1:43 and that he could that day.

Who can say what event Aouita was best at? He set WRs at 1500, Mile, 2000m, 3000m, 2Mile, 5000m ... and came 13s from the 10k WR.

Imagine someone doing that now? And running 26:30 in their FIRST 10,000? And THEN moving DOWN to the 800m and running 1:42? He was clearly the best of the era at the 1500, 2k, 3k and 5k, but do you really think that a lab test would be able to definitively prove that he was at his best at say 1800-2300m? NO.

Webb has run 3:50y, 3:48y, 3:46y, 3:32 and 3:30 1500s ... and he has run an 8:11 2mile. This is already fast. If you look at his palmares you can see that he has only concentrated on the 1500, and everything else is very thin. so what he might have run over the last 10 years for 3000m (had he tried harder to get in some races) most likely would have been much faster. Even his 27:34/13:10 ability indicates better than 7:39. When you consider that he ran 3:30/3:46y his stock goes WAYYYYY UP. Just think about the best marks for other Americans who have run just about those times for the Mile/3000m? Maree, Scott, Spivey?

I say in his best 1500m shape over the last 6 years he could have run 7:34-36 at the worst opportunities and 7:27-30 at his best (ideal weather, pacing, competition) and this is right in line with his 800 and 1500m abilities.

So, WR? NO. But His 1:43 only "proved" that he was almost as good at the 800m as he is at the Mile.

The ventolin^n model:

[reasonable interpolation between mid-d times]

"See? It works!"

[reasonable interpolation between mid-d times]

"See? It works!"

[absurd, blatantly dubious extrapolation from 400m/mid-d times]

"[excuse]"

the smartest letsrunner wrote:Hahahahaha extrapolating a 1'50" 800 and a 3'40" to a 5000 time? I hope you have more than your little horse calculator to go on.

Yes, obviously the training has been done. I would like to know about it

ventolin^3 wrote:

moron

he is lining up for the race & has 1'50/3'40 clockings currently

i'm not interested in what training got him there, i want to know what he can run for 5k now

You're proving exactly why your predictions are so bad. You want to go from an 800 and 1500 time to a 5000 with a horse calculator based on poor calibration.

I want more information.

I think that with this fundamental difference we can acknowledge our disagreement won't be worked out. You think your calculator is useful and that people should spend money on it, so you flog it on this website. I think it's not very useful. I invited you repeatedly to provide evidence of its utility. None provided. Boring.

ventolin^3 wrote:

a pissant who spends inputting data into someone's programme

don't flatter yourself numbskull

Wrong again. I have students for that. You could never be one, if only because of your apparently near-autistic social functioning.

If I was flattering myself, with my training and experience I wouldn't get into debates with a guy who's crowning achievement in the field is horsiecalc.co.uk. No self-flattery here. I genuinely find it fun to make fun of you. It might not be admirable, but ventolin^? you treat nobody with respect, and I really like to bully you for the amusement of myself and others. Simple as that.

I invited you repeatedly to demonstrate the utility of your "model" with actual evidence, and you've failed for days now. Let me know when you want to step up.

In the meantime, you're a pretty bad salesman for your own little website.

deanouk wrote:

There's absolutely no way Bekele would have run anywhere near 1:43 for 800 at any time in his career! Period...3:30 would be beyond him too..I don't think anyone will approach Komen's mark anytime soon, but then I find it hard to believe it was a legitimate mark in the first place.

Disagree, disagree, agree. Bekele focused more on the 5k/10 but I think with more speedwork he'd be stronger at the shorter events. He has after all run 3:32. Ok maybe 1:43 is a bit fast; admittedly this is just speculation, but I'd love to see it happen. I also think Komen's record is doped. The timing, the flameout, the insurmountability all point that way. I also think El G was on the E.

ScottEvil wrote:

deanouk wrote:

There's absolutely no way Bekele would have run anywhere near 1:43 for 800 at any time in his career! Period...3:30 would be beyond him too..I don't think anyone will approach Komen's mark anytime soon, but then I find it hard to believe it was a legitimate mark in the first place.

Disagree, disagree, agree. Bekele focused more on the 5k/10 but I think with more speedwork he'd be stronger at the shorter events. He has after all run 3:32. Ok maybe 1:43 is a bit fast; admittedly this is just speculation, but I'd love to see it happen. I also think Komen's record is doped. The timing, the flameout, the insurmountability all point that way. I also think El G was on the E.

So what do you think of Bekele? Was/is he on the juice? What about Geb?

In the video of Bekele's 1500m PB he ran 54, 58, 58, and then closed in 42. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that he could have run 56's throughout if better paced, and that would get him a 3:30. Plus he didn't train specifically for it.

3'30 is too quick

you are fooled by his quick last laps in 12'50+ races

he doesn't have any better basic 400 speed than most of the kenyans, but is far less tired after 11.5 laps of even a 13'00 pace race & can get much nearer to his basic 400 ability than his rivals who are far more tired by then

prelim estimate ( only to nearest 0.25s rather than spending 1/2 hour tweaking 0.05s increments ) indicates he was

51.75/1'48.25 ->3'31.05 , 7'19.90 , 12'35.05 , 26'09.48

brief tweak either side of 1'48.25 by 0.25s shows

51.75/1'48.00 ->3'30.15 , 7'17.18 , 12'29.36 , 25'54.97

which are too quick

& 0.25s slower for 800 :

51.75/1'48.50 ->3'31.94 , 7'22.63 , 12'40.75 , 26'23.99

which are too slow for him

you have to begin with 51.75/1'48.25 ability for him in '04/'05 & tweak the 400/800s by 0.05s either ways to get more precise estimate, but for ballpark for nearest rounded 0.25s for 400/800 , that's what to go with

the comparator is always geb

in '98, the prelim best line of fit to 0.25s for 400/800 is

51.00/1'47.25 ->3'30.02 , 7'19.73 , 12'37.06 , 26'19.75

quickening 800 by 0.25s

51.00/1'47.00 ->3'29.13 , 7'17.00 , 12'31.37 , 26'05.24

which are too quick

slowing 800 by 0.25s

51.00/1'47.50 ->3'30.91 , 7'22.45 , 12'42.76 , 26'34.27

which are too slow

in conclusion, geb possibly had ~ 0.75s better basic 400 speed than kennster & indicates in a slow, tactical race he woud outkick him

also indicates somewhat geb's better distance out of 5k & 10k was probably the 5k & the opposite for kennster & stating the obvious, kennster is intrinsically quicker over 5 & 10k ( probably much more over 10k ) but it woud likely be a photo-finish over 3k & geb about 1s better over 1500