400/800, pure 800 or 800/1500?

I would say pure 800. Maybe 800/1500. Definitely not 400/800

Why do you think that?

Anyone else got any input?

Thanks

pure 800 on pure hate

Definitely 800/1500. Your 400 is pretty slow compared to your other events. Your 8 and 15 could possibly place at most state meets while you wouldn't even make it to states with the 400.

Don't take that to harshly. I'm actually very impressed with how fast your 800 is with that 400 time.

Unsure wrote:

I wanna know what kind of runner you guys think I might be

400: 52.1

800: 1:54.6

1500: 4:00.5

5000: 16:10 (road)

Cheers.

Try plugging those numbers in here:

The speedometer will show you what your best event is. What's it say?

That link doesn't seem to work for me.Swag Lord thanks, I definitely don't think my 15 is as good as my 800 though. Maybe 800>1500>400 ?

stats.gangsta_the_real_1 wrote:

Try plugging those numbers in here:

http:///timescalculator.appspot.com

The speedometer will show you what your best event is. What's it say?

Unsure wrote:

That link doesn't seem to work for me.

looks like he accidentally put an extra slash after the "http". There should only be 2 slashes. Works for me.

Putting in any combination of my PB's doesn't seem to give anything useful. Put in the 400 and 800 and it tells me I should run a 3:52 1500... Lol I definitely couldn't.

Put in the 800 and 1500 and it says I should be a 100m runner...?

Put in the 400 and 800 gives me nearly a 1:57 800m (still, the closest out of the other two).

8/15

Your best time is your 15 then your 8 then your 4

400/800. 52 and 1:54 are about equivalent, and 1:54 is much better than 4:00/4:20.

Though if you're in high school, 1:54 will go much farther than 52. It might win a state final where 52 won't even qualify.

Unsure wrote:

I wanna know what kind of runner you guys think I might be

400: 52.1

800: 1:54.6

1500: 4:00.5

5000: 16:10 (road)

Cheers.

you're a straight 800 runner, amigo.

So what kind of training should I do to get the most benefit? I ran that 1:54 indoors on a banked 200m track.

I disagree.

"definitely couldn't" seems like far too strong of a statement for just 8 seconds. That could easily be the result of poor/uneven pacing or not going out fast enough.

Yes. That's what it says, and here's why:

1500/800 ratios:

geb/bekele ~1.95

webb/kiprop ~2.0

Sebastien Coe ~ 2.06

you ~ 2.1

If 4:00 is truly your 1500m ability, then your best event is likely the 100 or 200. In my experience, most "balanced" runners have a 1500/800 ratio of ~2.0.

Also, the calculator doesn't say what you "should be". It just tells you what your best event/strongest time is. What you "should" run is entirely up to you.

I put in the 400 and 800 and got.... the 800 right back out, not 1:57. I'm guessing that you meant "I put in the 400 and 1500 and it gave me nearly a 1:57 800m".

Conclusions:

1) Your 52 was run on a short track

2) You are really a 100 or 200 guy

3) You are leaving a lot on the table in the 1500m

I have a feeling it's #3. Shoot for 3:52 next time. You may surprise yourself!

Thanks for your input. I have to say I definitely disagree strongly with the first two statements, I have run low 52s a couple of times on different tracks, 52.1 being the fastest. Secondly I have run the 200m a few times in club meets and my best is 24.0, that pales in comparison to my 800 nobody can argue with that. Race calculators are simply math models and all models have their limitations, they don't suit everyone.

Maybe you are right that my 1500 could be better, I have only raced it a few times. I'll try some at a good quality graded open this summer.

However do you not think there is the possibility that I am just better at the 800m than I am at the other events?

First off i don't know why it matters.

Otherwise I'd say you are an 800/1500. I was a pure 800 guy. Around the time that my 1500 was a 4:00 my 800 was 1:49 and my 400 was 49.

My roommate was a 400/800 guy with 47 and 1:49 and 4:04 if I remember right.

We had a pure 1500 guy who could probably have run about 51-52 in the 400 but was a 1:51 and 3:49 guy.

By "statements", I assume you're referring to the three conclusions at the end? The first two were jests.

This model does indeed have a limitation (100/200m are inaccurate until I finally get around to updating the code [call it laziness]), but it is not here. This calculator should indeed suit everyone (as long as they don't rely on 100/200m).

I think that's a good idea. I think you are faster than you think.

I don't think I said that you were or were not better at the 800m than the other events. I thought the only thing I really said was that your 1500m time is off.

I agree that somewhere between 600-1500m is your best distance, but, regardless, your 1500m time is too slow if 52 and 1:54 are your true abilities.

Look at the ratios I listed. Surely, Coe can be considered an 800 guy, but his 1500/800m ratio is ~2.06. Your ratio is ~2.1. A ~2.1 ratio based on your 800m time would be 3:54.84 I think (someone check my math). Does this point make sense to you? You have the decay of a sprinter if 4:00 is your real ability.

stats.gangsta_the_real_1 wrote:

A ~2.1 ratio based on your 800m time would be 3:54.84 I think (someone check my math).

Oops, that should say "2.06" instead of "2.1".

Cool thanks for your opinions. I think it would still be difficult to run sub 3:55 on the training I do though, I only do around 30 miles a week.

Right click and save the image before the stupid pop-up locks you out. The guy steals the image from what is a pretty good book and then pulls pop up crap on you. Jeez!