Just realized Wheating's 3:30 was at Monaco... no wonder it was a fluke.

Bad wiggins is that u?

Thanks for the first hand perspective and congrats on another 3:29! To the next poster, you can't just judge by the 800m times, because the make or break of a 1500m/mile is the 1200m/1320y time. Occasionally, as you indicate, they go fast to the 800m mark, but then usually go close to 60. At Monaco, the pacer got Kiprop to a 2:46 or just under! My bet would be that since 2009, as they were about to resurface, they began to really commit to putting money into this meet, and that since then the money for pacers, for top runners, and probably for time bonuses(?) has been unmatched.

Monaco ain't legit wrote:

He hasn't been struggling all these years, he just popped one at an illegitimate track - the first year the new surface was added.

Monaco ain't legit people.

Yeah, I hear that track is downhill, just like the one in Rietti.

Yeah if you guys think the track is short, then why is it that not every event has a world lead there every year? You can't base this idea of a short track on just one event. Ndiku ran 7:35 on that track this year, but then Farah ran 7:34 at London a week later. That statistic among others, with other events. The track is not short, this just happens to be a meet at the perfect time in the season for distance runners to go for really fast times and PRs. If the track was short, it wouldn't be a diamond league event.

ijenns318 wrote:

Yeah if you guys think the track is short, then why is it that not every event has a world lead there every year? You can't base this idea of a short track on just one event. Ndiku ran 7:35 on that track this year, but then Farah ran 7:34 at London a week later. That statistic among others, with other events. The track is not short, this just happens to be a meet at the perfect time in the season for distance runners to go for really fast times and PRs. If the track was short, it wouldn't be a diamond league event.

Please read the thread you are commenting on. You obviously read NONE of it.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The Dingo wrote:

Chepseba was worth ~3:29 mid in 2012 on a "real" track as Wigins would like to say.

Congratulations on finding the one exception that proves the rule. But if he ran 3:29.90, he was worth 3:29.90, not 3:29 mid. The fact remains - 5 3:29's in over 5 years in the real world, versus a 3:26, 3:27's, 3:28's, and a small army of 3:29 runners at Monaco.

For that Hengelo race, the splits were roughly 54.x, 1:51.x, and 2:48.x. I'm genuinely curious, how many DL 1500s outside of Monaco had rabbits that went out that fast?

Souleiman, I would argue, is another "exception". He's run between 3:30.1 and 3:30.x three times. His PR (3:29.6 at Monaco) was, not surprisingly, a race where he didn't finish first, and a race where the rabbits went out fast.

When the rabbits go fast, and the runners follow, you see a slew of PRs. See the 2012 Paris 5k for a different example. Was that track fast too? Or was it just the one time that everyone went for it?

Sarcasmo wrote:

Monaco ain't legit wrote:

He hasn't been struggling all these years, he just popped one at an illegitimate track - the first year the new surface was added.

Monaco ain't legit people.

Yeah, I hear that track is downhill, just like the one in Rietti.

That should be "Rieti" - oops.

And only now do I see somebody else mentioned joking that the track is downhill.

The thing about Rieti: it is a wind-aided track. A video of Rudisha's 2009 1:42 breakthrough race (since taken down) showed a major tailwind down the back straight (flags fully extended) whereas the front straight was blocked by adjacent buildings and stands (flags indifferent). This is the opposite of Hayward's configuration on sunny, Northerly wind days, such as NCAAs this year, which kills times above 200m.

I din't think this situation applies to Monaco, though.

118 118 wrote:'Some evidence!' The overwhelming evidence produced by Deanouk shows that of the 29 athletes who run times in the world's top 12 at Monaco since 2010, only 1, Chepseba, who you use to suggest this is not the case, ran faster on another track sometime that season. That is 1 out of 29 athletes. 26 ran an average of 2 secs faster at Monaco than on all other tracks. 2 didn't run another 1500 anywhere else.

The track is probably has a legit surface, but the overwhelming evidence shows it to be much the fastest track for 1500m running anywhere in the world for the past 6 seasons, since the track's surface was changed. There is no argument about this. It is statistically a fact.

all the stats in the world are useless unless the causative factor has been looked at

the causative factor for fast times in monaco is not the track but Asbel !!!

did mondo manufacture him ???

hicham's wr came off 2'32.8

in rieti '11, Asbel stated he wanted fast pb as his current 3'31++ was nonsense for an olympic/wc

he ran 3'30.4 off ridiculously fast 1st lap & solo nearly last 800 !!!

he wouda run 3'28+ if that race had been properly paced

all this in '11 !!!

- in '12-monaco, on same track as today, he split pedestrian 2'35.46 but kicked in a 53.4 for a 3'28.8

- in '13, the real fireworks began as he got some "proper" pacers, but still, they only took him to 1k !!!

he split 2'32.33 !! with mo 2nd in 2'33.5 !!!

- in '14, he split 2'33.2 with silas who won, in 2'34.0 & 53.6

- this year, Asbel split 2'31.93 !!!

nearly 1s faster than hicham split in the wr !!!

mo 2nd in 2'33.4 but undrafted from 200m in !!!

monaco past few years has had fast times because of only 1 factor

that factor is Asbel !!!

win or lose for him, the field knows they have to run fast from gun to contend

that is only reason guys run 3'27 / 3'28 / 3'29 there, behind or ahead of him

go ask nick willis who seems a bright guy

if Asbel wasn't in past few editions, after 1'51 / 1'52 at 800, it wouda almost certainly degenerated into a tactical affair with some rubbish 2'35 / 2'36 at bell, with winner lucky to crack 3'30 ( silas obviously in '14 ) but mostly a bunch of 3'30 / 3'31s instead of the 3'28 / 3'29s we have seen & we woudn't have had countless threads/pages on this detritus about the track !!!

it's all about Asbel NOT the track !!!

willis up in flagstaff wrote:I'm normally in good 5000m shape going into Monaco, but not ready to break 50s if I was thrown into a 4x4 relay

Nick, if you could run 3'29.66 & couldn't break 50 at the time, then that is incredible !!!

That is very likely the 400 / 1500 shape Komen was in when he ran 7'20 !!!

I hope your 400 speed improves with little loss of endurance as that 3'29.66 could be seriously re-written with improved speed ( perhaps talk to a sprint coach a bit more ? )

Good luck & congratulations on a magnificent 1500 !!!

ventolin^3 wrote:

willis up in flagstaff wrote:I'm normally in good 5000m shape going into Monaco, but not ready to break 50s if I was thrown into a 4x4 relay

Nick, if you could run 3'29.66 & couldn't break 50 at the time, then that is incredible !!!

That is very likely the 400 / 1500 shape Komen was in when he ran 7'20 !!!

I hope your 400 speed improves with little loss of endurance as that 3'29.66 could be seriously re-written with improved speed ( perhaps talk to a sprint coach a bit more ? )

Good luck & congratulations on a magnificent 1500 !!!

Ventolin, get off your knees. Nick could run 7:20 then...

Insufferable Know-It-All wrote:

You know it's a great thread when ventolin is the voice of reason.

LOL. Fortunately Willis the Man lifted this thread to a whole nother level.

ventolin^3 wrote:Nick, if you could run 3'29.66 & couldn't break 50 at the time, then that is incredible !!!

That is very likely the 400 / 1500 shape Komen was in when he ran 7'20 !!!

apologies, exact calculations :

50.00 / 3'29.66 ->

1'46.20

2'15.24

4'45.98 !!

7'22.56 !!!

12'46.15 !!

i still believe nick wouda had to be jogging that 400 on 1 leg if he coud run 3'29.66 off alleged 50.00

it's even worse off say 50.50 :

50.50 / 3'29.66 ->

1'46.67

2'15.62

4'45.43 !!

7'20.60 !!!

12'40.46

the only viable possibility is that he had 49-flat or better speed in monaco, say 48.5 - 49.00 :

48.50 - 49.00 / 3'29.66 ->

1'44.77 - 1'45.25

2'14.09 - 2'14.47

4'47.07 - 4'47.61

7'26.50 - 7'28.46

12'57.54 - 13'03.23

those look more like it

( the 2k - 5k assumes he can run "perfect" 2k - 5k off primary 1500 / 800 training which is impossible, so add somes secs to those 2k - 5k times )

Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!

Victor E. Lapp wrote:

a major tailwind down the back straight (flags fully extended) whereas the front straight was blocked by adjacent buildings and stands (flags indifferent). This is the opposite of Hayward's configuration

Except that Hayward's west stands funnel wind down the homestretch, often faster than at the wind gauge in the infield. One source of the huge sprint results there.

The Dingo wrote:

When the rabbits go fast, and the runners follow, you see a slew of PRs.

You seem, like many, to be under the spell of the alleged Nick Willis. I who have met many elites am not charmed by his hero aura. I remain cognizant of the reason runners usually don't follow a fast rabbit, which is that they're likely to blow up and have a bad race. If everyone follows, you should see maybe a couple sub-3:30's and a lot of 3:35 to 3:45's. Or at best a Bislett-like result, not 3:30 or faster for practically the whole field. The stars have to align for it to work, and they don't align for everyone at once, let alone every year.

It's also interesting that, if it really is Nick Willis posting, he in particular would be so keen on defending the legitimacy of Monaco, site of the massive PR's he keeps mysteriously setting beyond the age of 30. A bit defensive perhaps? He should count himself lucky, better people think it's the track than the usual suspect.

And it's amusing how many people think I started this thread. But I'm glad to see it gain traction. "Fast" tracks are just like doping - the artificial enhancement of human performance through technology. Synthetic surfaces in general are far enough. The IAAF needs to determine what makes some tracks so fast and establish standards to keep them within reasonable limits. They're thoroughly corrupt, so they will never do that unless their few remaining fans force them to.

Bad Wigins wrote:

I who have met many elites

Says the 2:15 800m runner!

It's also interesting that, if it really is Nick Willis posting, he in particular would be so keen on defending the legitimacy of Monaco, site of the massive PR's he keeps mysteriously setting beyond the age of 30.

HAHA! The chump was owned by The Man, and now he starts hinting about doping.

What a butthurt little brat.

Nope. Try again.

Sooner or later you'll realize I'm serious about this.

If Kiprop is the key, then please explain why he is only prepared to do this at Monaco?

Why is he in peak shape in mid July when it's often a month before a major Championship?

Why not do it in Brussels or Rieti?

Why do you always question the actual athlete or coach when they state they have run a certain time?

If Willis says he could only run a 50.0 400m when in 3:29 shape, then that's what he ran.

Just like Cram ran 48 flat when running 1:42.8 and 3:29.6.

These are just 2 examples that prove your calculator doesn't fit everyone. That is why you offer all these nonsense times for athletes. If their times don't fit your calculator's prediction they are either lying about their times or else are capable of a near WR in another event!

Willis, as great an athlete as he is, is never going to run a 7:22 for 3k. Therefore your calculator does not work for everyone.