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

Whadda u talkin' about Willis? wrote:

Mmm... The Willis on this thread reckons he can't break 50 off a flying start, yet the real Willis ran a 1.46 time trial a few days before Monaco.

That 1:46 could have been anything from 1:46.0 to 1:46.9.

Even if quickest its 53 x 2. Or 3 secs slower than 400 Pb x 2

It's possible, but is representative of an endurance based 1500 guy rather than a speed orientated 800 guy.

Cram's 400 Pb is apparently 48 low - so add 3 secs and u get 51 low x2 = 1:42 mid, which is about what he ran.

118 118 wrote:

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?

Kiprop also often puts up a fast time in Doha, before Monaco and then runs faster at Monaco.

After establishing a good seasonal best time and determining his fitness, he just seems to focus on winning races after that.

He may be in better shape at the championships but the races don't play out fast.

He used to run his seasonal best near the end of the year in Rieti, actually.

Brussels and Zurich don't always have a 1500, they seem to alternate.

Sometimes an athlete just has favorite tracks he focuses on.

Bad Wigins wrote:

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.

.

I've been arguing this point prior to Willis. I see the bias he would have in wanting it to be legit.

Look at the 2015 Paris 5k. That is the most comparable 5k race in ages - the rabbits actually went fast, and everyone followed. I'd say 6 sub 12:50s is even more amazing than the Monaco 1500 results considering the caliber of runners in each race. We're looking at some truly great 1500m runners (Asbel, Silas, etc.) compared to some 5k names that will be forgotten in 5-10 years (John Kipkoech? Who the hell is that?).

I'll grant you, Monaco has happened four years in a row now, but the 5k is even harder to get good pacing for. That one time the pacing was good and they stuck to it? PRs all around.

When people go with the rabbits, as Asbel has done all four years now, and the rabbits run fast, you see fast times. Again - show me how many DL races go out as fast as Monaco, and further more, have a guy who's willing to go with the pace each time as Asbel has done.

Whadda u talkin' about Willis? wrote:

Mmm... The Willis on this thread reckons he can't break 50 off a flying start, yet the real Willis ran a 1.46 time trial a few days before Monaco.

...and?

118 118 wrote:

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.

It's really scary when someone makes less sense than Ventolin. He wasn't saying Willis can run 7:22. He was saying that Willis is certainly faster than 50 for 400m. If he wasn't then he would be approaching Komen levels of endurance.

It doesn't mean Willis is lying about his 400 m time. It means Willis is wrong about his 400m time. There is nothing nonsensical about that.

Bad Wigins wrote:

[quote]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.

[quote]

Once again you reveal your ignorance. The Bowerman building does an effective job of blocking wind down the front straight, so there is little or no wind to funnel. The back straight is completely open to the prevailing wind (sunny days). As for sprint times, either they are legal (2.0 m/s or less) or not. The source of "huge" sprint results is top competition at the peak of the competitive season (NCAAs, USATFs). And almost never are the 400 results impressive when wind readings are even 1.x m/s.

This wind disparity is why relatively minor wind readings for the sprints (1-2 m/s) provoke strong tactical adjustments in the field for wind in the distance events. People like you are moaning about "jog-and-kick" tactics, never having been face-blasted by the gale that awaits at the beginning of the back straight. The air will often be almost dead at the start/finish while runners at the 1500m start line are getting their hip numbers blown off.

I have raced Hayward 11 times, and coached many athletes also competing there. Yourself?

Piked wrote:

118 118 wrote:

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.

It's really scary when someone makes less sense than Ventolin. He wasn't saying Willis can run 7:22. He was saying that Willis is certainly faster than 50 for 400m. If he wasn't then he would be approaching Komen levels of endurance.

It doesn't mean Willis is lying about his 400 m time. It means Willis is wrong about his 400m time. There is nothing nonsensical about that.

You are making even less sense than Ventolin you mean!

How arragont of you and Ventolin to even suggest Willis doesn't know what he's capable of over 400m. This idea that posters on here sitting at their pc know more about what an athlete is capable of than the athletes themselves is so patronising. If Willis says he can't break 50 sec, then he can't break 50 sec.

But you are willing to believe that he must be able to because Ventolin's calculator says he is, or else he must be able to run a 7:22 for 3k!

The 2 are not mutually exclusive. Just because he runs 400 in 50 does not mean he runs 7:22 for 3k. He can't, and this proves Ventolin's calculator is not accurate for predicting and extrapolating performances at other distances. There is no scientific evidence that supports it does.

There are different kinds of "peaking" at this level, which involve different types of training components and mindsets.For the same reason that Willis and all the other guys who know how to peak properly: be stamina fit for sustained effort in July, then tune for gearshift tactical ability for August (Kiprop is obviously ready for both right now, we shall see how well that holds up). By Brussels and RIeti, they are already focused on training for rounds and tactical adjustments. Their overall fitness can broadly support 4-6 weeks of peak-level, but with different emphases. If they were asked to off-the-cuff replicate their performance from Monaco in late August, most would be off by a few seconds already. On the other hand the field was slow in responding to Kiprop's tests in London, which is too early for the kind of tactical peak that can handle abrupt changes of pace.

118 118 wrote:

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?

Or... You could entertain the possibility that Nick Willis hasn't actually posted on this thread.

118 118 wrote:

You are making even less sense than Ventolin you mean!

How arragont of you and Ventolin to even suggest Willis doesn't know what he's capable of over 400m. This idea that posters on here sitting at their pc know more about what an athlete is capable of than the athletes themselves is so patronising. If Willis says he can't break 50 sec, then he can't break 50 sec.

But you are willing to believe that he must be able to because Ventolin's calculator says he is, or else he must be able to run a 7:22 for 3k!

The 2 are not mutually exclusive. Just because he runs 400 in 50 does not mean he runs 7:22 for 3k. He can't, and this proves Ventolin's calculator is not accurate for predicting and extrapolating performances at other distances. There is no scientific evidence that supports it does.

There is nothing arrogant about suggesting that Willis doesn't know what he is capable of over 400m. He runs the 1500m. He has no official 400m times in recent history that I've seen. So exactly how would he know what his 400m ability is? All he can do is guess. I've known many runners at or around his level that don't know their 400m ability. Several of these guys use 400M times from the end of workouts as their PR.

My opinion has nothing to do with Ventolin's calculator. I've been in this sport long enough and around enough elite runners to know what they are capable of. Willis is certainly capable of faster than 50 otherwise he is in extremely good 3k+ shape.

you clearly have little idea about Asbel's career

last year, his best run was in PARIS

he crushed nijel, the end-of-year world number 1

Asbel ran 1'43.3 in a purely tactical affair with ~ 6m extra on bends -> 1'42.5 for route-1

he also eased off at finish in celebration, costing coupla tenths -> 1'42.3

this in a tactical affair where he made no attempt to chase the pacer, just stalk nijel & blast him away

if he'd bothered to chase the pacer, he wouda likely clocked 1'41-high/1'42-flat

which is absolutely no shock now considereing souly was capable of 1'41.5 in monaco if he'd run a perfect race

Asbel therefore showed incredible ability on paris track

since when is paris a monaco ???

you clearly have no idea about rieti-'11 when Asbel demolished his 3'31.2pb down to 3'30.4 in a wild race where he split 1'49.61+, that being pacer's split & solo last 700 !!!

he wouda clocked 3'28+ if 2nd lap hadn't been so fast + slower 1st lap + some drafting to bell !

as for brussels : do you not realise that is double iaaf points ???

often the winner of brussels or zurich, whichever is holding event finale for 1500, will win the diamond league for 1500 & therefore it is almost always a tactical race

because anyone with an idea of the sport woud realise 3'29.66 off 50+ is unbelievable unless you are called Komen & can draw on 7'20 endurance

Nick is no Komen over 3 or 5k

i suggest you learn to do some research :

from founder of site : rojo :

anyone with an idea about splits woud recognise that means Nick is capable of 48-mid/high for open 400 assuming just a 47-high split

he just for some odd reason can't sprint hard from blocks, which woudn't be much of a problem if he actually bothered to work on it

the split converted 48-mid/high is almost EXACTLY the open 400 predicted for him by the calculator

i never bothered to try 48.0, which woud yield much slower 3k/5k times but better 800

a clocking with no context re : date or build up for it

no mention of whether fully rested for it, meaning a few days rest for it or end of day after a brutal earlier training session

for umpteenth time :

cram split 47.6r in '84 when in pathetic shape from injury & didn't crack 1'46 for the year !!!

47.6r = ~ 48.3 open

how is it possible for a guy to have ~ 48-flat/low speed when running 1'46 & NOT have faster 400 speed when running 1'42+ ???

explain this ???

no

- the calculator said Nick's current 400 shoud be ~ 48.5 - 49.0 which are almost exactly what 47-high splits woud indicate for open 400 ability for anybody who coud start a 400 properly

- cram having 48-low ability off a 47.6r when not capable of breaking 1'46 cannot in any known universe be his 400 ability when he ran 1'42+ - a run with ~ 5m extra wide on bends & a tactical race for him

no

see above

then think Komen ~ 7'20 shape & look at initial estimates

no

see

- Nick's 47+ splits

- show how cram can have essentially same 400 speed when not capable of breaking 1'46 & when running 1'42.8 with ~ 5m extra on bends in a tactical race for him

learn to read

that is why i said 50+ is not a realistic pb & calculator said 48.5 - 49.0 is much more likely, which is almost precisely what his 47+ splits indicate if he coud start a 400 properly

it indicated 48.5 - 49.0 for Nick

we can wait for him to reply as to what he thinks he coud run a fully rested 400 in if he coud start it properly out of the blocks...

he was in awesome shape in doha-'13 :

the pacers slowed badly : 54.19 / 58.14 & then Asbel cruised to 1200 in a slow 59.0 + !!!

however, he probably just wanted to get the win when pacers faded so badly & concomitantly test his kick :

he ran < 39.8, but the real story is his last 100 & most of the kick was in last 50

i timed it at 12.4s !!!

that is fastest ever last 100 in a fast 1500 & most of that due to just last 50m !!!

sadly, the vid is no longer on youtube but i coud never forget that figure !

if you can finish a 3'31.1 with a 12.4 with most of kick in last 50m, you are in fantastic shape !!!

Laughable, as expressed by other posters on the link given.

No one with a 50 flat open can run a 47 relay leg. There is a difference of 0.7 from relay to open. You even said so yourself on the other thread that the two times are not possible.

Either he's run. 47 relay which indeed would indicate 48 something open speed or he run a 50 open, in which case he wouldn't better 49 in a relay.

I simply went on what Nick Willis ( who I take it was the poster concerned) said about his 400 speed being a 50 sec relay when he ran 3:29.

He hasn't said on here that he ran a 47 relay. No one would be 3 sec faster with a moving start compared to a stationary one.

Perhaps Willis will respond on this thread again to verify this 47 relay split.

Until then I'll go with what he has said about his 400 ability being 50 when running 3:29. Perhaps he could run 48, but he implied his 1500 form would be slower than 3:29.

Yes I saw that race and have it recorded. It was a great kick but he didn't just kick with 50 to go. He went to the front and kicked hard at top of home straight. He was all out in last 100.

You are just being stupid on purpose. Ventolin provided an actual reference for that 47 split from Willis.

clunk wrote:

Or... You could entertain the possibility that Nick Willis hasn't actually posted on this thread.

Exactly, does anyone really think someone like Nick Willis would come on to a thread with this title and containing posts by Vent and numerous other idiots, I mean, really!?

do some research :

from founder of site : rojo :

by any consensus, his 50+pb is nonsense & he shoud be able to clock an open 48 - 49 off that if he coud start a 400 properly

Nick clearly knows his 400pb

most here with an idea of splits knows what 47+ shoud be for an open 400 if he coud start properly

no

it is because vast experience leads to questioning stats which don't pass the sniff-test

we now know that Nick's 50+ is possibly accurate because he doesn't know how to start a 400

his relay splits tell us he shoud be going likely 48+ if he coud

see above

learn to read

i said a genuine 50.0 - 50.5pb assuming guy knows how to run a 400 out of the blocks woud indicate potential of 7'20 / 7'22

that is why i said 50+ doesn't sound correct but rojo gave us the facts about 47+ relay splits which corrects the anomaly

correct

but if calculator says 7'20/7'22 then something is seriously wrong with Nick's 400

rojo explained it & corrected anomaly

err...

who said he coud ???

i said 50.0 - 50.5 / 3'29.66 is consistent with a guy who has potential of 7'20/7'22 which is ~ consistent with Komen '96 but not Nick

therefore that 400 of 50.0/50.5 has to be severely questioned

we now know it's because he can't start a 400 properly, but his relay splits of 47+ indicate likely 48+ ability if he coud

i did not say he coud

that's why i questioned 50+

eh ???

- look at the 50.5 / 3'29.66 & think Komen '96

don't tell me you believe Komen was only capable of 3'34sb in '96 ???

Komen in '96 possibly even slower than 50.5, maybe 50.75 - 51.00 with 3'30.0 but i didn't go that far out, so that line gives a "flavour" :

look for post of "tyler durden" :

i obviously cannot confirm veracity of this...

- then look at calculator with 48.5 - 49.0 for Nick & what rojo wrote...

no one has claimed any "scientific evidence"

however :

- look at 50.5 / 3'29.66 for "flavour" of Komen-'96, then try 50.75 - 51.00 / 3'30.00 for maybe more like his "true" '96 shape

- look at 48.5 - 49.0 for Nick if he coud start a 400 properly

ventolin^3 wrote:

but if calculator says 7'20/7'22 then something is seriously wrong with Nick's 400

Or perhaps something is wrong with the Monaco track and 3:29 is really 3:31-32... we've come full circle!