what could Kipsang run for a mile? (or 1500)

Renato - thanks for this incredible insight into a marathon WR holder's training. To call it invaluable would be an understatement.

ventolin stop polluting this site.

"She began at 14:23 pace but fell off pace, could have run 14:23 with even pacing."

Realism wrote:

3:58 to 4:04 is my bet

the notion that he couldn't break 60 for a 400 is ridiculous. Could he break 50? No. But saying he is slower than a mediocre HS freshman is blasphemy. 105 70s in a row and not being able to run 1 10 seconds faster? I get it hes an endurance athlete, but some of you Letsrunners have no common sense.

.

After a few months, he could probably break 3:50. And I would not be very surprised if he could break 50.

Generally, I think the notion that a guy who can run a 2:03 marathon would not be one of the fastest milers is misguided. He would not run his best mile the day or week or month after a all out marathon, but almost certainly has the potential to be one of the fastest milers given some focus on that event.

subfive wrote:

After a few months, he could probably break 3:50. And I would not be very surprised if he could break 50.

Generally, I think the notion that a guy who can run a 2:03 marathon would not be one of the fastest milers is misguided. He would not run his best mile the day or week or month after a all out marathon, but almost certainly has the potential to be one of the fastest milers given some focus on that event.

I agree, sub 3.50 for a mile. But not sub 50 for 400.

How could he not be a sub 3.50 miler in the right race? Renato's guess is way off.

I have a different question.

What's the cut off point at which Kispang could outrun Bolt? Is it 600 meters? 700? 800? 1000?

I'd say 700.

I don't know about the splits but Ventolin's post has definitely got the KM splits wrong. The km calculations for the 8th and 9th km's are 2 and 1 second out respectively. If she had in fact run the km splits noted rather than the actual time she did run she would have gone sub-30.

jono wrote:

I agree, sub 3.50 for a mile. But not sub 50 for 400.

How could he not be a sub 3.50 miler in the right race? Renato's guess is way off.

So I guess you think Bernard Lagat would have been good for about 2:04-2:05 in the marathon in his prime?

MarD wrote:

I don't know about the splits but Ventolin's post has definitely got the KM splits wrong. The km calculations for the 8th and 9th km's are 2 and 1 second out respectively. If she had in fact run the km splits noted rather than the actual time she did run she would have gone sub-30.

There appears to have been a misfunction.

Whoopsie.

yes

i noticed that after posting them from her site but waiting for someone to notice

http://paularadcliffe.com/stats/splits.php

Guildenstern wrote:

jono wrote:

I agree, sub 3.50 for a mile. But not sub 50 for 400.

How could he not be a sub 3.50 miler in the right race? Renato's guess is way off.

So I guess you think Bernard Lagat would have been good for about 2:04-2:05 in the marathon in his prime?

No, he doesn't run enough mileage.

Kipsang would run 3.48 in the same race where Farah runs 3.45

How could a 2.03 marathon runner not have the basic speed to run at least 3.48 in a mile?

I'm just amazed at the lack of middle distance knowledge on this website.

jono wrote:

How could a 2.03 marathon runner not have the basic speed to run at least 3.48 in a mile?

I'm just amazed at the lack of middle distance knowledge on this website.

Your knowledge obvioulsly is unprecedented. Why on earth should Kipsang not have the basic speed to run at least 3:48 in a mile? 16 athletes in history have bettered this time. So it should be easy for him to run at least 3:48. Even when there is not a single evidence that he actually is capable for doing that.

jono wrote:

No, he doesn't run enough mileage.

Kipsang would run 3.48 in the same race where Farah runs 3.45

How could a 2.03 marathon runner not have the basic speed to run at least 3.48 in a mile?

I'm just amazed at the lack of middle distance knowledge on this website.

Easy - the same way Bernard Lagat can't go 1:42. Paul Tergat could only manage. Paul Tergat only manage 3:42 1500 and 3:58 mile, and would have waxed Kipsang at 5000 and 10000.

Guildenstern wrote:

Easy - the same way Bernard Lagat can't go 1:42. Paul Tergat could only manage. Paul Tergat only manage 3:42 1500 and 3:58 mile, and would have waxed Kipsang at 5000 and 10000.

Tergat ran 7:2x for 3000m. He could certainly run faster than 3:42 and 3:58 those days. If he couldn't, then he would have run 2:00 for the marathon.

jsis wrote:

Guildenstern wrote:

Easy - the same way Bernard Lagat can't go 1:42. Paul Tergat could only manage. Paul Tergat only manage 3:42 1500 and 3:58 mile, and would have waxed Kipsang at 5000 and 10000.

Tergat ran 7:2x for 3000m. He could certainly run faster than 3:42 and 3:58 those days. If he couldn't, then he would have run 2:00 for the marathon.

It was about a week and a half after the 10000 in Atlanta.

Bob Kennedy, who couldn't touch Tergat in the 5000 and 10000 but was a 7:30 3000 guy only managed 3:38 and 3:56.

paperclips wrote:

It was about a week and a half after the 10000 in Atlanta.

Bob Kennedy, who couldn't touch Tergat in the 5000 and 10000 but was a 7:30 3000 guy only managed 3:38 and 3:56.

Your point?

jsis wrote:

paperclips wrote:

It was about a week and a half after the 10000 in Atlanta.

Bob Kennedy, who couldn't touch Tergat in the 5000 and 10000 but was a 7:30 3000 guy only managed 3:38 and 3:56.

Your point?

Fast 3000 does not equal equally fast mile.

paperclips wrote:

Fast 3000 does not equal equally fast mile.

I never said it did. But it certainly equals faster than 3:42 or 3:58. Otherwise he would have run 25 minute 10k.

jsis wrote:

paperclips wrote:

Fast 3000 does not equal equally fast mile.

I never said it did. But it certainly equals faster than 3:42 or 3:58. Otherwise he would have run 25 minute 10k.

No he wouldn't have. These "lines of fit" or whatever that people on here (e.g. ventolin) use just don't work. I mean, how come Bernard Lagat didn't run 7:1x for 3000, given his stunning abilities in the mile and relative lack of distinction at 800 meters? How many guys on here are very good at 5000 and 10000 but just can't hit a fast mile because they can't run a fast quarter?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.