I highly doubt she'll run ALL those distances....or all those times (or within those time parameters). She seems to have tied herself in to Salazar's program, and Big Al will play it more cautiously with Mary, I believe.
That said, as for WY this year, I say.....run those races where she is MOST CERTAIN to WIN!!! If ALL THREE (800-1500-3000) are WINNING possibilities, I'd tell her to go for it!!
I don't know how many races (per meet) she ran for her Bronxville team. Did she ever double?? Or triple....in a meet....even a meet that went over two days?? I have no idea!!
But she's VERY strong, and if she has a sizable lead in entry times, I'd say, go for the TRIPLE!!!
BTW, my suggestion to triple goes AGAINST my favoring her running for RECORDS!! To triple...or even just double...she'd probably have to pace herself more, and go just for the victory, however slow it might be. In a single race, she could BLAST it, and make it a Mary Cain time trial!!
Powell and tandfman correctly made moot any talk of distance runner Cain doubling or tripling:
IAAF Regulations for 2012 World Youth Championships:
"The maximum number of events that an athlete can compete in is two individual events plus the Relay. If the two individual events are Track Events, only one of these two individual races may be longer than 200m."
az2004 wrote:didn't regina jacobs get a drug ban? so the status of some of her records is something is iffyfor me
i think getting gold in ukraine is the only thing salazar and cain should care about
and now i'm aware of irene ekelund, her performnce interests me too
yes jacobs got a drug ban, the point i was making is 9:11 is about 8:31 for 3000 and jacobs a 3:59 for 15000 indoors, 8:31 for 3000 and 14:45 was in her prime when she ran that 2 mile with the aid of male pacers, the 2 mile expectation seemed considerably higher than the others.
and the poster said he thought she could do it this year. i am optimistic about times to a fault, but 9:12 for 2 miles seems too much for this year, the others are difficult but possible.
One more time.....or maybe 15 more times!! I do NOT agree with T&FN standard differentials between 1500/mile and 3K/2 mile. For Cain's 4:11 last year, they attached a 4:31 mile. For her 9:02 indoors this year, they have her at 9:45!!!
I go by the idea that the 109 meters or 218 meters they have to run to finish the English distances are NOT long enough to slow them down much....or enough where they can't keep up their kick to the end.
Cain's ACTUAL 1500/mile difference was 16.53 in her 4:28, and 16.67 in her 4:32. Cain's ACTUAL 3K/2 mile difference was 34.17 in her 9:38.68 run. Cain is such a strong runner.....I've never seen her fade at the end of a race.....I think if she were to hit 3K in 8:50 or even 8:40, she could hold that 34 second differential, and have a two mile time of 9:24 or 9:14. Ditto with the 1500/mile. If she runs 4:05 later this year in a mile race, her mile time could be 4:21+.
I understand GH's contention that if they're going for a fast 2 mile, they won't want to run their fastest 3K. They would hold back, and save their energy for the kick.
But what if they go ALL OUT to the 3K point of a two mile race....then continue on as fast as they possibly can?? Would they die (figuratively speaking!!)?? Would they slow to a crawl, and run their last 218 in 40+ secs?? Maybe. But an athlete of Cain's (or any elite athlete's) caliber SHOULD be able to run closer to that 34 than to that 40!!
That is why I stated that Cain COULD run 8:40 and 9:12, or 8:45 and 9:20!!
I also generally assign a 12-15 second slowdown between a mile and a two mile. Thus, one who runs a 4:00 mile CAN run 8:24 to 8:30 for two miles. Someone who can run a 1500 in 4:05 can run 3000 in 8:34 to 8:40!!
Whether Cain does that THIS year remains to be seen, but surely in the next two years!!
aaronk wrote:One more time.....or maybe 15 more times!! I do NOT agree with T&FN standard differentials between 1500/mile and 3K/2 mile. For Cain's 4:11 last year, they attached a 4:31 mile. For her 9:02 indoors this year, they have her at 9:45!!!
Take out a calculator.
1500 Time x 1.08 = Mile Time 4:11.0 (251 x 1.08 = 271.1) ~ 4:31.1 3000 Time x 1.08 = Two-Mile Time 9:02.1 (542 x 1.08 = 585.9) ~ 9:45.9
Sorry that you think multiplication is not an applicable approach. You cannot proceed as though the marginal distance will be run at the same speed and you cannot use the closing time. If that were an OK approach, then the equivalent two-mile for a 4:00 mile is an 8:00 two-mile. To say that Cain will not fade (at all) at the end of the race is to assert that her two-mile will be at the same pace as her mile.
The ratio of 1609.433 to 1500 is 1.0729 but the slowing required to run long stretches that out to 1.08. I could go into a bunch of consistent math that shows why this is reasonable, but I am almost certain that it would be lost on you, since you have a 'belief' that you are right. In brief, you will find that Pace(Distance) = Constant + Log(Distance) or Time = Pace x Distance = Distance x (Constant + Log(Distance)). The implications are left as an exercise for the reader.
Put another way, go look at the video of her World Youth 4:11; If, when she crossed the finish line she had to run an additional 109.433 meters, I do not think that you would tell me that she could do that in 17 seconds ... it is unlikely that she could have done it in a lot less than 30 seconds. She would have had to run a bunch of her race a little bit slower to run the additional distance. These functions provide an analytical method that matches the data very well. Instead of fighting it, you should spend your time trying to understand why these things work this way.
You're right! My math skills do NOT allow me to understand your formulas. But it's NOT because I think I'm right all the time!! (If only!! ) But let me set a couple of things straight. One, I never said a runner who does a 4:00 mile could run an 8:00 2 mile. I gave a "slowdown rate" of 12 to 15 secs per mile (or per 1500 in a 3K). Thus, a 4:00 miler can do, IMO, a two in 8:24 to 8:30, as stated above. Nowhere near doubling his/her time!!
The only events where I think someone CAN double their shorter distance time would be in the 100-200. A 10.00 100 should make a 20.00 200 possible. What the sprinter loses on the curve, he/she gains on the straight, thus allowing him/her to double (or almost double) their 100 time in a 200. A 9.60 (Bolt) should allow for a 19.20 200 (Bolt has 9.58 and 19.19!!).
The farther the distances, the higher the slowdown rate. (Also, the slower you are, the higher the rate!!)
Thus the slowdown rate for 5K to 10K is between 30 and 40 secs for each 5K. A 13:00 5K person could run a 10K in from 27:00 to 27:20. Look at K Bekele's times. 12:37 and 26:17. Approximately a 31-32 sec per 5K slowdown!! Rupp is now 12:58 and 26:48. A 26 sec slowdown....outside my window. He obviously (to me, at least) has a lot more potential in the 5K, based on his current 10K time.
Back to Cain's (or anyone's!!!) ability to kick off their fastest 1500 (to 1 mile) or 3000 (to 2 mile) at the SAME pace they were going at the enroute post.
Like I said, I've never seen her totally wasted at the end of a race.....so far!! She doesn't walk around, her legs like jelly. She doesn't crumble to the track and lay there inert for 5 minutes!! (Surprised when Lagat did, after his 2 mile!!) She jogged a "victory" lap, looking as fresh as when she started. So I really DO think she could hold to her 16+ sec final 109 meters (or 34 for the 218)......even if she ran much faster than she already has!!
Math formulas are all good and well, but we're talking the abilities of a highly trained, fine tuned athlete here......not a machine attached to scientific formulas!!
The 'rule of thumb' on the 5000/10,000 is double the 5000 time and add a minute. For other than the best you need to scale that minute by the ratio of athletes 5000/World Class 5000. Thus, 13:00 is 26+1 or 27. 12:40 is 25:20 + minute, etc. 15:00 is 30:00 + (15/13)*60 ~ 30+70 seconds ~ 31:10.
By the way, if you run a linear regression of Pace on log(Distance) you will get a very good fit. If you add dummy variables for non-highly competed distances and a second-order term on log(D) the fit can be as has as R Sq values of 99.99%.