Seriously don’t get this BS, 9 seconds for a conversion shouldn’t be real. 3:57 is impressive on any track but hyping up Nico’s race is pathetic. Come down to sea level and run a 3:48, he can’t.
Seriously don’t get this BS, 9 seconds for a conversion shouldn’t be real. 3:57 is impressive on any track but hyping up Nico’s race is pathetic. Come down to sea level and run a 3:48, he can’t.
Did you miss last year when he ran 4:02 altitude then came down and ran 3:56? Despite being more acclimated to altitude, he's probably capable of 3:51 right now.
any conversion isn't real. I learned recently that kids say their converted time as their pr , ie I ran 158 (though I really ran 201 flat track) indoors.... I'm not sure if this is the conversion but you get it
“All models are wrong, some are useful.” -George Box
And this one is useful, it has it flaws but it tells us *on average* a typical athletes converstion based on altitude. Note however, that people who live at altitude are not typical athletes. The conversion is still useful, but must be taken with a grain of salt for everyone.
Seriously don’t get this BS, 9 seconds for a conversion shouldn’t be real. 3:57 is impressive on any track but hyping up Nico’s race is pathetic. Come down to sea level and run a 3:48, he can’t.
Did you miss last year when he ran 4:02 altitude then came down and ran 3:56? Despite being more acclimated to altitude, he's probably capable of 3:51 right now.
The NCAA altitude conversions understate how much altitude would impact someone not acclimated to altitude would perform up high, and slightly overstate how much a well acclimated to high altitude athlete would perform down low. And there is differentiation among athletes. Either way, 3:57 at 7000 ft. is a monster performance. Up until 2020, no athlete had ever run sub-4 in Colorado, when Klecker and Hoare did it. For a collegian to run 3:57 at 7000 ft. is an all-time great college race.
I live at altitude, not that high, but I can tell you it’s real but not 9 seconds. I think the fairest and most accurate conversion I’ve seen is that a 1.30 half marathon is about 1.24 at sea level (assuming exact same course and conditions). So if you back out of that down to a mile, it probably comes to about 6 seconds off. I live at 5500. We regularly go up to ski towns where the base is ~7k feet and I’ve gotten altitude sickness a few times after a run. It’s very very high, so 9 seconds wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve lived up here 5 years and I’m not sure your body ever really fully adapts.
Flat track conversions are absolutely ridiculous... Altitude at least makes some sense. The truth is there is no perfect conversion because it affects athletes differently. With that said, there should be SOME conversion, but I agree it is currently too much and breaks down at higher levels.
Seriously don’t get this BS, 9 seconds for a conversion shouldn’t be real. 3:57 is impressive on any track but hyping up Nico’s race is pathetic. Come down to sea level and run a 3:48, he can’t.
Did you miss last year when he ran 4:02 altitude then came down and ran 3:56? Despite being more acclimated to altitude, he's probably capable of 3:51 right now.
Flat tracks probably make more sense. Everyone pretty much maneuvers around flat and bank tracks the same, while altitude has a very different effects on people.