You're right. None of these "conversions" pass scientific or mathematical muster. So whats your point?
Are you incapable of reading the article. The article states that Marcus Reilly ran 3:42.51 for 1500m and that the time is equivalent to a sub 4 mile. This statement is incorrect. THAT is the point. JFC.
You're right. None of these "conversions" pass scientific or mathematical muster. So whats your point?
Are you incapable of reading the article. The article states that Marcus Reilly ran 3:42.51 for 1500m and that the time is equivalent to a sub 4 mile. This statement is incorrect. THAT is the point. JFC.
Yes I'm capable of reading. You're missing the point. ALL conversions are incorrect. They are ALL nothing but wild-ass guesses.
Are you incapable of reading the article. The article states that Marcus Reilly ran 3:42.51 for 1500m and that the time is equivalent to a sub 4 mile. This statement is incorrect. THAT is the point. JFC.
Yes I'm capable of reading. You're missing the point. ALL conversions are incorrect. They are ALL nothing but wild-ass guesses.
You have some good training knowledge and experience but MAAAAN you’re an old head lol. Some really wacky opinions sometimes
1.08 is a wrong conversion because mile is a has been event nobody runs anymore, except for nostalgia purposes.
So you are comparing someone's PR in an event they raced 50 times, to their PR in an event they raced 5 times.
It’s a pretty good conversion ratio. Do you have a better one?
1609/1500 = 1.07 so that’s keeping the same pace.
1.08 allows you to come through the 1500 a bit slower to finish the mile.
3:42.0 1500m = 14.8 s per 100m. 4:00.0 mile = 14.9 s per 100m
Come through in 3:42.7 + 14.9 gets you 3:58.6 for 1600, then 1.3 s for the last 9 m gets you 3:59.9 for a mile.
Morceli’s mile record to 1500 record ratio (3:44/3:27) was 1.08. El G’s ratio (3:43/3:26) was 1.08.
Most milers ratios are higher than 1.08 because they don’t race the mile much. My ratio is 1.10 as I did not have a very good mile time and never ran it in peak shape.
Webb had a 1.078 ratio because his 3:46.9 mile was so good compared to his 3:30.5 1500.
Ngeny had a 1.07 ratio and basically set a 1500 PR of 3:28 en route to his 3:43 mile.
1.08 is a wrong conversion because mile is a has been event nobody runs anymore, except for nostalgia purposes.
So you are comparing someone's PR in an event they raced 50 times, to their PR in an event they raced 5 times.
It’s a pretty good conversion ratio. Do you have a better one?
1609/1500 = 1.07 so that’s keeping the same pace.
...
Morceli’s mile record to 1500 record ratio (3:44/3:27) was 1.08. El G’s ratio (3:43/3:26) was 1.08.
Neither El G nor Morceli raced the mile as much as 1500, so you have made no point at all.
Your basic error, being a novice to math along with every other idiot who disputes this, is thinking there is little difference between 1.07 or 1.08 as a conversion factor, which you aggravate by neglecting the decimal portions of El G and Morceli's times.
In fact, a 3:26.00, on a factor of 1.07, converts to a 3:40.4. The amount of daylight between that and 3:43.13 is unimaginably vast. A factor of 1.08.00 would have El G going 3:42.48, also vast.
What El G actually ran was 3:43.13. That would suggest a factor of 1.08.31, but as I already explained, and you'd be a damn fool to deny, 1500 was El G's main event, as with every elite. Not this British mile business. So his real mile PR, if he'd focused on it equally to the 1500, would be what... 3:42:? 3:41? Nobody friggin knows, and that's the brutal truth of it.
I don't care if you don't LIKE it. Downvote all you want. It's TRUE and it's gonna stay true forever. You can argue about it when you're 80 if you want to be a stupid crotchety old man.
You leadfoots, acting like 3:42 isn't close to a 4:00 effort.... I'm not even fast and I know that an 80m FAT of 8.0? means you're close to 100m, even if you're unlucky enough to have a Charlie horse and fall on your snout both times you ran that level of performance.
i can imagine if you throw a pitch 97 miles per hour and only lunge 3.5 feet to accelerate the ball and have a strong upper kinetic chain, you're probably capable of throwing a massive WR. I can imagine that if Dos Santos goes out and runs a 32 flat on the way out, he's probably not very far off a WR/ PB. See what I'm saying?
It's all irrelevant to whose running. I ran 3:45.09 and can tell you on the day that I ran 3:45.09 if you throw in the extra 109m I would have broken 4:00. I closed in 54 and was just getting my momentum up and still had a lot left in the tank, I might have even hit 3:58 on that day. The conversion is pretty ridiculous because I have been to track meets before in which a runner split 3:46 at 1500m and resulted a 3:59 low for the full mile.
Yes I'm capable of reading. You're missing the point. ALL conversions are incorrect. They are ALL nothing but wild-ass guesses.
You have some good training knowledge and experience but MAAAAN you’re an old head lol. Some really wacky opinions sometimes
What is wrong or wacky about my opinion?
If it means anything to you I would agree that 3:42 is roughly equal to a 4:00 mile. Anyone who claims to be able ascertain equilance down to a hundredth or even a tenth is just flat out full of themselves.
