Prep mile and 2 mile in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s

Other Running Related Topic
Reply
Moderation
1 2 8
Next

  • malmo

    Member since 07/09/2002.

    22,939 posts. Last post 1 day ago.
    19 years ago 01/22/2005 10:37am EST

    For your edification:

    Mile.......1.........10........15.........20........25.......30.........40........50......

    1960 4:11.7..4:17.5..4:19.2..4:21.0..4:22.9..4:24.0......................

    1961 4:03.5..4:17.3..4:18.5..4:20.4..4:19.8..4:20.5.......

    1962 4:08.7..4:16.0..4:17.6..4:19.2..4:20.8..4:21.3 (33)

    1963 4:07.0..4:16.8..4:18.3..4:18.9............................

    1964 3:59.0..4:14.4..4:15.7..4:16.5..4:17.0..4:17.5.........

    1965 3:55.3..4:11.4..4:12.8..4:13.8..4:14.5..4:15.4

    1966 3:59.4..4:12.2..4:13.2..4:13.6..4:14.4..4:15.3..4:17.3

    1967 3:59.8..4:10.2..4:11.4..4:12.0..4:13.7..4:15.2..........

    1968 4:08.0..4:12.1..4:12.7..4:13.0..4:13.3..4:14.0..4:14.4 (34)..........

    1969 4:05.1..4:10.4..4:11.6..4:12.7..4:13.4..4:14.0..4:14.8..4:15.0 (45)......

    ............1.........10.........15........20........25........30.........40........50..........60........70.......80.......90.......

    1970 4:06.0..4:10.0..4:11.0..4:12.3..4:13.8..4:14.3..4:15.2..4:16.2

    1971 4:05.1..4:11.2..4:12.3..4:12.9..4:13.3..4:13.8..4:14.5..4:15.3........4:16.2

    1972 4:04.2..4:09.2..4:10.9..4:11.8..4:12.2..4:13.3..4:13.9..4:14.5 (52).4:15.3..4:16.4

    1973 4:02.7..4:09.0..4:10.2..4:12.0..4:12.3..4:13.0..4:13.6..4:14.1 (52).4:14.8..4:15.4..4:16.1..4:16.8(91)

    1974 4:02.4..4:08.9..4:09.6..4:10.4..4:11.4..4:11.5..4:12.5..4:13.4........4:14.3..4:14.9..4:15.3..4:16.3

    1975 4:07.0..4:10.4..4:11.1..4:11.7..4:12.2..4:12.8..4:13.4..4:14.0 (52).4:14.5..4:14.9..4:15.3..4:16.2

    1976 4:02.7..4:09.2..4:10.4..4:10.8..4:11.2..4:11.7..4:12.5..4:13.5........4:14.2..4:14.8..4:15.0..4:15.6

    1977 4:04.9..4:08.6..4:10.2..4:10.6..4:11.4..4:11.8..4:12.5..4:13.0........4:14.0..4:14.4..4:15.0..4:15.6

    1978 4:05.4..4:09.7..4:10.8..4:11.1..4:11.4..4:12.4..4:13.1..4:13.9........4:14.3..4:14.7..4:15.1..4:15.4

    1979 4:05.3..4:10.1..4:11.0..4:11.4..4:12.1..4:13.0..4:13.7..4:14.4 (51).4:15.0..4:15.4..4:16.0

    ............1........10.........15.........20.......25.........30........40.........50.............60.......70.......80......90...

    1980 4:03.8..4:09.2..4:10.0..4:10.7..4:11.7..4:12.1..4:13.7..4:14.7........4:15.2..4:15.7

    1981 4:07.2..4:11.6..4:12.3..4:12.6..4:13.4..4:13.8..4:14.8..4:15.3........4:15.6

    1982 4:05.2..4:09.5..4:10.6..4:12.0..4:12.9..4:13.3..4:14.2..4:14.7........4:15.5..4:16.2

    1983 4:06.3..4:10.3..4:11.7..4:12.2..4:12.6..4:13.1..4:14.4..4:14.9........4:15.4..4:16.1

    1984 4:07.1..4:10.8..4:11.6..4:12.4..4:13.4..4:14.1..4:14.8..4:15.4........4:16.1

    1985 4:03.6..4:10.9..4:12.1..4:13.3..4:13.5..4:14.3..4:15.0..4:16.0........4:16.3..4:16.9..4:17.5..4:17.7

    1986 4:05.6..4:10.3..4:12.0..4:12.7..4:13.1..4:13.9..4:14.5..4:15.3........4:15.9..4:16.3..4:17.0

    1987 4:04.3..4:12.3..4:13.1..4:13.6..4:14.2..4:14.4..4:15.2..4:15.8........4:16.6 .4:17.0..4:17.4..4:18.0

    1988 4:06.6..4:11.1..4:12.5..4:13.2..4:14.5..4:14.9..4:15.8..4:16.6 (51).4:17.1..4:17.4..4:18.2

    1989 4:06.1..4:11.9..4:13.0..4:13.9..4:14.4..4:15.2..4:15.6..4:16.1........4:17.3

    ...........1..........10........15........20........25.......30........40........50.............60.......70.......80.......90.......100

    1990 4:07.7..4:12.2..4:13.6..4:14.3..4:14.5..4:16.0..4:16.4..4:16.7........4:17.6

    1991 4:08.5..4:12.3..4:13.7..4:14.4..4:14.7..4:15.3..4:16.2..4:16.8........4:17.5..4:18.2..4:18.7

    1992 4:05.7..4:12.2..4:14.3..4:15.5..4:16.2..4:16.4..4:17.2..4:17.6........4:18.1..4:18.9

    1993 4:09.0..4:12.6..4:13.1..4:13.8..4:14.4..4:14.9..4:15.8..4:17.3........4:17.8..4:18.5

    1994 4:05.7..4:11.6..4:13.4..4:14.3..4:15.2..4:15.4..4:16.3..4:17.0........4:17.6..4:18.0..4:19.2..4:19.8

    1995 4:05.5..4:12.4..4:13.4..4:13.9..4:14.3..4:15.3..4:16.0..4:16.8........4:17.5..4:18.0..4:18.6..4:19.1..4:20.0

    1996 4:06.5..4:12.7..4:14.6..4:15.0..4:15.3..4:16.2..4:16.6..4:17.6........4:18.0..4:18.5..

    1997 4:02.1..4:12.7..4:14.3..4:14.8..4:15.5..4:16.3..4:17.1..4:17.4........4:17.7..4:18.5..4:18.8..4:19.5..4:19.7

    1998 4:08.7..4:13.8..4:14.7..4:15.2..4:15.8..4:16.5..4:16.8..4:17.1........4:17.7..4:18.2..4:18.6..4:19.1..4:19.4

    1999 4:02.8..4:11.3..4:12.0..4:12.8..4:13.6..4:15.2..4:16.5..4:16.7........4:17.5..4:17.8..4:18.2..4:18.5..4:18.7..4:19.1..4:19.4..4:20.0

    ............1..........10........15........20........25.......30.......40........50.............60.......70......80.......90......100......110......120.......130.....140......150.....160......170...

    2000 4:00.3..4:08.4..4:10.7..4:11.5..4:12.3..4:13.4..4:14.2..4:15.3........4:16.3..4:16.5..4:17.0..4:17.4..4:17.7..4:18.1..4:18.5..4:18.8..4:19.5

    2001 3:53.4..4:10.5..4:10.8..4:12.0..4:12.7..4:14.3..4:15.2..4:15.8........4:16.4..4:16.8..4:17.2..4:17.7..4:18.2..4:18.6..4:19.2..4:19.4..4:19.6..4:19.9..4:20.1

    2002 4:05.5..4:11.1..4:12.8..4:13.3..4:13.7..4:14.1..4:14.7..4:15.5........4:16.0..4:16.3..4:16.9..4:17.4..4:17.8..4:18.0..4:18.4..4:18.6..4:18.9

    2003 4:01.0..4:07.1..4:10.0 .4:11.0..4:12.1..4:13.0..4:13.8..4:14.6........4:15.6..4:16.0..4:16.5..4:17.0..4:17.3..4:17.9..4:18.4..4:18.5..4:18.8..4:19.1..4:19.3..4:19.5

    2004 4:01.8..4:09.9..4:11.0..4:11.5..4:12.1..4:12.7..4:13.0..4:14.8........4:15.8..4:16.2..4:16.6..4:17.0..4:17.3..4:17.5..4:17.7..4:18.1..4:18.3..4:18.5..4:18.8..4:19.0

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.

    2 Mile....1.......10.......15........20........25........30.......40.......50...............60.......70.......80.......90.......100.

    1960 9:22.4..9:44.0..................................

    1961 9:24.8..9:41.8 (8).............................

    1962 9:15.5..9:32.0..9:37.8..9:39.5 (18).

    1963 9:11.4..9:28.0..9:32.0..9:35.1

    1964 8:53.6..9:24.2..9:28.5..9:29.7..9:32.5..9:35.2..9:37.3 (36)

    1965 8:57.8..9:15.0..9:18.6..9:20.2..9:22.0..9:24.4..9:25.3 (34)

    1966 8:48.4..9:08.8..9:12.0..9:14.4..9:18.0..9:19.4 (35)..................

    1967 8:54.6..9:09.0..9:11.4..9:14.0..9:18.0..9:19.4 (35)..................

    1968 8:56.4..9:06.0..9:11.0..9:12.2..9:13.6..9:14.2........................

    1969 8:41.5..9:03.4..9:04.7..9:10.0..9:10.8..9:12.4..9:15.0.............

    ...........1........10........15........20.......25.......30........40........50...........60........70.......80........90.......100............

    1970 8:54.0..9:03.0..9:05.2..9:08.2..9:12.8..9:15.0.................................................................................

    1971 8:49.0..9:00.8..9:03.6..9:06.4..9:08.6..9:09.4..9:12.4..9:14.4........9:15.8...........................................

    1972 8:48.8..8:58.2..9:02.8..9:06.6..9:07.4..9:09.6..9:11.4..9:13.6 (53).9:14.8............................................

    1973 8:40.9..8:59.0..9:02.2..9:04.6..9:06.0..9:07.0..9:10.2..9:11.6 (55).9:12.6..9:14.0..9:15.0..9:16.0..9:16.8

    1974 8:46.6..8:59.6..9:00.6..9:02.2..9:03.8..9:04.8..9:07.2..9:09.2 (54).9:10.4..9:11.6..9:13.2..9:14.6

    1975 8:45.0..8:56.4..9:02.6..9:03.8..9:04.4..9:05.0..9:07.0..9:08.2......................................

    1976 8:44.6..8:54.8..9:00.4..9:01.8..9:03.2..9:04.8..9:07.5..9:09.8 (53).9:11.0..9:12:1..9:14.3

    1977 8:45.8..8:55.7..8:58.6..9:00.2..9:02.0..9:05.0..9:08.3..9:09.7.......9:11.6..9:12.7..9:13.3

    1978 8:44.0..9:02.4..9:04.9..9:06.5..9:07.6..9:08.8..9:08.7..9:09.8.......9:12.2..9:13.3...........

    1979 8:36.3..8:55.7..9:02.5..9:04.5..9:05.8..9:06.5..9:08.4..9:09.9.......9:10.8..9:12.9..9:14.0

    ............1........10........15........20........25.......30.......40.........50...........60.......70.......80.......90.......100......

    1980 8:49.4..9:02.9..9:04.6..9:07.8..9:08.7..9:09.9..9:13.9..9:14.4.................

    1981 8:49.9..9:00.6..9:03.6..9:04.7..9:06.9..9:07.9..9:11.3..9:14.3..................

    1982 8:55.1..9:04.3..9:05.8..9:09.3..9:09.7..9:10.6..9:13.0..9:14.3........9:15.3.

    1983 8:44.0..9:03.4..9:04.6..9:06.2..9:07.9..9:09.1..9:10.8..9:12.7........9:13.9..9:15.1..9:16.2

    1984 8:56.5..9:05.3..9:05.9..9:07.7..9:09.3..9:11.6..9:13.3..9:15.1.................

    1985 8:49.8..9:05.3..9:06.3..9:07.9..9:08.9..9:10.0..9:13.6..9:15.5.................

    1986 8:48.0..9:02.1..9:06.7..9:08.4..9:09.9..9:10.9..9:13.0..9:14.9........9:16.8

    1987 8:55.4..9:03.6..9:06.5..9:08.5..9:10.2..9:10.9..9:12.5..9:14.5........9:15.8

    1988 8:59.2..9:06.1..9:07.1..9:09.8..9:12.2..9:14.2..9:15.7..9:17.3................

    1989 8:53.8..9:09.2..9:12.4..9:13.3..9:15.7..9:17.2..9:18.6..9:20.0.................

    ............1........10........15........20........25.......30.......40.........50............60.......70.......80........90......100..

    1990 8:56.4..9:05.6..9:09.9..9:10.7..9:11.5..9:13.4..9:15.1..9:17.7.................

    1991 8:59.3..9:11.0..9:12.8..9:14.2..9:15.8..9:16.6..9:18.3..9:19.4.................

    1992 8:59.5..9:09.6..9:11.4..9:14.6..9:15.8..9:17.3..9:19.7..9:20.8.................

    1993 9:03.8..9:07.3..9:09.9..9:10.2..9:13.8..9:16.8..9:18.8..9:20.9.................

    1994 8:55.0..9:09.3..9:11.1..9:13.5..9:14.2..9:15.2..9:17.0..9:20.3.................

    1995 9:01.5..9:05.6..9:08.4..9:10.2..9:11.9..9:12.9..9:17.1..9:18.7.................

    1996 9:00.7..9:10.7..9:14.9..9:16.6..9:18.0..9:19.0..9:20.2..9:21.7.................

    1997 8:58.0..9:10.9..9:12.3..9:14.3..9:15.9..9:16.8..9:18.8..9:19.4.........9:20.5

    1998 9:02.1..9:12.0..9:13.3..9:13.8..9:14.5..9:15.3..9:17.7..9:19.7.........9:20.4

    1999 8:49.6..9:03.7..9:06.1..9:09.7..9:11.8..9:13.5..9:16.4..9:18.3.........9:20.4

    ............1........10........15........20........25.......30.......40.........50..............60.......70.......80.......90......100.....110..

    2000 8:44.2..8:58.2..9:05.1..9:09.6..9:11.6..9:12.2..9:14.4..9:15.8.........9:17.1..9:18.6..9:20.0..9:21.2....................

    2001 8:44.4..9:00.2..9:03.8..9:08.6..9:10.1..9:13.2..9:13.9..9:16.5.........9:18.0..9:18.7..9:20.1..9:21.2....................

    2002 8:51.5..9:00.4..9:03.3..9:05.1..9:06.2..9:08.1..9:10.0..9:11.5.........9:13.8..9:15.9..9:17.3..9:19.2..9:20.5..........

    2003 8:46.3..8:57.6..9:00.9..9:03.1..9:06.1..9:08.0..9:10.7..9:13.7.........9:16.1..9:17.2..9:18.7..9:19.7..9:20.3..........

    2004 8:42.4..8:55.5..8:58.7..9:00.3..9:02.6..9:05.8..9:10.2..9:12.0.........9:14.6..9:15.8..9:17.4..9:18.0..9:19.5..9:20.

  • rip van runner

    Anonymous Poster

    19 years ago 01/22/2005 10:52am EST
    re: malmo

    Peaked in the middle 70's

    Held on until the middle 80's

    Sucked in the 90's

    Coming back in the 00's

    More work to catch the middle 70's

    Is it any coincidence that a lot of good runners from the 70's are now coaching our high school runners and know what it takes to be successful?

  • malmo

    Member since 07/09/2002.

    22,939 posts. Last post 1 day ago.
    19 years ago 01/22/2005 11:01am EST
    re: rip van runner

    FWIW. The most glaring thing that jumps out is the abrupt reversal of the trend in 1999 from the absolute depths of the 1996-1998 period. The only explanation I can come up with is that 1998 is the first year were there was widespread internet usage, allowing runners a forum for the exchange of ideas and support. Grote and Schiefer's Track and Field Media, the first website for hardcore runners was extremely popular during those years (1996-1999).

    I have a color-formatted version for anyone who wants it. Much easier to discern trends. Just post your email address and I'll send it.

  • malmo

    Member since 07/09/2002.

    22,939 posts. Last post 1 day ago.
    19 years ago 01/22/2005 11:35am EST
    re: malmo

    Since I do have the fully formatted version I'll alert you to my observations:

    1965: The year the mile list became "modern," pretty good in a historical context across the board.

    1966: The first year that the 2 mile become good hisotically.

    1974-1977: Clearly the best years from every way you look at it.

    1980: The first cracks begin to show. Depth in the 2 mile falls off. In 1982 depth in the mile fails, starting a 17 year downward trend.

    1988: Trend accelerates.

    1991-1992: First of the twin troughs that bookend the 90s.

    1996-1998: Second and more severe trough.

    1999: Abrupt and unexplained reversal in the trend. Perhaps coinciding with the surge of internet subscribers.

    2003-2004: Performances to 30 deep almost match the peaks of the 70s.

    2005 and beyond: I don't see anything stopping this new generation of hungry, "extreme" runners.

  • registered

    Racer1

    Member since 07/03/2002.

    454 posts. Last post 18 years ago.
    19 years ago 01/22/2005 11:41am EST
    re: malmo

    malmo wrote:

    FWIW. The most glaring thing that jumps out is the abrupt reversal of the trend in 1999 from the absolute depths of the 1996-1998 period. The only explanation I can come up with is that 1998 is the first year were there was widespread internet usage, allowing runners a forum for the exchange of ideas and support. Grote and Schiefer's Track and Field Media, the first website for hardcore runners was extremely popular during those years (1996-1999).

    I have a color-formatted version for anyone who wants it. Much easier to discern trends. Just post your email address and I'll send it.

    Malmo, who ran 8:42.4 in 2004? Bumbalough, I know, ran 8:49 and Kiptoo had an 8:45. McDougal and Barnicle were also around 8:50 but who ran an 8:42?

    Also, I am surprised that the difference from the 1970's to the 1990's was not as pronounced. Looking only at the 3200m, where a dearth of poor distance training would be more apparent than in the mile, the 50th best time in the 1970's was between:

    9:08.2-9:14.4

    In the 1980's:

    9:12.7-9:20.0

    1990's:

    9:17.7-9:21.7

    2000's:

    9:11.5-9:16.5

    Usually the very top times are pretty close.

    Granted, there is a different, but the very slowest #50 time in the 90's (9:21.7) and the very slowest #50 time in the 70's (9:14.4) are not SUBSTANTIALLY different. 7.3 seconds. A difference, but not a big one.

  • kiddo

    Anonymous Poster

    19 years ago 01/22/2005 11:45am EST
    re: Racer1

    the 8:42 is probably conversion from Rupp's 8:03 3k

  • Zat0pek

    Anonymous Poster

    19 years ago 01/22/2005 12:06pm EST
    re: malmo

    malmo wrote:I have a color-formatted version for anyone who wants it. Much easier to discern trends. Just post your email address and I'll send it.

    Thanks.

  • Interested....

    Anonymous Poster

    19 years ago 01/22/2005 12:16pm EST
    re: Zat0pek

    Malmo:

    If you'd send a copy of the color-formatted data to

    07bjv@williams.edu

    , I'd be much obliged. This is some nice work.

  • malmo

    Member since 07/09/2002.

    22,939 posts. Last post 1 day ago.
    19 years ago 01/22/2005 12:29pm EST
    re: Racer1

    Racer1 wrote:

    Granted, there is a different, but the very slowest #50 time in the 90's (9:21.7) and the very slowest #50 time in the 70's (9:14.4) are not SUBSTANTIALLY different. 7.3 seconds. A difference, but not a big one.

    You couldn't be more wrong. 7.3 seconds is huge. The 9:14.4, by any rational thinking, is not indicative of the trend of the decade.

    Why don't you average the 50th best of each decade. Since the list only goes 30 deep in 1970 and we can safely presume 1970 was the slowest year of the decade - let's throw it out. Throw out the 9:08.2. as well and averge the middle eight years of the 70s, do the same with the 90s, and compare.

    --------------------

    Sub 4:10, sub 9:00 by decade

    ----4:10---9:00

    60s 44 14

    70s 105 102

    80s 68 49

    90s 38 17

    00s 56 58

    1960 0 0

    1961 1 0

    1962 1 0

    1963 1 0

    1964 2 1

    1965 6 1

    1966 8 3

    1967 9 1

    1968 7 2

    1969 9 6

    1970 8 6

    1971 6 7

    1972 11 12

    1973 12 10

    1974 16 11

    1975 8 13

    1976 12 11

    1977 13 18

    1978 12 6

    1979 8 10

    1980 12 8

    1981 6 9

    1982 11 5

    1983 9 5

    1984 6 1

    1985 8 5

    1986 7 7

    1987 5 7

    1988 4 1

    1989 3 1

    1990 6 3

    1991 2 1

    1992 5 1

    1993 2 0

    1994 3 2

    1995 3 0

    1996 1 1

    1997 6 2

    1998 4 0

    1999 6 7

    2000 14 10

    2001 8 7

    2002 7 9

    2003 15 14

    2004 12 18

  • registered

    mzungu

    Member since 07/02/2002.

    973 posts. Last post 3 months ago.
    19 years ago 01/22/2005 12:32pm EST
    re: malmo

    same here please - jbawcom@hotmail.com

  • surf n stuff

    Anonymous Poster

    19 years ago 01/22/2005 12:39pm EST
    re: malmo

    good results.

    sit back and enjoy, the distance resurgence is in full effect.

  • darkness

    Anonymous Poster

    19 years ago 01/22/2005 12:45pm EST
    re: Zat0pek

    I would like the color version. Thanks in advance.

  • Census man

    Anonymous Poster

    19 years ago 01/22/2005 12:51pm EST
    re: malmo

    One thing that is sometimes mentioned, but not often taken into consideration is population differences during this period. The following information is taken from the US Census website. Unfortunately, it only splits the ages from 5-14 and 15-24, but the trend is obvious (sorry for any formatting irregularities):

    US population (in thousands)

    Year 5-14 15-24

    1960 35,465 24,020

    1970 40,746 35,441

    1980 34,942 42,487

    1990 36,213 36,774

    2000 41,087 39,184

    Thus, it's pretty clear that high school age population was greatest in the late '70s and significantly larger than the population during much of the '80s and '90s. The census site also has yearly estimates which show a steady decline in the 15-24 population starting in 1979 and continuing until 1997. For the 5-14 age group, the trend, as expected, started to decline in 1970 but reversing in 1989.

    I'm not saying that the population difference is the only reason for the decline of distance running depth, but it has to be considered a major factor.

  • registered

    runn

    Member since 01/21/2005.

    12,379 posts. Last post 1 hour ago.
    19 years ago 01/22/2005 12:55pm EST
    re: malmo

    I ran in the mid-70's and was mediocre, but, would would a "good"runner if I ran now. At my own local level. I coach runners now. I notice that even the very good ones have too much going on. Pressure from peers, parents and school officials to get way too involved in too many clubs, activities, jobs, etc, just to have a good high school resume. In the end, it doesn't do much to get you into a good college.

    Kids just have to slow down (so to speak" and enjoy teenage life to run faster.

  • malmo

    Member since 07/09/2002.

    22,939 posts. Last post 1 day ago.
    19 years ago 01/22/2005 1:02pm EST
    re: Census man

    Census man wrote:

    One thing that is sometimes mentioned, but not often taken into consideration is population differences during this period. in 1989.

    I'm not saying that the population difference is the only reason for the decline of distance running depth, but it has to be considered a major factor.

    The correlation would be low.

    Data from NFHS study:

    1970s:

    12,299,000 average HS aged children each year.

    3,887,352 participants in all sports (boys)

    105 4:10 milers

    102 9:00 2-milers

    Lets compare the other decades.

    1980s:

    10,780,000 HS kids (-12.4%)

    3,387,482 participants (-12.9%)

    68 4:10 milers (-35.2%)

    49 9:00 2-milers (-52.0%)

    1990s:

    11,111,000 HS kids (-9.7%)

    3,605,942 participants (-7.2%)

    38 4:10 milers (-63.8%)

    17 9:00 2-milers (-83.3%)

    14-17 Avg

    2000 11,933 11,111 -9.7%

    1999 12,048

    1998 11,314

    1997 11,953

    1996 11,617

    1995 11,401

    1994 10,560

    1993 10,247

    1992 10,114

    1991 9,923

    1990 9,912 10,780 -12.4%

    1989 10,020

    1988 10,379

    1987 10,944

    1986 11,149

    1985 11,024

    1984 10,711

    1983 10,768

    1982 11,131

    1981 11,757

    1980 11,835 12,299

    1979 12,190

    1978 12,346

    1977 12,472

    1976 12,550

    1975 12,531

    1974 12,566

    1973 12,309

    1972 12,283

    1971 11,906

  • ramxc

    Anonymous Poster

    19 years ago 01/22/2005 1:22pm EST
    re: malmo

    i'd like one george.

    ramxc@yahoo.com

  • Question...

    Anonymous Poster

    19 years ago 01/22/2005 1:30pm EST
    re: ramxc

    George--Did you convert the 3200 times to 2miles once we lost the 2mile as an event. The 3.5-4 second conversion would even add to the telling woes of the 80's and 90's.....

  • registered

    BS

    Member since 07/06/2002.

    1,146 posts. Last post 14 hours ago.
    19 years ago 01/22/2005 1:32pm EST
    re: malmo

    [quote]malmo wrote:

    The correlation would be low.

    That may be true but you can\'t say that based on the stat\'s presented.

    Truthfully, our population\'s impact on the mile and two mile is really tough to gauge. Those times are still extreme outliers and so therefore volitile by nature - making any regression subject to error. Secondly, top mile an two mile times are drawn not from the HS population as a whole but from the population of HS distance runners(which I am guessing would be hard to find out) you could use track participation but that might not be a true representation if the proportion of runners between events has changed.

    Very interesting list none the less.

  • Track guy

    Anonymous Poster

    19 years ago 01/22/2005 1:34pm EST
    re: Question...

    Question... wrote:

    George--Did you convert the 3200 times to 2miles once we lost the 2mile as an event. The 3.5-4 second conversion would even add to the telling woes of the 80's and 90's.....

    Malmo started this collaborative project over at the track and field news website. The times were converted where needed and the data came from, mostly, i think, Jack Shepards annuals.

  • wow

    Anonymous Poster

    19 years ago 01/22/2005 1:46pm EST
    re: malmo

    Wow.. In 2003 as a senior in high school, I was one out of 170 milers in the United States. Definetly humbling.

1 2 8

Jump To A Page

Next Last
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

Of General Interest

  1. Irish gymnast shows you can have sex in the "anti-sex" cardboard beds in the Olympic village (video)

  2. The LA Times goes to Flagstaff: “For a distance runner, there’s no place in the world like Flagstaff."

  3. Emma Coburn Ridiculous Biking Schedule

  4. 2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion

  5. Per sources, Colorado expected to hire NAU assistant coach Jarred Cornfield as head xc coach

  6. France doesn't back down. It's female Olympic athletes won't be allowed to wear a hijab and Amnesty International is outraged

  7. GEORGIA CUTS AMERICANS

  8. Jakob losing 5k in Paris due tu Ugandians tactics

  9. Tadej Pogacar Is Obviously Doping To Be Destroying Everyone Without Even Trying. He is Ivan Basso The Second

  10. Olympic village has opened and Dutch beach volleyball player who raped a 12-year-old isn't in it

New Forum Moderation Information & Rules Search Troubleshooting

This thread has already been deleted.

Note: We review 100% of reports submitted. Visit our moderation dashboard to view statistics on our moderating activity. If you have a question or concern, email us at letsrun@letsrun.com or call us at our toll-free phone number:

1-844-LETSRUN (1-844-538-7786).

Author
Body
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?

View our Terms Of Service for a complete description of our forum policies.

Provide context for this post report if relevant.

Reply Replying to

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview
By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Message Board