Record times 440 yard dash vs 400 meters

[greinkd]

In 1966 I ran the quarter mile in 49.8 seconds and it was the school record at the time. When I returned to my HS for my 25th reunion I saw my record still stood but the time was converted to the 400 meters time of 49.5 seconds. I’ve been told the conversion of a 440 yard dash to a 400 meters is 0.3 seconds.

About a year later in 1993 someone ran the 400 meters in 49.5 seconds which tied my quarter mile conversion time. Long story short they removed my time and replaced it with the time run in 1993. I just became aware of this in a recent visit.

I’ve been advised that both our times should be listed with perhaps an asterisk next to mine. Does anyone else reading this forum understand how the record should be translated?

Track and Field News uses a book table to convert times but I have not been able to find one. I’m trying to verify that I have the correct conversion time

[Gleason]

Perhaps the time of 49.5 was actually 49.50 FAT (Fully Automatic Time).

The conversion from hand timed to FAT is + 0.14 if my memory is correct. That is the only reasonable explanation that I have.

T&FN doesn't accept converted hand times for its lists, so nothing would prevent a school from giving precedence to FAT.

[paulthefan]

you ran yours on cinder or clay or some such, he likely ran his in 1993 on a synthetic surface, so yours is still about 1 second faster.

[dukehjsteve]

My old high school back in NY had a super, super runner in 1959... he ran 4:21.0 in the mile ( 10th best in USA HS that year) and also ran a half mile in 1:56.8.

I recently procured the current listing of my HS' records... they have listed a 1600 meters of 4:21.4 and an 800 meters of 1:56.8, both in the last 15 years. It appears they have blythely decided to ignore old yardage marks... even though they are longer !!! I've diplomatically advised the current coach of all this but who knows what they will do, if anything.

[Marlow]

When I started coaching at my school 16 years ago, I inherited some old, mostly yard marks as records. The 440 was a 51.3. I listed it as 51.0'. It was later tied at 51.0m, so I list both. But if someone comes along and runs anything from 51.20 down, I will list it as the sole record.

[greinkd]

Most of the tracks I ran on were run on black cinder. I used blocks and had about half inch spikes on my track shoes.

I read an excellent article on 440 times vs the 400 meters. They list the conversion time as 0.3 seconds. It really puts things in perspective

http://speedendurance.com/2007/07/20/44 ... d-figures/

I have written to my HS to see if they would reinstate my record with an asterick. They plan to research and will notify me of their decision.

Thanks for supplying your input. This is an excellent forum for me to learn as much as I can about simular situations. I to am trying to make a case with a diplomatic approach.

[kuha]

My old high school back in NY had a super, super runner in 1959... he ran 4:21.0 in the mile ( 10th best in USA HS that year) and also ran a half mile in 1:56.8.

I recently procured the current listing of my HS' records... they have listed a 1600 meters of 4:21.4 and an 800 meters of 1:56.8, both in the last 15 years. It appears they have blythely decided to ignore old yardage marks... even though they are longer !!! I've diplomatically advised the current coach of all this but who knows what they will do, if anything.

A really foolish situation, obviously. I suspect that at least some coaches are tempted to only acknowledge marks made during their tenure...or those made recently enough that they simply can't be ignored...

[Wmbgskip]

I think the calculation goes like this (153 of Big Gold Book)

49.8
+ .14 Hand-to-auto = 49.94
x .9942 for conversion to 400m = 49.65 seconds.

I may be reading the book too literally, but there's an option.

--Skip

[Marlow]

I think the calculation goes like this (153 of Big Gold Book)
49.8
+ .14 Hand-to-auto = 49.94
x .9942 for conversion to 400m = 49.65 seconds.
I may be reading the book too literally, but there's an option.
--Skip

Both the .14 and .9942 imply greater accuracy than is possible with a hand-time. Any conversion of a hand time should stay as a hand-time. Adding .14 for a 400 may be useful to put it in a list of times (best 400 in school history), but I would show it thusly:

51.03
51.04
50.9' (51.2y)
50.9
51.05

with a notation of conversions at the end

[greinkd]

Im getting some terrific feedback, but I ran the quarter mile a lot better than i do the math, so could someone plug in my numbers to give me the proper conversion time.

I ran a 49.8 440 yard dash hand timed in 1966 and would like to convert that to 400 meter FAT time.

I assume most 400 meter HS meets were FAT timed in 1993

Also if possible could someone convert a 400 meter FAT time of 49.5 to a 440 yard hand time.

[Marlow]

1. I ran a 49.8 440 yard dash hand timed in 1966 and would like to convert that to 400 meter FAT time.
2. I assume most 400 meter HS meets were FAT timed in 1993
3. Also if possible could someone convert a 400 meter FAT time to a 440 yard hand time.

1. 49.8y = 49.5'm, nothing more. In a list it would come after 49.64m and before 49.65m
2. NO.
3. 50.00m FAT = 50.30y = 50.16'h = 50.2y

[dj]

My old high school back in NY had a super, super runner in 1959... he ran 4:21.0 in the mile ( 10th best in USA HS that year) and also ran a half mile in 1:56.8.

I recently procured the current listing of my HS' records... they have listed a 1600 meters of 4:21.4 and an 800 meters of 1:56.8, both in the last 15 years. It appears they have blythely decided to ignore old yardage marks... even though they are longer !!! I've diplomatically advised the current coach of all this but who knows what they will do, if anything.

And now we surmise that dukehjsteve went to Huntington HS on Long Island!

[rainy.here]

I read an excellent article on 440 times vs the 400 meters. They list the conversion time as 0.3 seconds. It really puts things in perspective

http://speedendurance.com/2007/07/20/44 ... d-figures/

I hate to nit-pick, but that article has incorrect information. It says that
440y=402.56m, which is incorrect (but not by much).
440y=402.336m (exactly).

The 0.3 seconds is a pretty good indicator, except that tracks used for 400m and tracks that were used for 440y are quite different.

[eldrick]

not to be also nitpicky, but that 0.9942 is a simple proportion ratio & is actually a bit high

( it's a similar scenario to converting a mile time to a 1500 one by just using proportion ratio of 1500/1609.344 or 0.932, which gives wrongfully slow results, whereas generally accepted conversion is 1/1.08 = 0.926 )

more realistic is 0.9932 - 0.9936 which is ~ 0.03 - 0.05s difference, which isn't much, but maybe is when the ole 440y & new 400m records are close, it means something to some one

i'm suggesting 0.33 - 0.35s is a better conversion than 0.30s

[dukehjsteve]

My old high school back in NY had a super, super runner in 1959... he ran 4:21.0 in the mile ( 10th best in USA HS that year) and also ran a half mile in 1:56.8.

I recently procured the current listing of my HS' records... they have listed a 1600 meters of 4:21.4 and an 800 meters of 1:56.8, both in the last 15 years. It appears they have blythely decided to ignore old yardage marks... even though they are longer !!! I've diplomatically advised the current coach of all this but who knows what they will do, if anything.

And now we surmise that dukehjsteve went to Huntington HS on Long Island!

You are dangerous, dj. None of us are safe now.