Which time is equivalently better? A 4:40 1600m or a 10:10 3200m. I really don't know?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
3200m or 1600m.
Collapse
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
X
-
Re: 3200m or 1600m.
Wow, that is slightly ironic. A miler says that the 1600 is a bastard distance? I don't really think that 1609.334 meters is much better, and a 1600 makes getting splits a lot easier.
I'd say that the 10:10 3200 is a better time, but I think that the 1600 is more competive (in HS). That is just my opinion though.
Comment
-
Re: 3200m or 1600m.
Pretty much dead even. Using a scoring system I've developed using just high school performances, a 10:10.00 is worth 54.2 points and the 4:40.00 is worth 54.1 points. This system uses the top 50 HS performances from the past 4 years to establish a benchmark worth 100 points.
Comment
-
Re: 3200m or 1600m.
>That's quite easy to answer: they're both worth
>the same thing. And that would be......
>ZERO!!!!
The 1600 and 3200 are bastard
>distances (to use one of my favorite TFN
>expressions) that should never see the light of
>day.
Well, in all fairness here, who runs the 1600 or the 3200? High-school runners. And last time I checked, they didn't make the decision to run those distances instead of distances which do have fathers. So why don't you lighten up a bit, there?
I don't know which time is actually better, but a 10:10 is a lot less common than a 4:40.
Comment
-
Re: 3200m or 1600m.
I have some authority on this.
In 1972, as a high schooler, I ran 4:36 and 10:09 in yards.
A fellow named Purdy had written a book around this period that attempted to find equivalencies over a range of distances. By Purdy's reckoning, my mile was slightly better than my 2-mile.
So I would agree with the poster who said 4:40 and 10:10, whether measured in meters or yards, are nearly equal.
Comment
Comment