Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Sub-Club Equivalencies"

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Sub-Club Equivalencies"

    I am not the most scientifically or mathematically minded fellow on earth, so this is just an observational curiosity: what are the "sub-club equivalencies" throughout the men's and women's sprints? Would it be safe to say...

    Men - 100, sub-10 seconds; 200, sub-20; 400, sub-44; [800, sub-1:44]*
    Women - 100, sub-11; 200, sub-22; 400, sub-50; [800, sub-1:59]*

    ...or would some of the above require changes, and would some require a non-flat ceiling, like perhaps sub 49.5 for the women's 400, etc.?

    Some sharp fellow may have an equation of some sort out there, but just wondering what your thoughts are on what the sub-club numbers should be?

    *I threw the 800 in there for kicks

  • #2
    If you're looking for 'equivalencies' and the starting point is sub-10 athletes, there are roughly 100 of them, another nice round number. (IAAF has the lists here: http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists...oor/men/senior).

    For the 200, that is roughly 20.10.
    For the 400, that is roughly 44.60.

    You can do that yourself for all events.

    Comment


    • #3
      I would say that "sub-club equivalency" is ultimately a matter of personal choice.

      The mile "sub-equivalency" used to be sub 4 but such an equivalency standard is completely meaningless these days. For field events the equivalency depends on whether you are into metrics or feet and inches.

      My personal "sub-equivalency" for the 100m is 9.70, or at a stretch 9.72 - but only because that would almost certainly generate some healthy debate from Dickson et al.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
        I would say that "sub-club equivalency" is ultimately a matter of personal choice.

        The mile "sub-equivalency" used to be sub 4 but such an equivalency standard is completely meaningless these days. For field events the equivalency depends on whether you are into metrics or feet and inches.

        My personal "sub-equivalency" for the 100m is 9.70, or at a stretch 9.72 - but only because that would almost certainly generate some healthy debate from Dickson et al.
        A performance of 11.00 for a woman and a 10.70 or 10.72 for a male are equivalent in excellence? I think not. Perhaps 11-00 and 10.00.
        Last edited by wineturtle; 08-01-2015, 10:31 AM.
        Tom Hyland:
        "squack and wineturtle get it"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
          I would say that "sub-club equivalency" is ultimately a matter of personal choice.

          The mile "sub-equivalency" used to be sub 4 but such an equivalency standard is completely meaningless these days.
          Meaningless? You mean you don't care how many USAians have broken 4 minutes?
          Cheers,
          Alan Shank

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Alan Shank View Post
            Meaningless? You mean you don't care how many USAians have broken 4 minutes?
            I certainly do not. I DO care how many Americans have broken 3:32 in the 1500 (10).

            Comment

            Working...
            X