NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

[run4it]

Read the story/ see photos of CRAIG MILLER, a 15 y.o. freshman runner from Manheim Twsp H.S. Lancaster County, PA. Amazingly, he has a TWIN
brother, who was injured just prior to post-season
meets. (BOTH finished in top 11 at PA State X-Country "AAA")
http://www.penntrackxc.com/features/fea ... RECORD.htm

(A must read article from www.penntrackxc.com)

[Guest]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

Yeah, the 4:14.26 is the fastest 1600 ever, but Doug Smith's 4:15.5 mile from 1965 is worth 4:14.1 for 1600. On the other hand, if you add 0.14 for hand timing, then he's only 0.02 faster!

[Guest]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

>Yeah, the 4:14.26 is the fastest 1600 ever, but
>Doug Smith's 4:15.5 mile from 1965 is worth
>4:14.1 for 1600. On the other hand, if you add
>0.14 for hand timing, then he's only 0.02 faster!

Here is the problem that I have with the 1600/mile time argument. The standard conversion factor is to add 1.4 seconds to convert from 1600 to mile and subtract 1.4 seconds to convert from mile to 1600. Right? So, this is somebody's estimate of how long it takes to run the extra 9 meters.

But, wouldn't a 4:00 miler runnning 1600m run that extra 9 meters faster than a 5:00 miler? Wouldn't the 3:50 miler be faster over the extra 9 meters than the 4:00 miler? So, the +/- 1.4 second rule is at best a rough estimate.

Sure, using proportions it only works out to at most a few hundreths of a second difference for any given time. But, a few hundreths of a second is the difference between a world record and just another fast time.

[Guest]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

and just as an obvious comment, showing the futility of any completely accurate conversion formulas, one runner can be virtually staggering to the line at 1600 m, while another looks like Michael Johnson. Yet the same conversion factor is used for both.

So just forget all this everybody, lean back, and just go with the flow.

[Guest]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

and just as an obvious comment, showing the futility of any completely accurate conversion formulas, one runner can be virtually staggering to the line at 1600 m, while another looks like Michael Johnson. Yet the same conversion factor is used for both.

So just forget all this everybody, lean back, and just go with the flow.

[gh]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

>Here is the problem that I have
>The standard
>conversion factor is to add 1.4 seconds to
>convert from 1600 to mile and subtract 1.4
>seconds to convert from mile to 1600. Right? >>

All depends what you call "standard." Nitflicker is obviously familiar with the T&FN conversion formulae and multiplied by 1.0058.

[gh]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

>and just as an obvious comment, showing the
>futility of any completely accurate conversion
>formulas, one runner can be virtually staggering
>to the line at 1600 m, while another looks like
>Michael Johnson. Yet the same conversion factor
>is used for both. >>

It's irrelevant how one finishes. The conversion factors (which are admittedly hypothetical) attempt to show what would have happened had the athlete been running at the other distance, not to measure the time between the two.

[Guest]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

>>Here is the problem that I have
>The
>standard
>conversion factor is to add 1.4
>seconds to
>convert from 1600 to mile and
>subtract 1.4
>seconds to convert from mile to
>1600. Right? >>

All depends what you call
>"standard." Nitflicker is obviously familiar
>with the T&FN conversion formulae and multiplied
>by 1.0058.

I don't disagree that there is a "standard". Just that the standard of 1.0058 applies only to the 4:00 (1600m) to the 4:01.4 (mile). Obviously this is (241.4 sec)/(240 sec). If you do the same thing to a 3:50 vs 3:51.4 conversion, 231.4/230 = 1.0061

My point is that the "standard" does not accurately convert times back and forth. Hence it should be used with a grain of salt, especially when you try to use to claim that someone's mile time from long ago is still equivalently faster than someone's 1600 time from last weekend.

Of course, this applys to measuring time over a cetain distance. When comparing distances, 1 inch will always equal 2.54 cm

[gh]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

>I don't disagree that
>there is a "standard". Just that the standard
>of 1.0058 applies only to the 4:00 (1600m) to the
>4:01.4 (mile). Obviously this is (241.4
>sec)/(240 sec). If you do the same thing to a
>3:50 vs 3:51.4 conversion, 231.4/230 =
>1.0061>>

You're missing the point. Any fixed number, is only good in a small range, for sure. That's exactly why we use a multiplier. The slower you run, the larger the difference becomes.

A 3:38.7 for 1600 is a 3:40.0 mile (1.3 seconds differential). A 7:46.8 for 1600 is a 7:49.5 mile (2.7 seconds). The 1.4-second conversion works well only at about 4:05 mile level.

[Guest]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

>>I don't disagree that
>there is a "standard".
>Just that the standard
>of 1.0058 applies only
>to the 4:00 (1600m) to the
>4:01.4 (mile).
>Obviously this is (241.4
>sec)/(240 sec). If
>you do the same thing to a
>3:50 vs 3:51.4
>conversion, 231.4/230 =
>1.0061>>

You're
>missing the point. Any fixed number, is only
>good in a small range, for sure. That's exactly
>why we use a multiplier. The slower you run, the
>larger the difference becomes.

A 3:38.7 for
>1600 is a 3:40.0 mile (1.3 seconds
>differential). A 7:46.8 for 1600 is a 7:49.5
>mile (2.7 seconds). The 1.4-second conversion
>works well only at about 4:05 mile level.

Oops, my mistake... I misinterpeted the 1.0058 multiplier as a time factor (4:01.4/4:00) = 1.005833. Didn't realize until now that the original poster was using at the a distance factor (1609.34/1600) = 1.0058375.

In this case, I DO agree that the 1.0058 multiplier would be appropriate. The ratio of distance is always the same, regardless of the time. Much better than simply adding 1.4 seconds to any time. In cases where records for 1600/mile are combined (state HS track), I would hate to see a 1600 runner not get a record because his time is inferior due to the 1.4 sec "rule".

[Guest]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

Garry, I see your point, if we are speaking literally about conversion factors and nothing more. But if we are looking at a real life situation, with 2 high school running coming into the line at 1600 m, with one staggering and one blasting, and they hit that 1600 together in enough under 4:00 that one can say, using the conversion factor, they still both would have broken 4:00 if they had run a bit further, that would not necessarily have been true for the staggering runner. The blasting guy might have had as fast as a 3:59.0, but the staggering guy might have had as slow as 4:01 or worse... does this make sense ?

[Guest]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

>Yeah, the 4:14.26 is the fastest 1600 ever, but
>Doug Smith's 4:15.5 mile from 1965 is worth
>4:14.1 for 1600. On the other hand, if you add
>0.14 for hand timing, then he's only 0.02 faster!

You can certainly make this argument about the 1600 vs mile. However, unless another US HS freshman boy has run the 1600 METERS faster than the 4:14.26, the young man in the article listed at the top of the thread has now run the fastest 1600 time ever recorded for a freshman boy.

[Guest]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

As a foreign observer here in the US I have to say the HS's using 1600 & 3200 is the most stupid thing I've ever heard of in T&F. Took me a few years to realise I wasn't looking at typos.

[gh]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

>Garry, I see your point, if we are speaking
>literally about conversion factors and nothing
>more. But if we are looking at a real life
>situation, with 2 high school running coming into
>the line at 1600 m, with one staggering and one
>blasting, and they hit that 1600 together in
>enough under 4:00 that one can say, using the
>conversion factor, they still both would have
>broken 4:00 if they had run a bit further, that
>would not necessarily have been true for the
>staggering runner. The blasting guy might have
>had as fast as a 3:59.0, but the staggering guy
>might have had as slow as 4:01 or worse... does
>this make sense ?>>

The theory (and i emphasize, it's just THEORY, but it's the best one we have) behind the thinking is that one makes the kick to the finish from the same point away from the finish, not the start, and that all the running prior to that point equals out. If your two hypotheticals cross the 1600 point "together" they would also cross the mile point "together" if the race had been a mile.

[Guest]

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

was he in the same city - yes
was he in the parking lot - yes
was he in the 'ball park' - yes
was he sittin next to smith - yes
was he right on top of smith - yes (i know not too proud of this one either)
was he in the exact same spot as smith - well not EXACTLY
heckuva run (and beyond?)

okay ... and that 1600/3200 thing is nuts, can't anyone flex any muscles on that