| Old Speckled Hen |
| ||
|
Does anybody have one of those old T&F News books (around 1970s) with conversions for all the yards distances to metric distances - specifically, the 3 miles to 5,000 (or 6 miles to 10,000) conversion factor? The latest versions of the book only say to add 28 seconds to the 3M (or some number that would only be accurate at certain speeds). I think (definitely not sure) there used to be a standard multiplier for 3M to 5k back in the 1970s when a lot of tracks were still 440y tracks. This multiplier obviously wouldn't be 100% accurate either, but it's better than adding a flat rate. The list I'm updating, for example, uses 3M + 29.7 seconds to get an "equivalent" 5k time. Of course, this would only be accurate for runners moving at a pace around 13:53 for 3M and assumes they could keep running the same pace for the additional distance (or assumes they'd be 13:51-ish for 3M and would slow down a little, but still doesn't take into account overall average pace - a 13:00 3M runner would obviously add a different number to the end than a 14:00 runner would). For things like high school cross country, I've always multiplied the 3M time by 1.038 to get a good approximation for a corresponding 5k time (5k is 1.0562 times farther than 3M, but runners obviously average a little slower pace when they add the extra distance). Obviously, this isn't always going to be accurate, but neither are the "accepted" conversions of using 1.08 as a factor for 1,500 to mile or 0.9942 for mile to 1,600. Yet, those are pretty universally agreed upon standards. So is there an accepted conversion for 3M to 5k in one of those old books? If not, I'm going with 1.038. |
| Sure Something Is Incorrect |
| ||
|
If it is true that: 1) the "5K is 1.0562 times farther than 3M" 2) "runners obviously average a little slower pace when they add the extra distance" Then how did you arrive at "1.038" which is a smaller time multiplier than the distance multiplier you gave? |
| Old Speckled Hen |
| ||
|
Ah - damn typo - left out a digit. The 5k distance is 1.03562 times the 3M distance. At least that provided an excuse to bump the thread. |
| Where are the old timers? |
| ||
|
This Wisconsin cross country site uses 1.036. http://www.wisconsinrunner.com/wccca/history/alltime_state_individuals.htm But that doesn't seem right since a guy running 15:00 for 3 miles would only slow down by 3 tenths of a second overall according to that formula when they run the extra distance. If any of the old hands come up with those ancient conversions, what's the right one for converting 1,000 yards to 1,000 meters? Not that it'd be real accurate in comparing performances between eras anyway, since a lot of those 1,000 yards times came on smaller tracks than most of the 1k times you see. |
| Old Speckled Hen |
| ||
That's another one I'd like to see an "accepted" standard multiplier for. I've always used 1.1138. A time of 2:10.0 for 1,000y would be "worth" 2:24.8 for the 1k using this. Don Paige's old WR of 2:04.7y would be "worth" 2:18.9 (he actually ran 2:18.88 indoors). I've never thought it was quite as kosher to "convert up" using a multiplier (and certainly not by adding a flat rate), since a guy who ran a 1,000y, for example, didn't actually finish a 1k. But it's a little more within reason to "convert down" to compare marks that are reasonably close to each other in distance. But no conversion really tells you exactly what any individual athlete is going to run for a different distance than he ran - it just gives a ballpark figure to expect. Come on, now. There's got to be somebody out there with these conversions. I'm going to keep bumping this puppy. |
| another old track nut |
| ||
|
I found a 1974 TAFNews list only a few years ago where it converted from the 5k to the 3M and I think it multiplied by 0.9635 but I'm not 100% sure. Using the 1/x feature on a calculator gives you 1.0379 which is right about what you thought. But I might be remembering it wrong. So basically you're back to square one. |
| this might help.... |
| ||
|
In college I ran a 14:09 3 mile back in the mid 70s. I noticed on my schools top 15 list of all time, (which I am barely still on), it has me listed for a 14:39 5k (conversion). So, it looks like you add about 30 seconds +/-. |
| sounds about right. |
| ||
sounds about right, but, as you get slower you would need to add seconds and as you get faster, subtract seconds. |