If you take the World Records for:
Then double (WRx2)them to compare to following:
Essentially; Double the 100 mtr to see what 200 record would be at the same pace. So if you double the 100 record, 9.58, you get a 200 record of 19.16. Apply same to 200/400, 400/800, 800/1600,mile, 5000, 10k...
Then compare the difference between WRx2 vs. WR in seconds.
200 mtrs..........03 secs
Mile/1600........21.1 (I know, mile is 1609 mtrs)
Then the difference as a % of time from existing WR
200 mtrs........... .16%
400 mtrs......... 11.12%
800 mtrs......... 14.89%
My question is; is this a valid way to equate the quality of a World Record as compared to others? Can I say that the 400 and 800 are the softest on this basis?
Your calculation doesn't take into account the standing start... for example... the 200 is really close to the 100, but thats basically just because it takes 40 meters to get up to speed. There effect is less pronounced in the 400 example because the athletes have more time to make up the difference. Over 5K or 10K, the time lost getting up to speed doesnt have much impact because there is so much time to make it up. I think if you were able to account for the start you'd see the trend is a steady decrease in your % calculation as the races get longer.
the start, acceleration etc. is relative to the distance. Obviously more important in the 100/200/400, but I don't think it's that significant in the broad relative view.
I think this is a good way to explain how hard the 400 and 800 are.
For short sprints and long distances, if you can run with someone for half the distance then you are probably not that far apart from each other ability wise (in the same "league" or close).
If you can run someone's 800pr/2 for 400m, then that doesn't mean squat.
It's the transition from anaerobic to aerobic.
that is holy grail
there must be an answer but no one has found it
i've got a prelim formulae for 1500 - M, but far from the answer as it doesn't vary with doubling distances
speed Y distance = speed X distance * ( X/Y )^0.06917
for 3'30 -> 7'20.7 , 12'40.8 , 26'36.4 , 2"04'01
all i'd conclude is that the 1500 is best record & 3'30 is far from being a "commonplace" elite clocking - 3'30 is as good as 7'20/12'40 according to above
it indicates that the best talent in track has gone to 1500
if that 3'30 talent went to 3k/5k at early age, we woud see the world records helluva quicker than they are
also indicates 10k wr is helluva wr & far superior to 5k ?!
anyhows, this is all very prelim & just a start - i'd happily change those conclusions if i find a better formula
It's extremely important in the broad relative view.
The big question is: why do the percentages start going down again as you get up to the 5000 m?
It is a complex physiological issue which has been discussed previously.
Basically, the energy systems stay the same in the 5000 / 10,000. Runners have learned to basically maintain their pace for this amount of time.
It is almost all physiology. Your body progresses through the various energy systems and requirements and abilities to perform change. Because of the differences in systems I don't think you can find a standard of comparison other than maybe averaging the top 10 all time marks and seeing what you come up with.
It's because no two events (next to each other in order of distance) are as different in energy system substrates as the 400m and 800m are. That is to say that 100m and 200m are extremely similar, 200m and 400m are very similar, 800m and 1500m are pretty similar, 1500m to 3000m are very similar, and so on.
Humans have a very limited timeframe from which to derive most of their energy anaerobically, and it's not much more than 60 seconds. That's why events of 400m and shorter are fueled primarily anaerobically, while the 800m and up are fueled primarily aerobically.