| Futuresub4 |
| ||
|
It seems like that would be a much more simple way of going about things. Just make the standard the conversion time from the 1500 for some reason I had thought they already did this but I guess not |
| Futuresub4 |
| ||
|
Bump |
| i kinda like running |
| ||
|
I agree. Seems simple enough. |
| Dimitri |
| ||
|
Because there are dolts on this site who are skeptical of the conversion and will mistrust the whole process. Personally I think it's a great idea. |
| some crazy runner guy |
| ||
|
They do it for the trials I think and I seem to remember them having one for at least the WC's in the past but they don't seem to have one listed for the olympics this time. The sport just needs to figure out what the heck it is doing there is no need to have 3 slightly different events that just confuse casual fans. The olympics is one of the few times we actually have a chance at gutting new fans interested in our sport and things like this just annoy people who already don't know whats going on. |
| Trying to deal |
| ||
|
Yeah, there should definitely be a conversion. But, sadly, just like politics and everything else in life, it has to be wildly complicated. |
| malmo |
| ||
I think that you're the dolt here. Conversions are completely subjective in nature. There is nothing intrinsic about them. They are simply a matter of conjecture and opinion. |
| Trying to deal |
| ||
|
A 1500 to mile conversion at the elite level is very accurate. Yes, there could be error of maybe 2 seconds or so, but if you can run a mile at the pace that would convert to an even shorter distance of 1500, I doubt the calculator would be off very much. And besides, this is just for a qualifying mark. It is not the end of the world if someone gets an "A" with a mile time where in reality they would be 0.2 seconds off in the 1500. You're simply helping the runner. At the end of the day, at the trails, if one runner has an "A" mark in the 1500 and the other has an "A" in the mile, whoever beats the other gets to go to the olympics whether that is the miler or the 1500 guy. They are both more than likely very similiar in ability if they have an exact conversion time and then you just leave the rest up to pure racing. Yes, a mile time to marathon is wildly inaccurate. So is a mile time to even a 5k. But with a 1500 to mile conversion the accuracy is definitely there at an elite level. You'd have to be a fool to think otherwise. There should be an "A" mile standard if we are going to continue running mile races. Otherwise we will continue to see Webb kicking it in 100m early in a mile race. Wouldn't you rather just see him and other competitors actually race at Pre? |
| Dimitri |
| ||
|
I was making fun of this thread: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=108831&page=0 particularly this quote "I am completely dumbfounded on how we keep stating that a 3:35 is equivalent to a 3:52. No it is not. Unless it is El G., or Lagat, etc...then a 20-21 second rule realistically applies and is proven every year, repeatedly." I know that there is no magic formula, it is just my opinion that allowing a 1500 to mile conversion would be close enough. |
| sure why not |
| ||
|
I don't see anything wrong with converting mile times down to 1500. I could see an argument the other way around, but that's not the case. |