Like Abel Kipsangs 3:25 last year? Or Geoffrey Kamworor's 25:50 converted? Altitude impacts everyone differently, there is no scientific formula. And the longer you spend there, the less you are impacted.
But given the constraints of teams living at altitude and travel to meets, I get why the NCAA needs to use it. But its not a perfect conversion like some people wanna believe.
For every example like this there is also examples that back up the altitude marks. Look at the NCAA this year, Colin Shalman ran a time at altitude that converted to 3:54 and then ran a 3:53 at sea level. In D2 Migel Coco ran a 3:55 converted and a 3:56 at sea level. There are plenty of to other marks that do back up the altitude converted times.
The point is that everyone responds to altitude differently, acting like there is some perfect scientific conversion is stupid. It makes sense that the NCAA has to do it like that, but there are obviously gonna be examples where it overestimates the conversion, particularly for those who have spent their lives at altitude.
Coco sounds like the problem. He runs a 3:56 he doesn’t get in. Get an altitude conversion that is off by 1s and he doesn’t. None of the conversions are accurate enough.
Of course by the same token, anyone think the difference between BU,Washington, and some random 200m track also aren’t on the order of 1s?
Reading comprehension is important. Coca is a D2 athlete.
I see. What division you are in effects altitude conversions. After all there is no way a DI person wouldn’t have run 3:55 at sea level… learned something new today. Seriously did you really struggle with the concept that altitude conversations aren’t accurate enough when trying to make .5s distinctions in performance? I struggle to imagine anyone is that slow..
Like Abel Kipsangs 3:25 last year? Or Geoffrey Kamworor's 25:50 converted? Altitude impacts everyone differently, there is no scientific formula. And the longer you spend there, the less you are impacted.
But given the constraints of teams living at altitude and travel to meets, I get why the NCAA needs to use it. But its not a perfect conversion like some people wanna believe.
For every example like this there is also examples that back up the altitude marks. Look at the NCAA this year, Colin Shalman ran a time at altitude that converted to 3:54 and then ran a 3:53 at sea level. In D2 Migel Coco ran a 3:55 converted and a 3:56 at sea level. There are plenty of to other marks that do back up the altitude converted times.
Jesus Christ. These sea level races always have more competition than the random altitude races. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps these athletes weren't maxed out at altitude due to lack of competition, and perhaps they just ran faster than their true conversion when they got to sea level and had more competition? These performances literally back up nothing. Once someone runs a WR equivalent on NCAA conversion then backs that up, we'll have a legitimate backing up of the altitude mark. I suspect I'll be waiting for some time for that...
Back in the day of descending order lists outdoors, me and another guy got into NCAA's with an altitude conversion, placing us both as the final two qualifiers. We both made the final and moved up 9-10 spots from our "ranking" when racing guys that posted sea-level times. Just an anecdote, but certainly we felt like we were competitive with the other qualifiers.
Nico ajd geordie arent enough proof that theyre atleast a but accurate? I know there are more examples but thats only recent examples. Why does a conversion bug you so much?
And we also have kenyans that have run times at altitude that formally converted to 3:24-3:25. The NCAA conversions are complete garbage on events as short as a mile. This kid doesn't deserve to be there.
It ever occur to you that those Kenyans are full throttle doping and that's why the conversions don't seem to line up?
Isaiah Labra from Southern Utah ran 3:58 at UW so no conversion there, but on a banked track at altitude ran 4:00 which converts to a 3:55.02 mile so that is how he got into Nationals over others who legit ran the time to qualify. Altitude conversions are ridiculous
Also a time that he solo'd at his conference meet, while the 2 runners right behind him on the national list ran their times in a rabbited race at BU. Welcome to indoor track.
Back in the day of descending order lists outdoors, me and another guy got into NCAA's with an altitude conversion, placing us both as the final two qualifiers. We both made the final and moved up 9-10 spots from our "ranking" when racing guys that posted sea-level times. Just an anecdote, but certainly we felt like we were competitive with the other qualifiers.
What if the 2 guys you knocked out would have moved up 11 spots?😂 people always have good and bad days. There are altitude guys who have dominated and some that bombed. In general the conversions are about right. But being off by a second either way is huge for things like mile qualifying.
But it feels like this is becoming a non issue as times are getting fast and you almost need a set up race like at BU/UW. Soloing your conference meet happens but not very often.
Yes, like you say, it is not perfect. These examples prove it: there's no change Kamworor could have run 25:50, great as he is.
Given the athlete-to-athlete variance, there are two ways to approach altitude conversion
a) Make it correct for the "most acclimated" athlete. This will be correct for an athlete like Kamworor, and any less-acclimated athlete will run better than their converted time when they actually move to sea level.
b) Make it correct for the "average" altitude athlete. This will overestimate some athletes and underestimate others.
I think a) is better if you're comparing records (e.g. I wouldn't refer to Kamworor's converted 25:50 as the best 10k of all-time, but if he somehow ran 26:15 at altitude, I absolutely would consider it the best run ever because under any remotely reasonable conversion that would be a world record).
But b) is probably better for qualifying times. You're never going to have a perfectly fair conversion due to athlete variance, so best to peg it towards the middle. The risk of abuse is minimal since an athlete trying to take advantage of the rule would have to a) know ahead of time that they are better than average at altitude, and b) move to altitude for several months, in order to get appropriately acclimated.
This right here! Right now it probably skews too generous. If Oklahoma State/Alabama were at 5,000 feet, I'd bet you'd hear more complaints if their Kenyan athletes were reaping the benefits of the conversion.
This is really quite simple. The NCAA has clearly listed conversions for altitude, flat tracks, and oversized tracks. These rules are outlined before the season starts so everyone can plan where to send their athletes to accomplish their goals. If coaches have an issue, they can take it up with the rules committee to make adjustments for future seasons. This one miler is not an issue, other athletes should have run faster.
The times from Big 12s indoor also got a conversion from from being in Lubbock and only 3200 feet. See Molly Born's 5000m time. All these rules though are clearly outlined and all the athletes and coaches should understand them.
Exactly. Coaches fly their top guys across the country to run at BU to qualify. If the conversions were a joke they would fly them to Flagstaff or Boulder to get a converted qualifying mark instead.
Maybe it's not that altitude conversions benefit those running races at altitude, but rather that living and training at altitude makes runners really fast and worthy of those conversions.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.