Is it just me or is this a sad thread...
Is it just me or is this a sad thread...
A strict conversion is:
- 800 m is about 874.891 yds
- 880 yds is exactly 804.672 m
The average pace for a 1:53.5 880yds would pass 800m in 1:52.84 seconds. So a 1:52.8 800m performance is slightly faster.
However, when using Purdy points to evaluate which is the better performance:
- the 800yds is 868.13 Purdy points, and equates to a 1:52.71 800m
- the 800m is 866.66 Purdy points, and equates to a 1:53.59 880 yds
So ignoring other real factors, like cinder tracks and stopwatch accuracy, your 800m has a slightly higher average velocity, but his 880yds is the slightly better performance.
Perhaps you can compromise: You are the faster 800m runner, while he is the faster 1/2 miler.
This thread is funny. I love it when people get so defensive on anonymous message boards. It's so pointless.
who was faster wrote:
nobody will be impressed anyway. they wouldn't know a 155 from a 205 1/2 mile. he's old and fat now
About 10 years ago, Ralph Doubell walked onto our floor and introduced himself. I mentioned to a few fellow employees who this guy was athletically and they were uniformly unimpressed.
You had better tracks, better shoes,and better drugs. He was the superior athlete.
who was faster wrote:
uh...hardly a worker bee. try dept. mgr., with an MBA making 150k a year. I'm doing fine, thank you.
do you drive a dodge stratus too?
sad wrote:
Is it just me or is this a sad thread...
No, you're right. This reaches new depths in insecurity. Bad enough he is so obsessed about being faster than his office mate (and it sounds like he was not), but he also seems insecure about his job & income.
I'd be willing to bet he drives a Hummer and puts a pair of socks in his pants each morning to disguise his shortcoming.
Personally, most people talk BS....once a guy at work, after watching Dancing with the Stars a few years back (around 45) told us all how he ran 9 seconds for the 100 and beat Carl Lewis and Bruce Jenner in High School..scary thing is, people here still believe him!!
that's like a marathon, right?
who was faster wrote:
a couple of has-beens, a 37 year old (me) and another guy who is 50 plus are looking for bragging rights to 'fastest 1/2 miler in our dept. lol...what is the 800m to 880yd conversion?
T&F news uses the following conversion for yards to meters...
1:53.5 x 0.994194 = 1:52.9
Therefore, your 1:52.8 would be ranked slightly higher on an all-time list.
What is really sad is you have a grown adult who cannot figure out how to do a 4th grade math conversion.
Baldy wrote:
What is really sad is you have a grown adult who cannot figure out how to do a 4th grade math conversion.
It's not a simple conversion because there is a slowdown factor. Or maybe you don't understand that part of this entire discussion...sad.
Get real! The slowdown factor between those 2 distances is much less significant than the fact that the old guy ran his on a cinder track.
Back in the day I believe Track & Field News gave Rick Wohluter a -.6 conversion for his 1:44.1 880yd for a 1:43.5 converted 800m, basically the same thing as the mathematical formulas on this thread.
You are both essentially the same - stuck hopelessly between running a very impressive sub 1:50, and the garden variety 2:00.
And you are the only 2 in the office, and the office building, and the block, most likely the entire ciy, probably the entire state, maybe even the entire country, that really f*cking give a flying rats ass about it.
Sorry
Les wrote:
Back in the day I believe Track & Field News gave Rick Wohluter a -.6 conversion for his 1:44.1 880yd for a 1:43.5 converted 800m, basically the same thing as the mathematical formulas on this thread.
I recall a .7 allowance at the time.
The slow-down factor is essentially 0. We're not going from a 1500m to a mile here. 880 yd is about 4.7m longer than 800m. Assuming the slowdown from 800m to 1500m is linear (which it probably isn't) take the difference in pace per 800m of the 1500m wr-800m wr and multiply that by 4.7/700. That gives you about 0.06 sec.
So to convert 1:53.5 to fat meters we multiply by the ratio of the distances, getting 1:52.84 add the fat conversion factor 0.14, getting 1:52.98, and subtract the speed up factor (for him it's a speed up factor) of 0.06 getting 1:52.92. So, you beat him by 0.11.
Just don't tell him that given the difference in tracks and spikes he's really a second faster than you.
Drive Right wrote:
You are both essentially the same - stuck hopelessly between running a very impressive sub 1:50, and the garden variety 2:00.
And you are the only 2 in the office, and the office building, and the block, most likely the entire ciy, probably the entire state, maybe even the entire country, that really f*cking give a flying rats ass about it.
Sorry
Sorrier...I have learned a valuable lesson here from the number or 'know it alls', 'the never was types', the 'I'm better than you trolls', etc; I should have titled the thread:
"CAN SOMEONE TELL ME THE CONVERSION RATE FOR AN 880y vs AN 800M RACE? and left it at that. Too much information is not a good thing on this website, obviously.
why not challenge him to a race?
you run 800 and he and anyone he can find each run 400.
The old guy told me back in the late 70's that it was a 1:54.6 so he is getting faster as he is getting older.