Pat Casey 3:59.76

Fanning wrote:

Actually Altitude adjustment means exactly that. He gets to 0ft. and with the exact same conditions, same track, same competition, same temperature in the indoor arena.

Science dude. Science

My point is that I would be impressed if he ran a 3:54.

But he didn't.

He ran 3:59.

I don't care what altitude adjustments do for the time.

I hate when I see crap like this where people use an altitude adjustment or adjustments for track sizes.

Doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day, they ran what they ran.

That would be like if this was a 1500, and someone ran 3:35.

Clearly that is superior to the indoor 1500 WR with that altitude conversion right?

No, because the time that was run would be a 3:35.

runKSrun! wrote:

[quote]Fanning wrote:

I don't care what altitude adjustments do for the time.

.

Well obviously some other people do.

Hey Einstein wrote:

Well obviously some other people do.

Please don't confuse the NCAA adjustments as to mean "equivalents" They are not. When you run 3:59 at altitude that's what you ran. You didn't run any faster. The NCAA altitude adjustments are for qualifying marks, and they are very, very, very loose -- intended to not penalize those schools that are at altitude and race only at altitude.

When you look at converted altitude times and compare them to what those runners actually run at sea level, the difference becomes glaring.

I'd guess that 3:59 at 4800' is closer to 3:56, maybe 3:57.

OK, but regardless of what the time may or may not be equivalent to, I think we can agree that 3:59, indoors, and at altitude, is an impressive performance for this athlete given his field of competition.

wowzerssss wrote:

Adjusted that is a 3:54 mile! wtf! isnt the ncaa record 3:55??? he need to get to sea level, find a nice banked track and bust that record! hes my sleeper pick for ncaa's... Go Big Sky!

Yes, very nice, better than German's record. Not that the indoor NCAA mile record matters, because far greater Milers (Willis) than either German or Casey only cared for getting easy qualifiers and winning NCAAs, never going for time.

runKSrun! wrote:

Fanning wrote:

Actually Altitude adjustment means exactly that. He gets to 0ft. and with the exact same conditions, same track, same competition, same temperature in the indoor arena.

Science dude. Science

My point is that I would be impressed if he ran a 3:54.

But he didn't.

He ran 3:59.

I don't care what altitude adjustments do for the time.

I hate when I see crap like this where people use an altitude adjustment or adjustments for track sizes.

Doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day, they ran what they ran.

That would be like if this was a 1500, and someone ran 3:35.

Clearly that is superior to the indoor 1500 WR with that altitude conversion right?

No, because the time that was run would be a 3:35.

Can we all agree that a 359 at altitude is more impressive than a 359 at sea level?

Straight Beast Mode. He put the team on his back.

Here's my 2 cents. If you've never raced or trained at altitude then your opinion is invalid, you have no idea what it's worth.

Look up your stats and find ANYONE in the history of the US who ran a sub 4:00 mile at nearly a mile above sea-level and NOT TO MENTION freakin' solo in a race.

This was an incredible effort by this kid. Keep rockin' it Pat Casey!

It probably is a U.S. altitude record for sub-4:00. I am at least as much impressed buy the circumstances (ZERO competition in a near-empty arena).

He probably won't be running in fast race (i.e. UW), but if he beats the other 3:57-8 guys easily at NCAA's I wouldn't be at all surprised. Not sure about his tactical/kicking ability though.

Does someone want to go into a little more depth about the reality of elevation over there in that part of Montana at Montana State University? It seems like even the river valley base-land is at a fairly high elevation? As the poster mentioned, at least 4,000 feet? And presumably this is where the track is? And not only that, there are hills and elevations in the surrounding greater region at a much higher elevation? Hmmm, kinda makes one think

I don't know why people are having such a problem with this 3:59 being adjusted to 3:54. It really bothers you that much that someone is running fast and their time gets taken down because the air is harder to breathe up there in the high heavens. How about we just watch the race and see the real beauty of the sport that we're all so opinionated about and in love with. Would he have run 3:54 on the same day at the same time on the same track if it were at sea level? Who knows? But what we can tell is that this dude ran this by himself, from the gun. He didn't have a rabbited affair taking him through the 800 in 1:57. There weren't a bunch of people watching and screaming violently as he gallivanted his way to a 3:59 altitude mile. He simply ran and did a hell of a job in the process. I don't get inspired or worked up over many races but this performance was one of beauty. Stop arguing over how slow you think he is and appreciate this race for what it is. /PleaseEndConvo.

this was quite impressive, look at all the quality races U of New Mexico has been having and no one has ever ran under 4 min for a mile there. Casey will win NCAAs for sure.

I'm inspired! To make a comprehensive comparative elevation survey of the entire world, along with ethnographic histories, sociological dynamics and running stories and training prospects. Oh my. The tibetan plateau to Northern China, Mexico to the Andes, British mud runners in the Rockies, British Columbia... and then those friggin mountain runners. I'm getting a headache just thinking about it. Sweet Joseph Jumping Jacks for Jacob

I wonder if a second should be added for lack of a curb. The cones were not even on the track, which appeared slightly elevated from the floor. The cones, therefore, did nothing.

What's the advantage? If there is no curb a runner will routinely be able to squeeze down 6 or 7 inches closer to the inner lane without stepping on it. With a curb there, a runner naturally steps a bit wider.

If you get to run 6-7 inches closer to the curb, you shave off about a meter a lap. No big deal you say, but that's 8 meters at the end of 8 laps and that chops a bit more than one second off your time.

Yeah, like stepping off an elevated track is SOOO much easier on the ankles than stepping on a rail.Dumbass.

truth or dare wrote:

I wonder if a second should be added for lack of a curb. The cones were not even on the track, which appeared slightly elevated from the floor. The cones, therefore, did nothing.

What's the advantage? If there is no curb a runner will routinely be able to squeeze down 6 or 7 inches closer to the inner lane without stepping on it. With a curb there, a runner naturally steps a bit wider.

If you get to run 6-7 inches closer to the curb, you shave off about a meter a lap. No big deal you say, but that's 8 meters at the end of 8 laps and that chops a bit more than one second off your time.

I didn't say the advantage was found in stepping off the track or even on the inner painted line. The advantage is that a runner can run closer to the painted line without any danger of stepping on a curb.

It's not a huge advantage - worth not more than a little over a second.

You know a sprinter gets dq'd if he starts even one hundredth

of a second early. Should that be ignored too?

Reality Bath wrote:

It probably is a U.S. altitude record for sub-4:00. I am at least as much impressed buy the circumstances (ZERO competition in a near-empty arena).

He probably won't be running in fast race (i.e. UW), but if he beats the other 3:57-8 guys easily at NCAA's I wouldn't be at all surprised. Not sure about his tactical/kicking ability though.

BYU's track record:

Mile 3:57.23 Doug Padilla Athletics West 1983

YOu people would seriously not believe where PAT CASEY grew up. Laurel Montana...an oil refinery is the town. He is the perfect example of a sleeper. and Why college recruiters should look more into Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, etc. for kids cuz they are f***ing tough and very underdeveloped. They will reap big rewards!

Here's a cool article from flotrack on him done last year sometime after indoors...

http://www.flotrack.org/article/1813-pat-casey-kwik-e

Seems like a pretty chilled out guy. Considering he ran 4:20 with little competition off 15-25 miles/week, if that is true, he was definitely someone with awesome potential probably overlooked. Either way, sounds like he has his shit together.

He doesn't sound very bright.