Xmas Present for Stats Guys - Possible Track Distance Times Equivalents

ventolin^3 wrote:- kratoch's 1'53.28wr is about on a par with wang's 8'06.11wr, albeit neither were run ideally, wang's more uneven than kratoch's

( i'll have to dig out wang's splits in that 8'06 ( if someone has them at hand, please post them )

wang's splits :

1000m - 2'42.0

2000m - 5'29.7 ( 2'47.7 ! )

3000m - 8'06.11 ( 2'36.41 !!! )

last 400m - 62.7

she probably wouda been 8'02/8'03 at even pace

that makes it = to about a 1'53-flat / 3'48-high

coud some ( any ) hard-training college guys comment on the tables at start of page 2

i'd be interested in hearing especially from solid 5k/10k guys who also ran serious 1500 or 3k in their best 5k/10k year

for completeness, i realised you coud get equivalents for 400/800 as in theory you coud run these at even pace

( which you can't for 100/200 because of acceleration/deceleration & bend issues )

the logarithm principle means any whole number 400 = some whole number 800 & more crucially defining, an even whole number 400 woud = an even whole number 800

to get the list, we need to look at just 1 400 time which experience gives us a good idea of a 800, i used 44.00 which above says is = to either 1'40.00 or 1'42.00 or 1'44.00

obvious which is correct

therefore list is :

43.00 = 1'40.00

43.25 = 1'40.50

43.50 = 1'41.00

43.75 = 1'41.50

44.00 = 1'42.00

44.25 = 1'42.50

44.50 = 1'43.00

44.75 = 1'43.50

45.00 = 1'44.00...

48.00 = 1'50.00

49.00 = 1'52.00

50.00 = 1'54.00

51.00 = 1'56.00

52.00 = 1'58.00

53.00 = 2'00.00

54.00 = 2'02.00

55.00 = 2'04.00

( latter lot more for solid college guys/elite women

( who again are woefully poor ) )

bumping this Q

wineturtle wrote:

Venty run this female runners numbers thru your magic twanger thingie.

1:58.7-800m

4:00.2-1500m

4:21.8-mile

8:53-3000m

V3 here is a real example of actual times how do they fit your formula?

WiT wrote:

bumping this Q

wineturtle wrote:

Venty run this female runners numbers thru your magic twanger thingie.

1:58.7-800m

4:00.2-1500m

4:21.8-mile

8:53-3000m

V3 here is a real example of actual times how do they fit your formula?

Do you want to know her best event, or use his predictor calculator?

Using 1:58.70 for 800m and 8:53.00 for 3000m, it predicts 4:03.46 and 4:23.72. I'm guessing she ran the 3000m the least. If she ran closer to 8:40 it would predict her 15/mile correctly.

Who is this? A 1:58/4:00 woman should be well known but none of the current Americans fit those PRs?

might be able to get something like a 200/400 equivalency using some minor adjustment

using same principle espoused, a 20.00 is going to be either 42.00 or 44.00 or 46.00

one of these is correct

obvious which one

you therefore have 20.00 = 44.00

now, you have to adjust the 200 as it is not "evenly" run being 1 bend ( of usually 116m ) & 1 straight of 84m

after looking at lotta 100m splits in a 200 ( not many available ), the curve costs ~ 0.25s, so therefore the "corrected" equivalency is

19.75 = 44.00

so we can draw up the list from there :

19.10 = 42.70

19.20 = 42.90

19.25 = 43.00

19.30 = 43.10

19.32 = 43.14

19.40 = 43.30

19.50 = 43.50

19.60 = 43.70

19.70 = 43.90

19.75 = 44.00

19.80 = 44.10

19.90 = 44.30

20.00 = 44.50...

21.00 = 46.50

21.30 = 47.10

21.34 = 47.18

21.50 = 47.50

21.55 = 47.60

21.60 = 47.70

21.70 = 47.90

21.80 = 48.10

21.90 = 48.30

22.00 = 48.50

some interesting results :

- bolt's 19.19wr = ~ 42.90

- johnson's 19.32 is pretty much = to his later 400wr of 43.18 - he did likely become a good a 400 guy as he was earlier at 200

- warriner's 400 ability is as good as rudy's is at 800 !!!

- flo-jo's 21.34wr is significantly superior to koch's 47.60wr - the respective equivalents being ~ 47.18 for flo-jo & 21.55 for koch

Ventolin-3

Did you check out the WAVA calculated factors for "open ages"?

These seem to be pretty accurate.

Is there anyone that has ever been even across the distances from 800m on up? (If you include the 400m then I think this is much less likely) 800m still has too much anaerobic components, I think

How did you account for gender differences in your equation?

i didn't, women's 800/1500/3k times are just plain weak

the only exceptions that are obvious are :

- pamela who had to be something like 50+ in '08 & her 1'54-flat

- olizarenko who went 50+/1'53.4wr within days

- quirot who was a 49+/1'54+ in her career, probably ~ 50 in her 1'54 days

- masterkova who is very proficient - 1'55.8pb, 1'56-flat in '96 ( probably worth a 1'55 back then as didn't run 800 much & you didn't beat mutola/quirot in games if you didn't have at least 1'55 ability ), 2'28.9wr & 4'12.51wr - that is worth 3'53+ with standard 1.08 conversion

masterkova is very close to 800/1k/1500 equivalents

more women need to show that level of consistency

Hardloper wrote:Who is this? A 1:58/4:00 woman should be well known but none of the current Americans fit those PRs?

had a sniffy feeling who, but needed to take a look-up :

wysocki

she was always a 800 gal who held on pretty good at 1500, albeit i never saw her 4-flat at trials & that probably indicated a hugely sub-4 gal, as mary was probably in 3'57/3'58 shape in games off a 3'59.19 in eugene earlier

the 3k pb helps in no way in "assessing" her

The Animal Within wrote:

How did you account for gender differences in your equation?

What differences are those and why would he need to account for them? Why won't his numbers work for both sexes?

cfkf wrote:

The Animal Within wrote:

How did you account for gender differences in your equation?

What differences are those and why would he need to account for them? Why won't his numbers work for both sexes?

His numbers don't "work" for either sex at this point. It's not a knock on Albuterol-to-the-third-power, as it's a nice mental exercise he's performing. Ultimately, it's mental masturbation, let's be honest.

What he's doing is a function of math, not of physiology. Math is the language we express the physiology in, so it's easy to go down this road, trust me I understand that. More important is to consider the energy systems being utilized and the specific physiology of the organism.

World Records are World Records, period. If you think they're soft, go break 'em or coach someone who you think can if it's so simple.

from this drivel, it is obvious you haven't a clue about the topic

it is also clear you have done no research whatsoever to test the numbers

i suggest you start with iaaf tables, the usual reference, & see what

1293

points gives for 400/800/1k/1500 & compare with what i have posted above before spouting nonsense

What you think of this, for 800 and 1500 ??

1:45.0 - 3:33

1:44.0 - 3:31

1:43.0 - 3:29

1:42.0 - 3:27

1:41.0 - 3:25 (this fits which what Canova says)

I know its just linear, but still, this values look to fit quite well.

(3:26 - 1:41.5; 3:30 - 1:43.5; latter showing for a guy running mid 1:43 medal prospects, think Suleiman).

no

linear never works, they are logarithm relationship, as is just about anything mammalian

these are absolute mathematical equivalents, which are invariable, unlike every other table

i have not been surprised/ much in athletics last 40y+, but when i saw these absolute numbers, i pretty much cowered in awe :

1'43.00 = 3'30.125

1'42.00 = 3'28.25

1'41.00 = 3'26.375