older guy in office says he ran a 1:53.5 880, back in the 70s. Is that faster than my 1:52:8 for 800m I ran in the 90s

who was faster wrote:

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.

You could have saved yourself some flaming without resorting to the, "Well I have my MBA and make $150k per year." You reek of insecurity.

Actually, if you had any self esteem at all, you wouldn't be having this argument with your co-worker in the first place.

(Oh, and for the record, his time is better because of the cinder track :)

[quote]Fupa the gunt wrote:

You could have saved yourself some flaming without resorting to the, "Well I have my MBA and make $150k per year." You reek of insecurity.

actually, if you would have read a previous thread, he was responding to an insult by some bragging dentist who called him a cubicle dwelling worker bee. He didn't just come out and 'brag' like so many on here do.

Oh I read the entire post. The dentist was actually originally ripping on him for being fat and out of shape at 37.

The original poster responded by calling the 29 year old dentist, "junior", in an obvious condescending tone, and then went on to brag about how fast he was at 29.

This then prompted the dentist to declare his profession, in attempt to thwart the "junior" label just given to him.

This is where the original poster felt it necessary to one up the dentist again, by posting his job title and salary.

Bottom line, both are kind of tools in their own right, but I give the total toolbag award to the insecure one who started this post.

I find this thread amusing.

relative ranking is a better way to compare different decades

Fupa the gunt wrote:

Oh I read the entire post. The dentist was actually originally ripping on him for being fat and out of shape at 37.

The original poster responded by calling the 29 year old dentist, "junior", in an obvious condescending tone, and then went on to brag about how fast he was at 29.

This then prompted the dentist to declare his profession, in attempt to thwart the "junior" label just given to him.

This is where the original poster felt it necessary to one up the dentist again, by posting his job title and salary.

Bottom line, both are kind of tools in their own right, but I give the total toolbag award to the insecure one who started this post.

Insecure for what? Asking if anyone knows the conversion rate for 800m vs 880y so I could settle a friendly wager with a coworker? You guys all got waaaaay too involved. Thanks to the couple of guys who actually gave me an answer instead of playing Dr Phil.

Like I said: 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

Hey you must be my opposite because I was just thinking that this is one of the better threads in a long, long time. This is a quintessential letsrun.com thread. It’s got all the ingredients; half assed analysis followed by over analysis followed by name calling followed by hurt feelings. The only thing missing is someone mentioning PowerPoint, Teg and drug testing...oops, forgot there was a post about drugs.BTW - I would give the old guy at least a second for the cinder track. So the final analysis is; Fat Old Guy - 1:51.94 to 37 year old Captain of Industry - 1:52.8

was wrote:

Every once in a while I will still see some good results on here or something fun to read, but it's almost an effort to visit this site now and I may quit.

luker wrote:

If you guys kept running and lifted weights would you look alright? I guess I don't understand how or why people let themselves go. My 800m pr is only 1:58 but I still train at 29. I take my wife and kid out to the track or gym. You should see if you can break 2 again.

sorry; but I'll take the OP's prs and career and be a little overweight in my late 30s than to be a 1:58 pr guy at 29 and still able to play with the family. BFD. Sorry, but guys like you are a dime a dozen; and NO, I won't call 1-800-dentist. Dentists now-a-days are like crooked car mechanics; they make up all kinds of phoney stuff that they want to do and charge you up the wazzoo for it.

We're all nobodies in the long run.

I am curious wrote:

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.

800 METERS

1:42.60 ........ Johnny Gray (SMTC) 85

1:43.20 ....... Mark Everett (PBar) 97

1:43.35 ......... David Mack (SMTC) 85

1:43.38 ........ Rich Kenah (Asics) 97

1:43.5+ ..... Rick Wohlhuter (UCTC) 74

1:43.62 ......... Earl Jones (SMTC) 86

1:43.92 ...... John Marshall (Vill) 84

............ James Robinson (ICAC) 84

......... David Krummenacker (adi) 02

1:43.97 ........ Jose Parrilla (Tn) 92

As a lesson learned, next time, don't come to letsrun, but go here for all your performance conversion needs:

http://run-down.com/statistics/calc.php

Maybe a better response to "junior" would have been, "I think I look alright now!" -- 20/20 hindsight and all that.

The simple T&F conversion offered above is first, correctly 1:52.84, and second suffers from not including a slow-down factor, which I calculate as 0.13 seconds. I prefer to use university research (http://www.cs.uml.edu/~phoffman/xcinfo3.html) than 4th grade math.

So ignoring FAT or fot time conversion, and cinder tracks, and spikes and actual race day conditions:

- You undisputably have the faster 800m time

- He has the better 1/2 mile time (I presume you don't have one as 800m is just a bit short)

- Of the two, his is the better performance (with or without cinder tracks)

My slong is bigger then your slong. You have officially come off as a tool.

who was faster wrote:

luker wrote:

If you guys kept running and lifted weights would you look alright? I guess I don\'t understand how or why people let themselves go. My 800m pr is only 1:58 but I still train at 29. I take my wife and kid out to the track or gym. You should see if you can break 2 again.

Uh...junior; at 29 I was still running for a track club and running close to 4 minutes in the mile and under 14 for 5k. I guess I don\'t understand why you aren\'t still racing and getting better at 29. Touche.

you ran a low 4 mile, a sub 14 5k, and you can barely go under 1:53?

you're an old, fat, lying fag

luker wrote:

If you guys kept running and lifted weights would you look alright? I guess I don't understand how or why people let themselves go. My 800m pr is only 1:58 but I still train at 29. I take my wife and kid out to the track or gym. You should see if you can break 2 again.

are you saying you only train at 29second 200meter pace??

you need to bump those down to 26 or 27, then youll be running mid 155's.

im a 159/427 guy, and i do my 200s starting at 28 then work my way down to 26 or so. about 12-14 of them.

um... wrote:

you ran a low 4 mile, a sub 14 5k, and you can barely go under 1:53?

you're an old, fat, lying fag

yes, true; BECAUSE I never ran the 800m again after my freshman year. (was moved up to the 1500m and 5k).

tie breaker.... wrote:

you must race him in a 100m dash on a side street by your office. A car backfires before the gun, you catch a flyer and win!

But there's no way you could have beaten me by that much. I already beaten you in Junior High School three times.

This does not make any sense! I have never heard anybody that can run 80m in one second, or less. So why would you give the old guy only a second off his time? That does not make any sense, at all.

abbyfield01 wrote:

This does not make any sense! I have never heard anybody that can run 80m in one second, or less. So why would you give the old guy only a second off his time? That does not make any sense, at all.

You are an idiot. The difference between 800m and 880 yards isn't 80m, it's about 4 m/.

You may be in the running for best-ever combination of oldest thread bumped and inanity of the comment bumping it.