Indoor Sub 4 Miles not True Sub 4

I never realized that people in Arkansas were so tall that they had to bend over to see over a track that is 10 feet off the ground....

Fire away, idiot...

Real Sub 4 Miler wrote:

If you want to be considered a Sub 4 miler without (i) forever next to your time, do it outdoors. Also, you won't have to worry about jackasses like Malmo and me ragging you that your time is unworthy.

Excuse me? When did I ever say that?

if you can find race results online for berlin and brussels in the summer of 1994--as far as i know, the only times i've raced him (obviously before he came into his own, though he did run low 3:30s that season if i recall correctly).

by the way, lots of people beat him in the atlanta olympics when he fell as well...

socalcush wrote:malmo, your points are well-made, but what did your experiences tell you between indoors and out? seeing the list posted, i'd be curious what doug consiglio would say, especiall being of the tallish sort. however, the stereotype of the "tall runner" performing poorly indoors was defied by johnny gray in the 800; hence, my bottomline assertion that any attempt at gleaning any real truths from data may be misleading...

My experiences on indoor tracks were just as I stated. In college, ALL of my mile/1500 PRs were set on indoor tracks, up until May of my Senior year when I ran 3:42 for 1500. The reason, the weather conditions are always perfect indoors, and the ability to run a few meters shorter than what you could do on an outdoor track. Three times I ran 4:04 miles on crappy 160 yards board tracks (The Spectrum, The Garden, and Cobo Hall), and a 4:02 mile at Jadwin Gym (Princeton), what was then considered to be one of the fastest tracks in the county. In none of those races was I 'hoovered', I was always the 'hammer.' Today, the flat 200m track at Princeton wouldn't come up on anyone's radar as a 'fast' track.

At Penn State we didn't even have a proper indoor track. It was an afterthought 300m track with 4 square turns built right at the roof level of the basketball arena. I can only imagine the luxury of training and racing on the track that they have now.

Yes, I believe being taller would naturally hurt your indoor running ability, but that inherent disadvantage would be mitigated, or even eliminated completely, had you either trained or raced on indoor tracks frequently. You being a rhythm runner would also go against the grain of the feel of indoor running.

If I'm following this correctly, it's suggested that it's now easier to run under 4:00 on indoor tracks than it is on outdoor tracks so we shouldn't consider 4:00 miles done indoors as "real" because they're easier now than outdoor ones. But when indoor tracks were 11 lap wood ones in various states of degeneration it was harder to run sub 4:00 indoors than out.

So if we're not going to count indoor sub 4:00s now as "real" because they're run under easier conditions, why did we not only count indoor ones as real in the old days of 11 lap tracks? After all, it was harder then to run sub 4:00 indoors than it was outdoors. For that matter, why would we count outdoor sub 4:00s run on modern tracks as real because those tracks are easier to run fast on than the old cinder tracks were?

We all know that technology is partly responsible for today's improved performances. Trying to figure out which of those performances should not count as real because some of that technology is involved is silly.

THE WINNER

My personal opinion is that an outdoor mile is more difficult (90% of the time). Only on the rare day the wind is still and the temperature in the 50s would I say that Outdoor is advantageous.

Sgt Kurt wrote:

realisitic wrote:

*isn't very fast for a guy.*

yet only ~350 guys from USA could do it(One-In-A-Million)

I believe less than 1200 have ever done in world wide

Are you saying one in a million runners could do it? I agree that 4 min. is fast for an average runner, but if you are talking about elite runners 4:00 is not very fast. If you equate the 1500 at 3:40-ish with a 4:00 mile then it looks even slower as there are hundreds of guys that can run in that range. They are a dime a dozen this day in age. Take a look at the world 1500m list and you will see 40 guys at 3:35 low or under from '10 and 30 americans at 3:40 or under. The mile is not run very often outdoors (i.e. on the IAAF circuit) making it easy to grasp onto antiquated concepts about what a fast time is.

Most impressive were people like Bannister and Ryun who ran sub-4 in less than ideal conditions on non-all weather tracks.

Malmo there are fast indoor tracks in Sheffield, Manchester, London and Cardiff (Wales) and Edinburgh and/or Glasgow (Scotland). Hope I haven't missed any.

That is a fair comment though Malmo. But not really conclusive. I'd say the English indoor season is a little more extensive than the NCAA indoor season. MD/LD athletes in the NCAA run three short seasons (autumn/fall cross, winter indoor, spring outdoor, summer base), but English runners typically do two seasons and indoor is quite long if you want to take it seriously (you run a couple of opens, a regional champs, the AAAs, there are sometimes BMC races, if you are good you can run in Europe a few times, and the odd international).

You look at the English indoor results and conclude that the season is not considered particularly prestigious. But causation flows the other way too. English runners do not take advantage of the opportunities because they think it is harder to run fast indoors than outdoors. They may be wrong of course. But I would have thought if they were there would be some people faster indoors than outdoors. And if this happened, perhaps it would have inspired others to focus more on the indoors. But I have never come across this (apparently there are examples in the NCAA, but I have never seen any from anywhere else).

People don't come to Birmingham seeking the qualifying times. But I wonder why they don't. Qualifying times for the European and world championships are slow (desperately slow if your reasoning is correct): something like 3:43-44 1500 and 7:55 3000. Why wouldn't people who could run about 3:45/8:00 outdoors flock indoors to book a flight to world champs?

I think someone should actually build a six-lane 200m track with a 10-foot tall bank. Can you imagine- the cross slope at the center of the curve would be insane. And dropping from 10 feet high on the curve to zero at the midpoint of the straight in 50m would be a 20% average grade. You'd have to run in crampons just to stay in the outside lane. That thing might make that crazy track in Spain (with the hill) look pretty normal.

If you run a distance of at least one mile in less than four minutes and you finish in the same general area as you started, you have run a true sub four.

It doesn't matter if indoors may be easier than outdoors.

Mondo easier than asphalt.

70 degrees is easier than 30 degrees.

Calm weather is easier than blustery weather.

Overcast easier than bright sunshine.

Following a rabbit easier than leading the whole race.

There is no time conversion or disallowance for any of these factors.

Sub four is sub four.

Malmo, I've always found it difficult to run on banked bends. Do you think the problem is probably not leaning enough?

Ok. We are way off topic.

Lets RECAP what we have discovered.

1: Indoor tracks are faster today than in the past

2: The top outdoor times are faster because of the physics of corner running and velocity/inertia

3: Indoor times are consistently fast because of the new technology and perfect conditions but are still not as fast as an outdoor track with perfect weather, competition, etc...

4: Malmo and the OP have personally traveled the country and have measured every track and have watched every sub-4 this season. They have personally witnessed every runner running on the line. Due to their breathtaking personal accounts and mind boggling mathematics they have concluded that every runner is, in fact, cheating, and that no one has ever run sub-4 unless they were born before 1972.

5: Every athlete should stop trying during indoor because one day on a piece of paper their name will have an "i" next to it which will, of course, make their 3:55 convert to a 4:49 mile due to this amazing banked-track-technological discovery and mathematical formula made by Malmo.

Wow I learned alot.

That was stupid, even by Letsrun standards. You should be commended, or condemned, whichever comes first.

Dudes, why would anyone want to run indoors? It's 60 degrees (above zero) year round out here!

malmo wrote:

Additionally, running in still air and with banked turns, you can see why many people never run faster outdoors than their indoor times.

Nonsense. I'd bet 8 out 10 healthy athletes will still run faster outdoors than indoors.

WHY this is could be an interesting debate, since we've heard offsetting arguments here, but I think saying "many" athletes never run faster outdoors is a poor choice of words. Some, few, the minority, the rarity - yes. Many - no.

Not LSD wrote:Malmo,

You know I come on here and be kind and try to ask a couple of simple questions to gain understanding and you want to start bashing. So now it is time to fire back. You want to call me a retard well I think you must the mfing retard who has never been to tyson. If you had been to tyson then you would know that in the outside lane you are starting at least 8 feet maybe 10, I don't know exactly, above ground due to the staggered start. You then finish about 6 inches above the ground at the finish therefore you have a very steep net drop. .

You got owned dude.

malmo wrote:

I never realized that people in Arkansas were so tall that they had to bend over to see over a track that is 10 feet off the ground....

Fire away, idiot...

i wouldnt be so sure about tha wrote:

Nonsense. I'd bet 8 out 10 healthy athletes will still run faster outdoors than indoors.

WHY this is could be an interesting debate, since we've heard offsetting arguments here, but I think saying "many" athletes never run faster outdoors is a poor choice of words. Some, few, the minority, the rarity - yes. Many - no.

Are you sure about that?

Since 2000, (11 years, not including the past month), 121 Americans broke 4:00.

121 = total

76 = indoors

45 = outdoors

Of those 76 milers who broke 4:00, 55 of them never ran faster again, indoors or out.

55/76 = 72.4%

Which means that at minimum 72.4% have not run faster outdoors. I will not attempt to find how many of those who first ran sub 4:00 outdoors eventually set their PR's indoors, but we know of at least one: Chris Solinsky. So we know that the number is greater than 73.7% (56/76)

My guess the number is closer to 80%.

Checkmate.

I'm assuming you've taken the 1500 into account?

socalcush wrote: perhaps a poor analogy, and you guys with the physics backgrounds are way over my head, but just as i hate road races with hairpin turns, it seems that no matter what the turn is, there has to be diminishing speed. is it fair, from a physics standpoint, to ask the question: would you rather run a mile with 16 hairpin turns vs. 8 moderate turns? as you work your way into the question, where does the tuning of the track counter what to me seems an obvious disadvantage? to further complicate things, not every track has the same llength of turns

i'd be curious what doug consiglio would say, especiall being of the tallish sort. however, the stereotype of the "tall runner" performing poorly indoors was defied by johnny gray in the 800; hence, my bottomline assertion that any attempt at gleaning any real truths from data may be misleading...

Cush, a couple of additional comments. I think that you are overestimating the detriment of sharp turns by not allowing for the benefits of them being banked. Have you or any of your friends ever owned a slot-car set? Have you ever noticed that on the flat turns you couldn't go fast or you'd wipe out, but on the banked turns you could push the throttle all the way down?

The problem with indoor tracks (at least at mile speed) isn't the turns, it's the construction of the track. On the old board tracks with dead spots everywhere, the tracks were slower. But a few tracks - LA, Sam Diego, Meadowlands, the dead sports were eliminated and you could fly - even if you were not in the condition that you'd be when outdoors came around.

Here's an image of a few tall runners who could run on board tracks. The Chairman of the Boards, though, was the guy who was built low to the ground.