Indoor Sub 4 Miles not True Sub 4

Wow, you're serious. So your analysis only compared indoor miles to outdoor miles. Great detective work there. I bet we'll also find faster 60's, 300's, 500's, 600's, and 1000's indoors for the majority of Americans too.

If you want to do this right, you're either going to have to taken into account 1500 equivalents, or look at events are that are commonly run both indoors and out, like the 400, 800, or 5000. Even the 3k is rare enough outdoors that it will be a meaningless stat to compare indoors to outdoors.

i wouldnt be so sure about tha wrote:

Wow, you're serious. So your analysis only compared indoor miles to outdoor miles.

That's the topic of the thread isn't it?

If you want to start another thread on another topic, and if you want to do any lifting at all, go right ahead. I'm sure you will be appreciated.

As it stands, your contention that "Some, few, the minority, the rarity ..." have run faster outdoor miles than they have indoors, has been shown to be inccrrect. Not by a little bit, but by a lot.

malmo wrote:

Phil. wrote:

They do comply with the rules that is where the cones are supposed to be!

The photographic record disagrees.

Really where's the photo?

Yes you managed to quote the same rule that I did, let's see your evidence that the cones are improperly placed.

3:59.99 wrote:

Sub 4, is Sub 4. I can argue that indoor tracks are smaller, and tighter than outdoor, thus more difficult. But who cares, as long as the run a FULL mile under 4 its all good. Also, its fun watching all these guys go after it during the indoor season.

What about road miles? Do they count? Banked tracks are questionable to me as well. I mean look at the 200m times that have been posted indoors.

Phil. wrote:

Really where's the photo?

Yes you managed to quote the same rule that I did, let's see your evidence that the cones are improperly placed.

This does account for the fact that mile is not commonly run outdoors, and almost never run during collegiate athlete's (who I'm assuming make up the majority of the indoor sub-4's) peak season. Therefore there is not significant data to say that it is "easier" indoors than outdoors.

How many runners have run sub-4 indoors than gone on to run faster than the 1500 equivalent outdoors would make MUCH more sense. Unless you honestly believe that the 109m makes the mile easier indoors and outdoors.

If you run under 4 minutes for 1 mile on a track, you are sub-4 miler. You and this other clown have absolutely no right to put down other people's accomplishments.

thirty-two wrote:

If you run under 4 minutes for 1 mile on a track, you are sub-4 miler. You and this other clown have absolutely no right to put down other people's accomplishments.

Exactly WHOSE accomplishments have I put down?

photographic memory wrote:

Phil. wrote:

Really where's the photo?

Yes you managed to quote the same rule that I did, let's see your evidence that the cones are improperly placed.

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=42281

Which indicates that the cones are correctly placed.

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?

Why is this? Is NCAA indoors just more prestigious than the world indoors?

Malmo, holy cow. Everything you post is so ridiculously wrong. You are arguing for a thread named "indoor sub 4 miles are not true sub 4". I have not seen ANY evidence to prove this. Of course there are more sub 4 miles indoors, there are also 90% more miles ran indoors. Leaving the fifteen hundred out because "the name of the thread is about the mile" is your rational? Come on. You feel that you are an expert about everything running because you ran fast a few times? Look around buddy, you are not the only one.

Also, stop bashing our accomplishments as runners. It is very offensive and makes you sound like a cry baby for never running this fast.

Good job dudes, keep the TRUE sub 4's coming.

i wouldnt be so sure about tha wrote:

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.

speaking of 8 out of 10

8/10

You are an idiot. I am not bashing anyone's accomplishments, PERIOD. I've never agreed anywhere in this thread with the original poster's contention that "indoor sub 4 miles are not true sub 4", nor do I subscribe to it privately.

Pull your head out of your ass.

Faster than this Malmo clown wrote:

Malmo, holy cow. Everything you post is so ridiculously wrong.

Hothead. Please tell me where I've been wrong in this thread?

malmo wrote:

thirty-two wrote:

If you run under 4 minutes for 1 mile on a track, you are sub-4 miler. You and this other clown have absolutely no right to put down other people's accomplishments.

Exactly WHOSE accomplishments have I put down?

Everyone who has run sub 4 on an indoor track because it is the only chance they get to run a mile after years and years of training.

Comment on banked tracks. Have you ever even raced on one? I mean lane 1 is hardly banked at all. The bank helps more as you go wider on the turns but lane one isn't that fast. look at 200 times indoors. Lane 6 is superior to lane 1. This makes sense of course (wider turns) but is still something to think about.

Boo You wrote:

Exactly WHOSE accomplishments have I put down?

Everyone who has run sub 4 on an indoor track because it is the only chance they get to run a mile after years and years of training.

Comment on banked tracks. Have you ever even raced on one? I mean lane 1 is hardly banked at all. The bank helps more as you go wider on the turns but lane one isn't that fast. look at 200 times indoors. Lane 6 is superior to lane 1. This makes sense of course (wider turns) but is still something to think about.[/quote]

What the f*** is that matter with you? I've never put down anyone's accomplishments.

Of course I've run on indoor tracks and of course the first lane is banked. Please, quit playing your stupid games, kid.

thirty-two wrote:

This does account for the fact that mile is not commonly run outdoors, and almost never run during collegiate athlete's (who I'm assuming make up the majority of the indoor sub-4's) peak season. Therefore there is not significant data to say that it is "easier" indoors than outdoors.

How many runners have run sub-4 indoors than gone on to run faster than the 1500 equivalent outdoors would make MUCH more sense. Unless you honestly believe that the 109m makes the mile easier indoors and outdoors.

For shits and giggles I went back and compared those sub 4:00 American runners' indoor miles against both their outdoor 1500s and mile times, using the most commonly accepted conversion factor of 0.9258

(4:00 = 3:42.2) for extrinsic comparisons. I went back 5 years before I got tired.

80 American runners broke 4:00 in the mile during the last 5 years (not including 2011)

80 = total

52 = indoors

28 = outdoors

Of those 52 milers who broke 4:00 indoors, 39 of them never ran a faster mile again, indoors or out.

39/52 = 75% didn't improve

If you throw the subjective element into the mix, and make an extrinsic conversion of their 1500m times, and lump them together with their mile performances, then 27 out of the 52 never improved on their indoor performances.

27/52 = 51.9%

As I said before "you can see why many people never run faster outdoors than their indoor times."

Not a science major I can tell that. Making conclussions from data that has more than one variable is stupid. Show me the real science and I will happily listen to your arguement.

You are obviously not a science major. Conclusions are often drawn about phenomenon that have more than one variable - as just about everything in the physical world does. I simply touched on the many variables that might help illuminate the discussion.

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

That made me chuckle.

One thing worth noting just for the sake of keeping things in perspective: that 2.5 meters is less than 1/600th of a mile. So we're talking about less than four tenths of a second advantage to the guy who manages to hug the curb for 8 laps.

Bottom line . . . I'd be willing to bet that there is no indoor track on which you could run faster than you could at the same level of conditioning at, say, Rieti.

So if running sub 4 at Rieti counts, I'm willing to call a sub 4 at UW a real sub 4, too. (Not that they ever actually run a mile in Rieti.)