Indoor Sub 4 Miles not True Sub 4

[quote]Real Sub 4 Miler wrote:

'Running 59-60 second pace indoors is easier than running 59-60 second pace outdoors.'

Rubbish

Never run the mile at Rieti! I guess Morceli's 3:44.39 WR in 1993 there never happened then.

I tend to agree that running a sub 4 indoors is a little easier than it is outdoors in most cases. But a sub 4 is sub 4 and I'd take one indoor or out.

malmo wrote:

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."

Two problems: (1) The stat you want to be looking at is 27/80, as in 27 guys have better indoor pr's, and 53 guys have better outdoor pr's. That's your meaningful statistic. 27/80 = 33.8% (2) In selecting your 80 milers, there is still a bias toward indoors because you chose milers and not also 1500 guys. You've ignored every guy who ran 4:01 indoors and 3:41 outdoors. Even though later in your analysis you welcome the 3:41 types, early on you've excluded them.

When I get a chance I'll try to do this correctly.

Oh, and yes I am aware that some people do not run indoors. That needs to be factored in as well.

Alright, here it is. Some qualifications on these statistics first - (1) these are all taken from T&FN's website, which unfortunately only goes 40 deep. In most cases this is fine, but if there are ever any 3:41.9 guys at position #41 in a given year, I've missed them here. (2) I've only taken American sub-4 and sub-3:42.2 performances (no foreign collegiates), (3) I went back 5 seasons as well - 06, 07, 08, 09, 10. (4) I used the .9258 multiplier in order to determine an athlete's "best" performance. (5) I don't have time to go through all these guys' lifetime bests, so when we are saying we've identified an athlete's top performance, that's only in the 5 years examined. (6) I don't know how I would separate out the guys who rarely run indoor vs. those who frequently run it, so I haven't attempted to do so.

So what you're looking at is simply 5 years worth of 1500 and mile times from T&FN at the sub-4/sub-3:42.2 level, and I've identified each athlete's "best" performance.

# athletes = 122

1500 best performance = 77

outdoor mile best performance = 19

indoor mile best performance = 26

Best performance came outdoors = 96/122 = 78.7%

Best performance came indoors = 26/122 = 21.3%

'I tend to agree that running a sub 4 indoors is a little easier than it is outdoors in most cases'

There is a lot of shite written on this site.

Of course if you are going to try it in a blizzard during winter outdoors will be slower - but that's not 'most cases'

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=MILE/detail.html

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=i/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=MILE/detail.html

Get Ventolin to do the analysis!

anecdotally, anyone who has run much on the Armory track in NYC can vouch for the energy return - it feels like a trampoline sometimes. That's got to be worth something, if only mental.

DOES NOT FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS WELL

THIS is your relevant statistic. You are not double-counting anyone. You are not listing people

At your insistence I decided to amusee myself and see how many who broke 4:00 indoors ran faster outdoors at either 1500(subjectivly, 3:42.2) or the mile.

Again, those who ran a sub 4:00 mile indoors and did they improve on it outdoors at either 1500/mile. Not 4:01 mile, not 3:43 1500. Not "I'll try to manipulate the numbers until I get something I like"

BTW I took a more direct and simpler approach, using the list of 4:00 milers. It already gives you sorts the information by indoors or out. It already tells you if they ever improved on that performce, and it sorts out all of the noise – the duplicate performances.

i wouldnt be so sure about tha wrote:

Why are you being so dense about this? We both know what the other person is saying. You are saying athletes run faster MILES indoors.

I'm not the one being dense here, you are.

That's not what I'm saying. I said simply "you can see why many people never run faster outdoors than their indoor times." I also said "it's easier to run 4:00 mile indoors (on some tracks) than outdoors." I've clearly laid out the reasons why for discussion. and what is the response? We've got nutcases who claim that tracks have a 10 foot high bank on them. Some others have claimed that I am somehow "bashing the accomplishments of others". We've also got another who (you) who claims that it's very rare for runners to run faster indoors miles/1500 than outdoors. It's not. It's quite common, and quite disproportional to the number of opportunities available.

The facts are that their are fewer opportunities and at fewer venues to run an indoor mile (or 1500), and yet, of those who break 4:00 in the mile in those few events, a full 50% of them, never run faster outdoors again at either 1500/mile than what they ran indoors.

This is completely disproportional, and an astounding factoid when you look at it objectively. Obviously it REALLY IS easier to break 4:00 (or the metric equivalent) indoors than outdoors.

Why are you so obsessed over this and why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth?

Except for having to wade through a few lame attempts at flaming other posters, I've enjoyed this thread.

I don't think anyone has mentioned the negative impact of the air quality indoors. Outdoors, I never get the burn in my lungs during the race or the hacking cough afterwards. Maybe it's a little exercise induced asthma, but I have always felt more comfortable running outdoors. But I'm far from a sub 4 miler, so what do I know?

More stats:

Last year 26 men ran sub 4 indoors and 152 men ran under 3:40 in the 1500m outdoors.

Indoors, 26 men ran under 3:40 and 51 ran under 3:42.2 for 1500m.

nyloco wrote:

Except for having to wade through a few lame attempts at flaming other posters, I've enjoyed this thread.

I don't think anyone has mentioned the negative impact of the air quality indoors. Outdoors, I never get the burn in my lungs during the race or the hacking cough afterwards. Maybe it's a little exercise induced asthma, but I have always felt more comfortable running outdoors. But I'm far from a sub 4 miler, so what do I know?

i've had the same experience with the dry air; however, i've never felt it during the race--only afterwards--so i don't think it ever impacted my performance. i would have hated to double back for a race, though...

Damn you are being obtuse malmo. The stats have already been clearly laid out; almost 80% of people run faster outdoors than they do indoors for the premier middle distance event. The fact that you stick with a statistic which is biased in the most extreme way while an unbiased statistic has actually been calculated for you shows that you are arguing without actually seeking the truth. You think that there are more opportunities to run fast outdoors? Its been a while since you've competed in college, hasn't it? Most good collegiates get, on average, 2 good time trials in good conditions outdoors. (Mt. Sac and Stanford). Hell, lately they've been running faster in championship meets than they have indoors. They get 3-4 good time trials indoors (Arkansas, Notre Dame (twice), Washington, the Armory, Penn State, ect. ect.)

If you are comparing a good indoor track to a windy outdoor track, I don't think anybody here is going to disagree that the indoor track is easier. Nothing indoors can compete with a calm outdoor 400 m track. Sorry.

There is nothing biased about what posted. The stats have been laid out. Read it real slow if you have to:

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

55/76 = 72.4%

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."

malmo wrote:

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

80 = total

52 = indoors

28 = outdoors

Just curious where these numbers came from. From the list you posted here:

I count 76 first-timers in 06, 07, 08, 09, and 10. If you add in the non-first timers (Lagat, Webb, Rankin, Manzano, etc.) it seems like the number should be higher than 80. Where am I not following? I'm not trying to continue the argument, just trying to reach the same conclusion you are, but I'm having a hard time of it.

I wouldnt be so sure about tha wrote:

malmo wrote:

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

80 = total

52 = indoors

28 = outdoors

Just curious where these numbers came from. From the list you posted here:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/archive/U.S.%20Sub-4s.pdf

I count 76 first-timers in 06, 07, 08, 09, and 10. If you add in the non-first timers (Lagat, Webb, Rankin, Manzano, etc.) it seems like the number should be higher than 80. Where am I not following? I'm not trying to continue the argument, just trying to reach the same conclusion you are, but I'm having a hard time of it.

Of course the number will be higher when you could non-first timers. I was just comparing apples to apples.

I found a couple of duplicate entryes. I've got 76 as well.

Right now I'm trying to duplicate your figures, which is a nightmare. There are so many duplicate performances and alternate name spellings its a nightmare.

malmo wrote:

Right now I'm trying to duplicate your figures, which is a nightmare. There are so many duplicate performances and alternate name spellings its a nightmare.

Ha! Yeah, it's annoying cutting and pasting from the T&FN site. Then even once it's in excel you've got Andrew Wheating (Ore), -Andrew Wheating (Ore), **Andrew Wheating (Ore), Andrew Wheating (una), etc. And if you try to sort by times, the (i) indicting indoor times is a nuisance and you have to separate that out.

Probably not worth the effort to duplicate my efforts unless you think you'll use that information down the road. At this point I think I'm through with the debate anyway.

First we must look at the fact that over half of the US runners who ran sub 4 never ran faster than their first race under 4 no matter if that was indoors ,outdoors or in drawers.

Why haven't last year's indoor subfour guys, or their friends/coaches, etc., posted saying something like this: "John Smith ran his first subfour indoors last year and backed it up with a 3:41 1500m outdoors."

The answer is because they ran 3:44 1500m outdoors. Malmo, and several others, are right. It is easier to break the 4 minute mile indoors.