Technically it rounds to 4:18, but it's not quite 4:18, so thoughts?
I guess it comes down to if you ran a 3:59.99 mile. You'd probably still say you subbed 4. So maybe I just answered my own question.
Technically it rounds to 4:18, but it's not quite 4:18, so thoughts?
I guess it comes down to if you ran a 3:59.99 mile. You'd probably still say you subbed 4. So maybe I just answered my own question.
If I was that fast, I’d probably go around telling people I was an Olympian!
Technically it's a 4:17. I say 4:17.. to make it personal, my 1500m is 3:48.15 and I say 3:48.
4:17 it's right there in the time 4:17.98. It rounds up to 4:18, but so does 4:17.50. Not sure why you'd round it, because how you round it is completely arbitrary. It also rounds to 4:20 if you're going to the nearest 10, and 4:00 if you're rounding to the nearest minute. Just say you ran a 4:17 and no one is going to care that it was 4:17.98.
You always truncate, not round when describing a time in minutes and seconds in track.
Always
4:17.00 - 4:17.99 is 4:17
4:18.00 - 4:18.99 is 4:18
The weird way would be to say:
4:16.50 - 4:17.49 is 4:17
4:17.50 - 4:18.49 is 4:18
As long as you pick one method and stick to it, it doesn’t matter.
Runners truncate to compare one time to another within one second.
i would say 4.17 because 4.17 is what i ran.
if you ran 1.59.59 marathon would you say a 2 hour marathon?
In HS I ran a consistent 57 quarter. When I ran 56.9 I was happy to tell people I ran sub 57.
Similar to marathon times. I'm ok with someone who ran 3:05:59 calling themselves a 3:05 marathoner.
4:17.98 is a 4:17.
I ran a 402 in the 1500 but I was binge drinking 3-4 days week partying as much as I could. Only ran on days I needed to be seen at practice. Probably could have run a 4:10 mile really.
If you are looking to find what is ‘most correct’ - it depends on how the measurement was done. Hand timing leads to rounding where I don’t think that FAT should or will.
I always round down so 4:10!
I'd say 4:16 for the 1600m.
When I broke 16 by one second I just told everyone I ran 17 flat because I didn't want people to think I was a liar, even though I broke 16.
I'd honestly say 4:18. Rounding down when you're at 0.03 seconds from 4;18 is douchy.
Sub 5,6 or whatever number greater than 5 floats your boat. You aren’t sub 4 so it doesn’t really matter.
It really doesn't matter. 4:17 or 4:18.
dmb wrote:
If you are looking to find what is ‘most correct’ - it depends on how the measurement was done. Hand timing leads to rounding where I don’t think that FAT should or will.
If you ran a hand timed 4:17.88, your result wound read 4:17.9.
That’s a 4:17.
If you ran FAT 4:17.976, the result would read 4:17.98.
That’s a 4:17.
What about the dweebs on this site that would always say ‘Rupp is a 2:05 guy if he ran such and such race.’
This post was removed.
Definitely would say 4:17.
breaking the time barrier of the higher 4:18 time is more important than the extra tenths or being “close” to the slower time … you still went under it with a sub 4:18.
FWIW, I’ve never rounded a time up in recounting a PR or race time