Air Force sub-4

Perkins is an absolute stud.

Does really well getting through rounds.

Great chance to be an OT Finalist, and finish in the top 4-5 if he's on.

Now, let me try to frame the question you are asking...I think you are asking why the school doesn't consider him a sub-4 minute miler?

I think, to be considered a 4 minute miler...one has to run under 4 minutes. Since the school is at altitude, many of the distance records are converted.

However, USAFA's first true 4 minute miler needs to run it without conversion (altitude or 1500m)

His question is fair though - the air force kid did not run one mile in less that 4 minutes so why are they converting it for a record? Perkins' 1500 of 3:41 is not a sub 4 mile but by their logic they should convert it too since it would equate to a sub 4 performance.

The conversions are ridiculous. If you haven't run the time, it doesn't count, end of story. Whether you ran it at sea level or 20,000 feet, the only thing that should be counted is the exact time that was recorded with no conversions for altitude, track size/banking, etc.

I guess I didn't understand his question...They converted the mile record from the 1500? The 1500m record is different than the mile. You keep both on the books. You don't have a 4 minute mile until someone runs under 4 minutes.

The alititude conversions are pretty accurate, but altitude born runners are les affected.

I understand why they use conversions. AF is at 7200 ft. A lot of their races are altitude. It makes sense to honor those performances. It's a motivating factor to be in the top 10 all-time, or set a school record. There are only be 2-3 meets a year where they get to go to sea-level.

If altitude is holding him back, he should transfer to the army so he can run on the ground.

When I read the article and put it on the homepage I was surprised they were calling a converted mile the "first sub-4" for the school (I was also surprised they hadn't had a sub-4 before now, converted or not).

It's an interesting debate. My gut reaction is to say that obviously you need altitude conversions for the descending order list to qualify for NCAAs, but altitude converted marks should not count for records.

That was my first instinct, but when you consider they run most of their races at elevation, it makes sense to keep converted marks for their school records. Otherwise, the ability for an athlete to set a record could be determined by things as random as the school's travel schedule or budget for that year. A big talent might just never get a chance to run at sea level in a fast race.

I assume the coaches at Air Force have considered all options and know what works best for them. Go ahead and put it in the books, just note the altitude conversion.

All that said, I don't think you can call yourself a "sub-4 minute miler" until you actually break 4 without the conversion. At least if it was for myself, I wouldn't feel like a converted sub-4 "counted".

If you have ever run at the Academy, you would realize how difficult it is to run there, especially indoors (in addition to the altitude, the air is so dry your lungs feel like they are on fire). A converted time should definitely count. I was there when Berryhill beat Goucher to set the fieldhouse record of 4:09.20 in 1998, and nobody should question whether those two are 4:00 mile types. We use conversions to try to equate performances from different elevations. From my experience, the conversions tend to be a little conservative (i.e. it is easier to meet a standard running at sea level than it is running at altitude). Most of the guys on my team hit qualifying standards at low elevation meets, not at the high altitude meets.

joedirt wrote:

If you have ever run at the Academy, you would realize how difficult it is to run there, especially indoors (in addition to the altitude, the air is so dry your lungs feel like they are on fire). A converted time should definitely count. I was there when Berryhill beat Goucher to set the fieldhouse record of 4:09.20 in 1998, and nobody should question whether those two are 4:00 mile types. We use conversions to try to equate performances from different elevations. From my experience, the conversions tend to be a little conservative (i.e. it is easier to meet a standard running at sea level than it is running at altitude). Most of the guys on my team hit qualifying standards at low elevation meets, not at the high altitude meets.

I run at this elevation every day. Yes it is hard, but one still has not covered the distance in under 4 minutes.

I am okay with the conversion to give people a sense of how fast it is. Also good for NCAA qualifying. People underestimate the effect of altitude on endurance performance in running.

OP, I get what you're getting at but it's not quite the same. With the altitude conversion, he has still run the necessary distance but under conditions that are sufficiently more challenging than "standard" conditions. You can't award someone a record if they haven't covered the entire distance. I realize you're trying to argue that 1500 conversions and altitude conversions are equally subjective but converting distances is a tricky thing. Yeah if I run a 1500 in 3:42 I should be in shape to run a mile in 4:00, but that involves running a (marginally) slower pace for longer, so is it possible to say that I would have been able to pace correctly at this new speed as well as continue that extra 109m? Probably, but not definitely. Where do you draw the line? 1k is more than half of a mile, should we be able to use those conversions?

But I don't think you're arguing that they should have used the 1500m conversion as much as that they shouldn't have used the altitude conversion, so I'm preaching to the choir. I'm in the same boat as most guys in that running at altitude is objectively more challenging, that altitude conversions are worthwhile for the sake of comparing performances, that this guy's performance was impressive and indicates sub 4 ability at sea level, but he ultimately did not run a sub 4 mile. Sure, go ahead and record it as 3:59 but only with an asterisk.

I have a question though, is the altitude conversion an "ever-green" measure? I know at least in DIII the NCAA changes the flat/banked conversion each year and I'm wondering if altitude is adjusted too, either based off previous years' results or scientific research outside of the NCAA. I ask because if AF decides to give this guy the mile record but the conversion changes in the future and using the new conversion his time is actually worth slower than the fastest non-converted AF time. Do they take away the record and give it to that next guy?

That's absurd to look at it that way, the performance is equivalent either way. You don't hear people saying, yeah, he ran sub 4 at sea level, but can he run 4:06 in Boulder? Why don't we use 4:06 in Boulder as the gold standard instead and make everyone come up here to run a legit time? He should definitely consider himself a 4:00 miler based on the conversion if the 4:00 sea level mile is the standard everyone clings to. For what it's worth, I have seen a whole lot more guys train high and run low better than I have seen guys train low and run high (a few notable exceptions, mainly Leo Manzano's 3:41.8 in Boulder).

joedirt wrote:

He should definitely consider himself a 4:00 miler based on the conversion if the 4:00 sea level mile is the standard everyone clings to.

The "4:00 sea level mile" is not the standard. The standard is a 4:00 mile.

Time and distance are the standards on the track.

Of course, its a friggin' school record, the school can do whatever they think works best for them.