To whoever wrote the 3:59 mile article on the front page...

sc42 wrote:

Go and try to run a mile at AFA or NAU. See what you think then. The NCAA does altitude adjusting because about a million data points show it is the only fair way to have time qualifying for nationals. End of story.

Why is it the only fair way? No one is forcing you to race at altitude, nor is anyone precluding you from racing at sea level. You're going to travel all over the place to race anyway. Just pick a few meets that aren't at altitude if you're worrying about qualifying.

sc42 wrote:

Go and try to run a mile at AFA or NAU. See what you think then. The NCAA does altitude adjusting because about a million data points show it is the only fair way to have time qualifying for nationals. End of story.

Well it looks like an Air Force press release.

However he did not run a sub 4 minute mile. A conversion is fine for NCAA qualifying standards, but at the end of the day he ran 4:09. Yes at sea level he should be able to break 4, but that press release is a hot mess when it comes to that.

How much any individual's time is going to vary from sea level to 7000 feet is highly variable. Some will have a greater decrease than others.

(And yes, I know what it is like to run at altitude from both an experience standpoint and a scientific standpoint).

Let's hope that Air Force officers don't employ that kind of subjective reasoning in their day jobs.

See Soratos' season last year for how altitude really does convert.

He dropped a bomb on you wrote:

See Soratos' season last year for how altitude really does convert.

False

Doesn't the Air Force have the technology to pressurized the venue to sea level? What the heck are they doing with my tax dollars anyway?

I don't think altitude adjustments should be allowed to qualify for nationals.

I live in California. I can qualify for indoor nationals based on the long jump mark I have jumped outdoors already this year. Perhaps they should have an outdoor to indoor conversion, so I can still go to indoor nationals, without having to fly to meets to get an official indoors time. Subtract 1% for each 1m/s of wind I had for the conversion.

It is no different than somebody choosing to race at altitude and getting a sea level conversion for qualifying marks.

What, exactly, are you complaining about? I saw a letsrun.com headline that corrected an incorrect headline (and text) from an AFA press release. What was wrong with what letsrun.com did?

A 4:09 mile at the Air Force Academy is not a 3:59 mile. Nor is a 4:09 mile at sea level on a hot, humid day. And back in 1968, at the Mexico City Olympics, Kip Keino did not run a 3:24 1500 nor did Ralph Doubell destroy the world record for 800 meters. Even people who advocate for very generous NCAA altitude conversations should be able to see this.

Why not simply acknowledge these fine performances for what they are, without these silly and inaccurate embellishments?

Avocado's Number wrote:

altitude conversations

"conversions"

malmo wrote:

Let's hope that Air Force officers don't employ that kind of subjective reasoning in their day jobs.

Wrong. Let's hope that Air Force officers don't fail to put on their oxygen masks when they fly to high elevations because someone told them that 'breathing is just breathing'.

The Johnson brothers and their cronies are posers. So don't listen to them.

4:09? That's hobbyjogging.

The problem with altitude conversions is that everyone is different in how they react to altitude. A plodder with great endurance will get the best conversion.

I have run at Air Force and NAU and can honestly say that it is very difficult to run fast in both venues (relative to sea level). With that being said, I do not believe that these large conversions should be allowed to qualify one of only 16 positions at NCAA. I do think it is fine to get into regionals outdoors because you actually have to race to get to the championships.

Regardless, great races from all of those three AF runners. Keep it rolling!

I believe wrote:

A plodder with great endurance will get the best conversion.

Based on what? Why?

Christian Soratos.

Convert this: wrote:

Christian Soratos.

That makes absolutely no sense

8v8v wrote:

Convert this: wrote:

Christian Soratos.

That makes absolutely no sense

His point was that last year, everyone and their dog was ripping on Christian Soratos' altitude adjusted NCAA leading time from 5000 feet... for about 2 weeks, when he went down to sea level and ran even faster (3:55, in case you were living in a cave).

There is a reason that NONE of the people arguing against altitude adjustment EVER put their money where their mouth is and intentionally travel to AFA, NAU or some other high elevation track to 'take advantage' of the NCAA adjustment for qualifying attempts. It doesn't work, so they go to UW or Indiana and try at sea level.

And for the guy saying "no one makes you run at elevation", stop and think for Christ's sake. If you go to school in a low-elevation conference you're getting a shot at fast unadjusted times every weekend. If you run in a conference like the Big Sky, some get a shot every week, some get one every so often, and some get basically none.

I'd have thought the Soratos Effect was still in play, but stupid never sleeps.

Corona is a great runner but this isn't sub-4. last year him and Saarel ran faster at this meet but their times were converted to 4:02. He's a 13:50/7:55 5k/3k guy who also ran 3:43 in the 1500 and has improved a shit ton from highschool. Hopefully at one of the UW meets if he runs the mile he truly goes sub-4. Would only be the 2nd CT athlete to do it indoors.

sc42 wrote:

8v8v wrote:

That makes absolutely no sense

His point was that last year, everyone and their dog was ripping on Christian Soratos' altitude adjusted NCAA leading time from 5000 feet... for about 2 weeks, when he went down to sea level and ran even faster (3:55, in case you were living in a cave).

That still makes absolutely no sense. How altitude affects one guy does not tel you how it will affect another guy. Do you two really not understand that?