800m sub-4 equivalent?

I'd say in the 1:47 range or so. It really depends though...if it's a guy who's more of a mile/5k runner maybe like 1:48 or even 1:49, but if it's more of a mile/800 guy it could even be like 1:46 (like Brannon Kidder, who's gone 3:38 and 1:45).

ijenns318 wrote:

I'd say in the 1:47 range or so. It really depends though...if it's a guy who's more of a mile/5k runner maybe like 1:48 or even 1:49, but if it's more of a mile/800 guy it could even be like 1:46 (like Brannon Kidder, who's gone 3:38 and 1:45).

No, it doesn't depend on the runner at all. There is only one 800 time with an equivalent amount of prestige in a given situation. Obviously some guys can run 1:52 and sub 4, but that's not what the question asks.

Athletics Canada uses MercierTables which give 1:48.7

I do not agree with the Mercier Tables and will continue using Portuguese Tables (aka Purdy Points Table) for hypothetical conversions.

I've use these tabes (including the Purdy tables) for over 40 years, and the Purdy tables are the worst of the lot. IAAF is the most reliable and gives 1:48.33 for 3:59.99/3:42.39

wineturtle wrote:

Athletics Canada uses MercierTables which give 1:48.7

I do not agree with the Mercier Tables and will continue using Portuguese Tables (aka Purdy Points Table) for hypothetical conversions.

I agree that today 1:48-mid and 4:00 put you on about the same competitive level, it is interesting to note that Rudolf Harbig ran 1:46.6 in 1939, when the mile WR was only 4:06.4. He ran it on a 500m track.

B-Sample wrote:

I've use these tabes (including the Purdy tables) for over 40 years, and the Purdy tables are the worst of the lot.

IAAF is the most reliable and gives 1:48.33 for 3:59.99/3:42.39

[/quote]

The Purdy tables were developed before EPO, which has significantly skewed the speed/distance relationship, devaluing times at longer distances that are now more readily achieved.

IAAF tables are more reflective of current realities.

I agree that the IAAF tables are more realistic.

Riffing on the idea that some athletes are "pure" 1500m/Milers (maybe "pure" means they were most comfortable and effective at these distances), el Gerrouj never really ran an 800 in anger, and Kevin Sullivan posted these career bests:

1:47.06

3:31.71

3:50.26

Even more skewed to stamina is Sydney Maree: 3:29, 3:48, 13:01, no 800 even listed! (though a 2:19 1000 which equates to 1:48)

GlobalView wrote:

I agree that the IAAF tables are more realistic.

Riffing on the idea that some athletes are "pure" 1500m/Milers (maybe "pure" means they were most comfortable and effective at these distances), el Gerrouj never really ran an 800 in anger, and Kevin Sullivan posted these career bests:

1:47.06

3:31.71

3:50.26

If we figure that the mile world record is .9297083 of 4:00 we could do the inverse math (1/.9297083)1:40.91 and we would arrive at 1:48.54. That's would El G and Rudisha would tell us through their actions.

wineturtle wrote:

The Portuguese Tables give 3:59.99-- 962 points same as 3:41.5 and 1:47.0

A nice study done in 2000 gives the converters a good base for conversation.

Jonas Mureika Ph.D

Loyola Marymount University

Quantum gravity, black holes, cosmology, particle physics, mathematical modelling

http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/mercier/WRAthletics.html

That is a terrible conversion. Without any math or tables anyone can see that 1:47.0 is a class above a sub 4 mile.

Comparing against this year's Olympic qualifying standards would put 1:47.0 equal to a 3:38.2 1500m.

Don't tell me that 3:38 is equivalent to a 4 minute mile.

Michael Vittuci from Saint Xaiver split a 1:49 800m to close out NBON for the win. That year he ran a 4:07 1600. His senior year he was injured, but I doubt he would have gone faster than 4:04.

I think it is unique for everyone. No one number is a magic conversion

OhioFan79 wrote:

Michael Vittuci from Saint Xaiver split a 1:49 800m to close out NBON for the win. That year he ran a 4:07 1600. His senior year he was injured, but I doubt he would have gone faster than 4:04.

I think it is unique for everyone. No one number is a magic conversion

You misunderstand.

This question is about statistically equivalent performances, such as how the Olympic standards are chosen.

The 4 minute mile is seen as a special standard in men's middle distance running, it is difficult to achieve but not elite.

The OP asked what 800m standard is as difficult to achieve as the 4 minute mile.

There is only one answer, and that is around 1:48 mid, but it might be nice to call it the 1:48.50 800m.

B-Sample wrote:

What skews the perception by many is that most people run the 800/mile in high school, where the athletes are comparatively undeveloped aerobically. As a result, 4:00 has seemed like a more formidable challenge than 1:48. That is changing as more runners and their coaches embrace proper mileage in their development.

This phenomenon carries into the sprints. 10.19 is the #10 HS 100m performance all-time, and 45.3 the #10 400m; both are far superior on the world stage than 4:00, which is the #10 mile.

You have to take into account the fact that we as a country do better on the world stage in the 100 and 400 than the mile, right?

bigtool05 wrote:

B-Sample wrote:

What skews the perception by many is that most people run the 800/mile in high school, where the athletes are comparatively undeveloped aerobically. As a result, 4:00 has seemed like a more formidable challenge than 1:48. That is changing as more runners and their coaches embrace proper mileage in their development.

This phenomenon carries into the sprints. 10.19 is the #10 HS 100m performance all-time, and 45.3 the #10 400m; both are far superior on the world stage than 4:00, which is the #10 mile.

You have to take into account the fact that we as a country do better on the world stage in the 100 and 400 than the mile, right?

That is what I'm saying. The U.S. performance lists are skewed towards the sprints. This has an effect even up to 800m, where there are slightly more 1:48 or better than 4:00 or better, although that is shifting with more young athletes doing appropriate training for the mile.

Mercier Juniors Table gives a 3:59.99 mile

1:48.52 for 800m and 3:41.99 for 1500m

I think after the abundance on information on this thread now that everyone should accept that this is the correct answer.

4:00 is equal to 1:48.5

If you break 1:48.5 that is the same as breaking 4:00 in the mile, and you get whatever kudos you deserve.

A different question is how many high schoolers have done both?

The following are the equivalent of 3:59.99 for the mile from the credible sources:

IAAF Point Tables: 1:48.55

Purdy: 1:46.98

Schwartz (tinman): 1:48.8

McMillan: 1:48.0

AVERAGE: 1:48.08

Remember, equivalents are not predictions, they are simply performances of the same quality or value. Think of it more like $1 = X Euros. Whether someone can run an equivalent at a different distance depends on a ton of factors (training, genetics, competitive opportunities, weather, motivation, etc.)

Metric Miler wrote:

A different question is how many high schoolers have done both?

Only Webb. Ryun certainly could have but for whatever reason didn't.

timescalculator.appspot.com