Did Lindgren Run 27:11 for 6 miles as a junior?

mr pedantic wrote:

It's unfortunate that he didn't run another lap. It is also unfortunate that the US was so slow to adopt metric distances for races. Rupp has the 10k record, Lindgren has the record for 6 miles (an obsolete distance).

Right on. In my book, they both have records: one for 10,000 meters and the other for six miles.

if someone had told rupp he could get the six mile record maybe he would have kicker earlier and crosses that 9654 meter mark and waved his hands and jumped up and down knowing that he now had the 6 mile record and would have forgotten to run the full 10K

I'm merely pointing out that Rupp's record is inferior to Lindgren's, no matter how you look at it. I'll leave it up to everyone else as to whether or not he's an inferior runner, or was capable of beating Lindgren's record.

Gerry Lindgren was born on March 9, 1946.

His races as a junior were amazing. It must be stressed that they were on dirt so they would have been even better today. In 6 miles dirt can make a substantial difference in time when comparing it to today's tracks. Better tracks also led to the better shoes of today.

I saw both Mills 1964 Olympic race and the Mills-Lindgren 6 mile in San Diego in 1965. I remember them both vividly. I have seen no race better at the 6mile/10K distance. That is enough for me.

jsquire wrote:

I'm merely pointing out that Rupp's record is inferior to Lindgren's, no matter how you look at it. I'll leave it up to everyone else as to whether or not he's an inferior runner, or was capable of beating Lindgren's record.

Why can't you just be happy that we have an 18 year-old kid who's already one of the best 10K runners in the NCAA?

OK, let me say this one more time. . .

I'm not making a judgement here!

I'm only answering the question "Which time is better?" There are a lot of people around here who are upset about the hullabaloo at Oregon, but I'm not one of them.

And for the record (couldn't resist!), Lindgren's 27:11.6 was run on a synthetic track. It should also be noted that he never beat this time, or its 10k equivalent (28:13 or so).

Lindgren would not have lasted the full 10,000 meters, that is what you all don't realize. He was racing 6 miles, not 10,000m. He has said this countless times.

Why does wejo encourage people to trash on runners? His commentary was clearly setting this troll-thread up: "In my book, Lindgren has the record."

I'm sure Wejo doesn't mean to divide people, but he sures does a good job of it on a consistent basis. He's either bad with words or manipulating all of you.

Well, who cares really? It's a free country; it's his site. I don't need to visit, so I told me.

Let me quote "The Fugitive" here:

I don't care.

I am not attempting to answer the question "Would Lindgren have run faster than 28:15?". The question I'm answering is "Which mark is better?" Using any method of comparing 6-mile and 10k times (and there are plenty), Lindgren's is hands-down better.

I've been given the job of the official historian of Ohio track & field, and I have to make these kinds of conversions all the time. For example, the top end of the boys' HS 1600-meter list is as follows:

4:02.4* John Zishka Lancaster 1980

4:04.5* Ron Addison Clev. Rhodes 1972

4:05.13 Bob Kennedy Westerville North 1988

4:04.6* Jeff See Middletown 2003

4:06.0* Mason Ward unattached (Cincinatti) 2000

4:07.1* Reggie McAfee Cin. Courter Tech 1969

4:07.1* Darrell Hughes Galloway Westland 1991

4:07.7 Mike Hallabrin Mans. Malabar 1980

4:08.03 Scott Fry Sandusky Perkins 1985

4:08.2* Alan Scharsu Yng. Austintown-Fitch 1978

4:08.4* Tom Rapp Trotwood-Madison 1977

4:08.6* Todd Saul Clayton Northmont 1981

All those asterisks are conversions from a mile to 1600. They don't mean "I hate Bob Kennedy and worship John Zishka". They are merely a reasonably accurate method of combining marks from two different distances.

So while the OHSAA says the girls' 3200 meter record is 10:17.33 by Katy Radkewich, I say it's just plain stupid to ignore Ann Henderson's 10:14.0 for 2 miles.

V6 wrote:

If Lindgren had ran the .2, the conversion would probably be somewhere around 28:00.

Doesn't really matter, just shows how good Lindgren was--how much mileage can pay off. 27:11.6 as a junior in HS.

..........Or how good Rupp is.

I didn't do the actual math but jsquire seems correct in statement number 1.

wejo wrote:

That's what this blog from mensracing is saying:

http://www.eliterunning.com/fwmr/archives/2005/05/coincidentally.html

Is that true? If so I say he's got the record in my book.

He does. For six miles.

How one can say he has a record for a distance he didn't cover escapes me.

you can't convert up.

period.

why is this so difficult for people to understand?

if a girl runs two miles in 10:14, she has unquestionably run 3200 meters faster than 10:17.

this is different than a guy running 6 miles at a faster pace than another guy ran 10,000 meters

you cant convert up

HE DID NOT RUN THAT AS A JUNIOR IN HS. HE WAS A SENIOR AND YOU CAN ASK HIM, HIMSELF. UNTIL SENIOR YEAR, HIS MILE PR WAS A 4:18.

Aha! Thus the problem. If you convert down to 6 miles under any system, Rupp's record doesn't beat 27:11. But like I said, to 99% of the people who pay attention to US junior records, it's meaningless.

Those times are extremely close, possibly within a second. All the following nerdy, anal nonsense would make Niles Crane look about as spontaneous and carefree as Han Solo, but ...

Lindgren's pace, if continued from 6M to 10,000m, would give him 28:09.8. This is (6.21371/6) x 1631.6 seconds = 1689.71 seconds (28:09.71). Now let's round it up to 28:09.8 and add 0.14 for the conversion from hand timing, and you're looking at 28:09.94. Told you it was anal, but you ain't seen nothing yet.

We must assume Lindgren would slow down a bit as a result of having to run farther than 6 miles, but how much would he slow if he ran less than a quarter mile farther? This is pure speculation, but we know elite runners slow down roughly 16-20 seconds per mile between the 1 mile and 2 mile events (WRs are 3:43+ and 7:58+, and a 4:10 mile is generally considered the equal of a 9:00 2 mile). Between the 5,000m and 10,000m, the slowdown is somewhat less dramatic, being about 11 seconds per mile for a runner with mid-13 and low-28 credentials. Between 10k and 15k, the pace slows by about 6-7 seconds per mile. From 6M to 7M, you'd imagine the slowdown to be a teeny bit more than from 7M to 8M or from 8M to 9M, so figure (just guessing here) about a 2.8 seconds-per-mile slowdown from 6M to 7M, or 0.7 (maybe 0.8) seconds per mile from 6M to 10k. Multiply 0.7 by 6.21371 to get 4.34 seconds (let's say 4-5 seconds to take into account a little uncertainty in Lindgren's ability to hold pace for the extra distance), add that to our 28:09.94 (from above), and voila! A bunch of geeky armchair number crunching says that Lindgren's 27:11.6 is in the neighborhood of 28:14-28:15 for 10,000m.

So what have we really accomplished here? Not a hell of a lot, huh? Lindgren has the junior 6M record and Rupp has the junior 10,000m record. Lindgren shouldn't be forgotten; he can be admired for what he did 40 or so years ago as a result of simply being a running maniac without the high-tech gadgetry available to Rupp. But we have Rupp's career to look forward to. We don't yet know how it will unfold, so let's just cheer this guy on.

huck wrote:

I'm sure Wejo doesn't mean to divide people, but he sures does a good job of it on a consistent basis. He's either bad with words or manipulating all of you.

Not sure about Wejo's motives, but he is bad with words.

jsquire,

You are correct. My posting was wrong. That San Diego track used for the Lindgren-Mills 6 mile in 1965 was on a new prototype synthetic track. I guess I do not remember as much as I thought I did.

What I do not understand is why anyone compares races, events and eras. Both Juniors should be lauded for being great runners. Other than each record for each exact event speaking for itself there are too many variables, tangible and intangible, to make any other comparison.

Orville, I remember you wrote somewhere that you had the T&F "magazine" on Gerry Lindgren's training...can you please send me an email...