3200m or 1600m.


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

3200m or 1600m.

Postby Guest » Wed May 28, 2003 6:54 pm

Which time is equivalently better? A 4:40 1600m or a 10:10 3200m. I really don't know?
Guest
 

Re: 3200m or 1600m.

Postby Guest » Wed May 28, 2003 7:15 pm

That's quite easy to answer: they're both worth the same thing. And that would be...... ZERO!!!!

The 1600 and 3200 are bastard distances (to use one of my favorite TFN expressions) that should never see the light of day.
Guest
 

Re: 3200m or 1600m.

Postby JohnGa » Wed May 28, 2003 9:28 pm

Wow, that is slightly ironic. A miler says that the 1600 is a bastard distance? I don't really think that 1609.334 meters is much better, and a 1600 makes getting splits a lot easier.
I'd say that the 10:10 3200 is a better time, but I think that the 1600 is more competive (in HS). That is just my opinion though.
JohnGa
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: 3200m or 1600m.

Postby Guest » Thu May 29, 2003 4:40 am

10:10 is better - just look at a local HS list for your area and it's likely more HS runners broke 4:40 this yeat than 10:10.
Guest
 

Re: 3200m or 1600m.

Postby Guest » Thu May 29, 2003 5:59 am

Pretty much dead even. Using a scoring system I've developed using just high school performances, a 10:10.00 is worth 54.2 points and the 4:40.00 is worth 54.1 points. This system uses the top 50 HS performances from the past 4 years to establish a benchmark worth 100 points.
Guest
 

Re: 3200m or 1600m.

Postby Guest » Thu May 29, 2003 7:31 am

>That's quite easy to answer: they're both worth
>the same thing. And that would be......
>ZERO!!!!

The 1600 and 3200 are bastard
>distances (to use one of my favorite TFN
>expressions) that should never see the light of
>day.

Well, in all fairness here, who runs the 1600 or the 3200? High-school runners. And last time I checked, they didn't make the decision to run those distances instead of distances which do have fathers. So why don't you lighten up a bit, there?
I don't know which time is actually better, but a 10:10 is a lot less common than a 4:40.
Guest
 

Re: 3200m or 1600m.

Postby Guest » Thu May 29, 2003 7:51 am

in pennsylvania, there's been a move to get the distances changed to 1500 and 3000...

but bureaucracies take time.
Guest
 

Re: 3200m or 1600m.

Postby trackstar » Thu May 29, 2003 7:55 am

I just submitted an official change-of-rules request for the Texas governing body to go back to the M and 2M.
trackstar
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: 3200m or 1600m.

Postby Guest » Thu May 29, 2003 6:01 pm

I have some authority on this.

In 1972, as a high schooler, I ran 4:36 and 10:09 in yards.

A fellow named Purdy had written a book around this period that attempted to find equivalencies over a range of distances. By Purdy's reckoning, my mile was slightly better than my 2-mile.

So I would agree with the poster who said 4:40 and 10:10, whether measured in meters or yards, are nearly equal.
Guest
 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests