User Comments

• Anonymous

  ---

  Posts: 57354
  4

  Report    REPLY #1 

  Blogger said 6 years ago

  How do you guys feel about the mile conversion to the 1500? I kind of feel bad for the next guys in the ranking who just got bumped out of the top 12. I can't figure how a 4:12 mile can convert to a 3:47 1500m...
  
  Sounds like everybody will race the mile on flat 200m track next year.

  Quote comment
• Anonymous

  ---

  Posts: 57354
  5

  Report    REPLY #2 

  Anonymous said 6 years ago

  Quoting: Blogger
  "How do you guys feel about the mile conversion to the 1500? I kind of feel bad for the next guys in the ranking who just got bumped out of the top 12. I can't figure how a 4:12 mile can convert to a 3:47 1500m...
  
  Sounds like everybody will race the mile on flat 200m track next year."

  
  
  You read the rankings wrong. Seneca's 3:47 is the 3:50 flat track 1500m that he ran the night before. Not a single result from the Guelph Last Chance miles made it into the top 12 for men or women.

  Quote comment
• Anonymous

  ---

  Posts: 57354
  5

  Report    REPLY #3 

  Anonymous said 6 years ago

  Quoting: Blogger
  "I can't figure how a 4:12 mile can convert to a 3:47 1500m...
  "

  
  
  It doesn't. Their times in the rankings are from another meet. I will give it to you though that the mile->1500m conversion seems to slightly favor the mile. I also don't see how a banked track saves you 6-7 seconds in a 3000m over a flat track either

  Quote comment
• Anonymous

  ---

  Posts: 57354
  3

  Report    REPLY #4 

  Anonymous said 6 years ago

  Quoting: Blogger
  "How do you guys feel about the mile conversion to the 1500? I kind of feel bad for the next guys in the ranking who just got bumped out of the top 12. I can't figure how a 4:12 mile can convert to a 3:47 1500m...
  
  Sounds like everybody will race the mile on flat 200m track next year."

  
  
  I've been saying it is BS all season - no way a flat 200m mile is 25 seconds slower than a banked 1500m.

  Quote comment
• Anonymous

  ---

  Posts: 57354
  3

  Report    REPLY #5 

  Anonymous said 6 years ago

  Those are 1500 times from the looks of things. Ran a 15 at U of T (Hal Brown) and a mile in Guelph on same weekend it seems. The 15 times are the ones in the rankings.

  Quote comment
• Anonymous

  ---

  Posts: 57354
  0

  Report    REPLY #6 

  Anonymous said 6 years ago

  Take a look at the Hal Brown results for the Men's 1500

  Quote comment
• Anonymous

  ---

  Posts: 57354
  0

  Report    REPLY #7 

  Stats Guy said 6 years ago

  The reason you can't figure out how a 4:12 mile converts to a 3:47 is because it doesn't. That mile didn't change the rankings, Hal Brown results did.

  Quote comment
• Anonymous

  ---

  Posts: 57354
  1

  Report    REPLY #8 

  Anonymous said 6 years ago

  The result from Hal Brown (3:50 1500) converted to 3:47, not this mile.

  Quote comment
• User since:
  Oct 28th, 2014

  ---

  Posts: 62
  4

  Report    REPLY #9 

  Geo Major said 6 years ago

  Quoting: Blogger
  "How do you guys feel about the mile conversion to the 1500? I kind of feel bad for the next guys in the ranking who just got bumped out of the top 12. I can't figure how a 4:12 mile can convert to a 3:47 1500m...
  
  Sounds like everybody will race the mile on flat 200m track next year."

  
  
  The times that put the Guelph boys in the top 12 are from the night before at the Hal Brown meet (around 3:50-3:51 for Seneca, Black and Patton). Their times from the mile on Saturday don't convert to as fast. In the rankings Alex Cyr's 4:12 mile on a flat track converts to a 3:50 which seems a bit crazy but I don't think people will be rushing to race miles on flat tracks.

  Quote comment
• User since:
  Oct 28th, 2014

  ---

  Posts: 62
  0

  Report    REPLY #10 

  Geo Major said 6 years ago

  Quoting: Blogger
  "How do you guys feel about the mile conversion to the 1500? I kind of feel bad for the next guys in the ranking who just got bumped out of the top 12. I can't figure how a 4:12 mile can convert to a 3:47 1500m...
  
  Sounds like everybody will race the mile on flat 200m track next year."

  
  
  The times that put the Guelph boys in the top 12 are from the night before at the Hal Brown meet (around 3:50-3:51 for Seneca, Black and Patton). Their times from the mile on Saturday don't convert to as fast. In the rankings Alex Cyr's 4:12 mile on a flat track converts to a 3:50 which seems a bit crazy but I don't think people will be rushing to race miles on flat tracks.

  Quote comment
• Anonymous

  ---

  Posts: 57354
  7

  Report    REPLY #11 

  Anonymous said 6 years ago

  Does anyone know why the Guelph boys would double back for this mile after running top 12 times the night before, and a week out from OUAs?

  Quote comment
• Anonymous

  ---

  Posts: 57354
  8

  Report    REPLY #12 

  Anonymous said 6 years ago

  still... a 4:12 on flat give 3:50 on the ranking. Look at Cyr. I dont think a 4:12 worth a performance of 3:50.....

  Quote comment
• Anonymous

  ---

  Posts: 57354
  1

  Report    REPLY #13 

  because they can!! said 6 years ago

  Quoting: Anonymous
  "Does anyone know why the Guelph boys would double back for this mile after running top 12 times the night before, and a week out from OUAs?"

  
  
  Maybe even for the adulation of the home fans. Only those vying for a the best placing after first might be worried about OUAs. The real team(s) is looking further out at Usports. Check the team rankings.

  Quote comment
• User since:
  Sep 1st, 2015

  ---

  Posts: 4
  7

  Report    REPLY #14 

  DR said 6 years ago

  The actual 1500m rankings really just speaks for itself on this matter (1500-mile and flat-banked/oversize conversion).
  
  Of the top 20 performances, only 1 happened on a banked 200m track which seems absurd to me. You'll all agree that most 200m banked track are in fact faster than most 200m flat track.
  
  The faster tracks should be the destination of all Usports distance runners whereas runners now look for the "faster of the slowest" track (flat 200m) in order to get their mark. Actually, running on a fast 200m flat track or running the mile distance BOTH presents a favorable conversion.
  
  It's probable that the actual top 12 doesn't gather the true best 1500m runners. Hard to say... But the actual top 12 for sure doesn't reflect the true best 1500m performances of the year which is deplorable.

  Quote comment