Wondering if anyone has a calculator or conversion formula for these 60m times..
7.55
7.48
7.39
7.26
60m to 100m conversion (and 200m) any formula/calculator?
-
-
Participant
-
KeymasterThis has actually been discussed ad nauseum in the forums. The general consensus is that there’s no effective calculator to make conversions…definitely not from 60m to 200m. You could make some decent ESTIMATIONS for 100m but I would not venture to call them conversions.
7.55 – 11.70-12.10
7.26 – 11.25-11.50ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
K thanks.
2 factors in a 60m – 100m, correct?wind/altitude
the extra 40m (speed endurance/strong finish) -
Participant
Wondering if anyone has a calculator or conversion formula for these 60m times..
7.55
7.48
7.39
7.26Note- the tables I have are used by an international level sprint coach.
60m = 100m
7.26 = 11.36
7.39 = 11.58
7.48 = 11.74
7.55 = 11.86 -
Keymaster
Note- the tables I have are used by an international level sprint coach.
60m = 100m
7.26 = 11.36
7.39 = 11.58
7.48 = 11.74
7.55 = 11.86There are quite a few tables out including some from UK Athletics, USA Track & Field, and Gary Winkler has a separate set. I believe an article by Frank Dick on this site actually has some tables.
After seeing the times that TheThinker posted I’m shocked to see how close I was (with the average of my range) with my two estimated times posted above.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
[quote author="TheThinker" date="1238899493"]
Note- the tables I have are used by an international level sprint coach.
60m = 100m
7.26 = 11.36
7.39 = 11.58
7.48 = 11.74
7.55 = 11.86There are quite a few tables out including some from UK Athletics, USA Track & Field, and Gary Winkler has a separate set. I believe an article by Frank Dick on this site actually has some tables.
After seeing the times that TheThinker posted I’m shocked to see how close I was (with the average of my range) with my two estimated times posted above.[/quote]
That’s impressive that the times you posted were estimated on your behalf. I figured you were referencing some tables of your own.
-
Participant
This gives me an opportunity to share a bit of research I did on a lazy Sunday afternoon this spring. Not intended to show anything, just an interesting look at 60m to 100m times in a particular 60m time range (one of those that you’re interested in).
The column on the left is a list of 60m times between 7.37 and 7.40 run by NCAA women indoors in the seasons of 2002-2008. The column on the right is the subsequent 100m time run by that same female during the outdoor season of that same year. E.g. the first 7.37 girl ended up running 11.53 that year, etc.
As you can see there is a large range of 100m performances stemming from very similar indoor performances. The level of wind is a huge variable, of course, that I didn’t go through the trouble to find. Whether the athlete focused on the 60 or 100 is another unknown variable.
7.37 11.53
7.37 11.33
7.37 11.50
7.37 11.11
7.37 11.49
7.37 11.44
7.37 11.29
7.37 11.30
7.37 11.57
7.37 11.15
7.37 11.28
7.37 11.51
7.37 11.47
7.37 11.54
7.38 11.40
7.38 11.53
7.38 11.25
7.38 11.35
7.39 11.37
7.39 11.44
7.39 11.36
7.39 11.43
7.39 11.56
7.40 11.24
7.40 11.44
7.40 11.38
7.40 11.60
7.40 11.58
7.40 11.43If you omit the 2 fastest and 2 slowest 100m times, the avg is something like 7.38 and 11.42. Since the NCAA has a very liberal wind limit of 4.0, at the very least it’s safe to assume that a large percentage of the 100m times were run with some degree of tailwind.
-
Participant
umm what would be a 6.97 conversion?
10.85 on my chart
-
Participant
[quote author="Winning22" date="1238974892"]umm what would be a 6.97 conversion?
10.85 on my chart[/quote]
Those charts are weird, I worked with a guy this fall/winter and he ran 6.72 indoors and open his outdoor season with 11.01 (-0.3). Some charts don’t count for the SE factor.
-
ParticipantDude i know ran 7.02 in 60m and often runs that. Also ran 10.53 legal that season but can’t break 22 in the 200m. Makes no sense.
what should a 4.25 40 yard HT (first movement) be for FAT 60m ?
-
Participant
Dude i know ran 7.02 in 60m and often runs that. Also ran 10.53 legal that season but can’t break 22 in the 200m. Makes no sense.
what should a 4.25 40 yard HT (first movement) be for FAT 60m ?
how was his training?
-
Participant
Couldn’t do much explosive weights, plyos or multi jump exercises because of knee trouble. So all he did is sprinting and tempo run. He was a long jumper also so didn’t do much work over 200m.
-
Participant
This gives me an opportunity to share a bit of research I did on a lazy Sunday afternoon this spring. Not intended to show anything, just an interesting look at 60m to 100m times in a particular 60m time range (one of those that you’re interested in).
The column on the left is a list of 60m times between 7.37 and 7.40 run by NCAA women indoors in the seasons of 2002-2008. The column on the right is the subsequent 100m time run by that same female during the outdoor season of that same year. E.g. the first 7.37 girl ended up running 11.53 that year, etc.
As you can see there is a large range of 100m performances stemming from very similar indoor performances. The level of wind is a huge variable, of course, that I didn’t go through the trouble to find. Whether the athlete focused on the 60 or 100 is another unknown variable.
7.37 11.53
7.37 11.33
7.37 11.50
7.37 11.11
7.37 11.49
7.37 11.44
7.37 11.29
7.37 11.30
7.37 11.57
7.37 11.15
7.37 11.28
7.37 11.51
7.37 11.47
7.37 11.54
7.38 11.40
7.38 11.53
7.38 11.25
7.38 11.35
7.39 11.37
7.39 11.44
7.39 11.36
7.39 11.43
7.39 11.56
7.40 11.24
7.40 11.44
7.40 11.38
7.40 11.60
7.40 11.58
7.40 11.43If you omit the 2 fastest and 2 slowest 100m times, the avg is something like 7.38 and 11.42. Since the NCAA has a very liberal wind limit of 4.0, at the very least it’s safe to assume that a large percentage of the 100m times were run with some degree of tailwind.
7.37 running 11.11? wow…
and then 7.40 running 11.60.Knew a guy who ran 7.46 PB last indoor season and ran 11.21 PB outdoor with very moderate tailwind (less than 1 meter).
The thing for me.. is different acceleration patterns. I hold down my head longer during the 100 than in the 60 naturally, wanting to delay acceleration in the 100 and not do so in the 60.
-
Member
Nik,
A 7.02 guy runs 10.53!!! That seems pretty hard to believe (not calling you a lier)
Personally I feel a 7.02 and a 10.53 don’t convert. The 60m seems very poor for 10.50. I would assume this is where the explosive movements he is missing with that knee come into play. However I would have to ask how far he LJs. With 7.00 speed he should be getting out to 24 feet. If he is hitting 24 feet I must assume it is mostly internal or mental to how he addresses the 60m. Or his indoor training is just dead wrong.
With a terrible 200 I would imagine he needs to increase his lactate threshold
Just a note Long Jumpers NEED 200m work. It is that “controlled run” 98% effort at 200 that you don’t get anywhere else. <100 you are assuming maximal speed 100% effort making it near impossible to take those forces vertical off the board.
Compare your calculations with my PRs from college (I as a Dec so don't laugh)
60m – 7.11
100m – 11.07
200m – 22.33
and just for a comparison LJ PR 7.33and just to see if anyone made any High Hurdle calculations
60mHH- 7.96
110HH – 14.18 -
Participant
Nik,
A 7.02 guy runs 10.53!!! That seems pretty hard to believe (not calling you a lier)
Personally I feel a 7.02 and a 10.53 don’t convert. The 60m seems very poor for 10.50. I would assume this is where the explosive movements he is missing with that knee come into play. However I would have to ask how far he LJs. With 7.00 speed he should be getting out to 24 feet. If he is hitting 24 feet I must assume it is mostly internal or mental to how he addresses the 60m. Or his indoor training is just dead wrong.
With a terrible 200 I would imagine he needs to increase his lactate threshold
Just a note Long Jumpers NEED 200m work. It is that “controlled run” 98% effort at 200 that you don’t get anywhere else. <100 you are assuming maximal speed 100% effort making it near impossible to take those forces vertical off the board.
Compare your calculations with my PRs from college (I as a Dec so don't laugh)
60m – 7.11
100m – 11.07
200m – 22.33
and just for a comparison LJ PR 7.33and just to see if anyone made any High Hurdle calculations
60mHH- 7.96
110HH – 14.187.02 = 10.53!?
At first I thought 11.53. lol wtff
Must be some exceptionally slow accelerator and horrible mentality in indoor causing horrible starts/drive phase/relaxation/etc. -
Participant
Well, although i’m good over 30m, i did beat him all the time over 30m. But he smoked me in the 100m. Then we were simular in the 200m lol…so weird!
-
Participant
Nik,
A 7.02 guy runs 10.53!!! That seems pretty hard to believe (not calling you a lier)
Personally I feel a 7.02 and a 10.53 don’t convert. The 60m seems very poor for 10.50. I would assume this is where the explosive movements he is missing with that knee come into play. However I would have to ask how far he LJs. With 7.00 speed he should be getting out to 24 feet. If he is hitting 24 feet I must assume it is mostly internal or mental to how he addresses the 60m. Or his indoor training is just dead wrong.
With a terrible 200 I would imagine he needs to increase his lactate threshold
Just a note Long Jumpers NEED 200m work. It is that “controlled run” 98% effort at 200 that you don’t get anywhere else. <100 you are assuming maximal speed 100% effort making it near impossible to take those forces vertical off the board.
Compare your calculations with my PRs from college (I as a Dec so don't laugh)
60m – 7.11
100m – 11.07
200m – 22.33
and just for a comparison LJ PR 7.33and just to see if anyone made any High Hurdle calculations
60mHH- 7.96
110HH – 14.18Ok, i'm sorry…i kinda got it a little wrong. I have double checked and the numbers are actually slightly different…
Best 100m = 10.58 + 5 others below 10.70
Best 60m = 7.03So, there you have it.
-
Participant
You aren’t going 7.02 in a 10.53 race unless you are purposely going submaximally during your acceleration and you are more like a 10.3 guy. The splits just don’t add up otherwise.
no, its true…he was def running all out. i was there at some of ther races…
-
Participant
You aren’t going 7.02 in a 10.53 race unless you are purposely going submaximally during your acceleration and you are more like a 10.3 guy. The splits just don’t add up otherwise.
he could have been out of shape during the indoor season.
-
Participant
Yes, but out of shape during every indoor season? I dunno…maybe your right.
-
Participant
Yes, but out of shape during every indoor season? I dunno…maybe your right.
If he ran a legit 10.5 maybe he was out shape or under heavy indoor training loads similar to when Ato ran a 60m race indoors and got his ass blown out.
-
Keymaster
The only time that is out of line for that guy is his 100m. It’s way out of line. Speed endurance issues can’t explain it. Based on that and the other stuff Nick mentioned I’m guessing he had either a timing error on that 100m time or he had a hurricane at his back that day. Do you know what his 2nd best 100m time is? You gave the range but now I’m curious about the top 5 average. If they were all clustered at high 10.65 I could maybe believe it. Also, were they all done at the same facility?
The reason I ask is that in my 3 years at USMA, I saw 3 big time timing errors, as well as one dual meet in particular of 2 teams in our conference that always produced INSANELY fast times…as if the track was measured short or they were hand timing and reporting it as FAT.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1239007205"]You aren’t going 7.02 in a 10.53 race unless you are purposely going submaximally during your acceleration and you are more like a 10.3 guy. The splits just don’t add up otherwise.
no, its true…he was def running all out. i was there at some of ther races…[/quote]
My point is that no one can be going maximally through 60m hitting 7.0 and then finish in 10.5 in normal conditions. He had to have been either going submaximally or, more likely, he was going much faster than 7.0 through 60m.
-
Participant
The only time that is out of line for that guy is his 100m. It’s way out of line. Speed endurance issues can’t explain it. Based on that and the other stuff Nick mentioned I’m guessing he had either a timing error on that 100m time or he had a hurricane at his back that day. Do you know what his 2nd best 100m time is? You gave the range but now I’m curious about the top 5 average. If they were all clustered at high 10.65 I could maybe believe it. Also, were they all done at the same facility?
The reason I ask is that in my 3 years at USMA, I saw 3 big time timing errors, as well as one dual meet in particular of 2 teams in our conference that always produced INSANELY fast times…as if the track was measured short or they were hand timing and reporting it as FAT.
Wasn’t a timing error as it was done in a major meet…
othet times are 10.70, 10.66, 10.64, 10.69. Also that year some 11.01’s with big head winds…
-
Member
All these times seem off to me. I always thought 7.5 was ~ 12.0
Sure you’re not thinking of the 55m?
That’s what I did coming into this thread and was so confused.
Stupid high school track can’t just keep the standards… -
Keymaster
I agree with Davan. The only way to explain the 100m time then is that he was MUCH faster through 60m during the outdoor season than he was during the indoor season. He goes from being a guy who wouldn’t make the indoor conference championship squad on many teams to a guy who might win the conference championship outdoors.
BTW- This thread should be renamed to “Conversion tables for sprint events are more worthless than a wet turd”
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
I agree with Davan. The only way to explain the 100m time then is that he was MUCH faster through 60m during the outdoor season than he was during the indoor season. He goes from being a guy who wouldn’t make the indoor conference championship squad on many teams to a guy who might win the conference championship outdoors.
BTW- This thread should be renamed to “Conversion tables for sprint events are more worthless than a wet turd”
ya lol i agree now, endless number of factors deciding what time you will run, but i think 60m times do give a general sense of speed and a general idea of the 100m for MOST people.
-
Keymaster
I think they are more valuable when you use them for intra-individual calculations. If you’re going to use them for blanket ‘conversions’ then they should give ranges not exact ‘equivalent’ times.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Member
I want this athletes autograph…..because he has to be the one of the fastest/best closers in history…Closes like a damn train
60m = 7.03
100m = 10.5810.58 – 7.03 = 3.55 for his last 40m
Wish I new enough math to calculate his speed in MPH at 60m and at the 100m line.
He must accelerate like a Ferrari. That change of speed is enough to make my hamstrings tear while I type this message
-
Participant
Lol…i know it sounds really strange…
and it is when you look at the numbers…but as UT stated, we are sure that during the 10.58 race, he probably ran sub 6.90 for the 60m portion of the race…
-
Member
[quote author="TrkNFld" date="1239005031"]Nik,
A 7.02 guy runs 10.53!!! That seems pretty hard to believe (not calling you a lier)
Personally I feel a 7.02 and a 10.53 don’t convert. The 60m seems very poor for 10.50. I would assume this is where the explosive movements he is missing with that knee come into play. However I would have to ask how far he LJs. With 7.00 speed he should be getting out to 24 feet. If he is hitting 24 feet I must assume it is mostly internal or mental to how he addresses the 60m. Or his indoor training is just dead wrong.
With a terrible 200 I would imagine he needs to increase his lactate threshold
Just a note Long Jumpers NEED 200m work. It is that “controlled run” 98% effort at 200 that you don’t get anywhere else. <100 you are assuming maximal speed 100% effort making it near impossible to take those forces vertical off the board.
Compare your calculations with my PRs from college (I as a Dec so don't laugh)
60m – 7.11
100m – 11.07
200m – 22.33
and just for a comparison LJ PR 7.33and just to see if anyone made any High Hurdle calculations
60mHH- 7.96
110HH – 14.187.02 = 10.53!?
At first I thought 11.53. lol wtff
Must be some exceptionally slow accelerator and horrible mentality in indoor causing horrible starts/drive phase/relaxation/etc.[/quote]those times dont sound so strange to me. i know plenty of guys with a horrible 60 that run a decent 100.
this past year a buddy of mine topped out at 6.95 in the 60m yet ran 10.42 in his 2nd 100 of the outdoor season and 20.98 in the 200.
ive known many guys who BARELY break 7.00 in the 60 yet have no problems running 10.5 21.low
In the hurdles i broke 8.00 all of 3 times in college. my junior year i ran 7.92 in the 60H and 13.78 in the 110 hurdles. my senior year i ran 7.95 in the 60h and 13.66 in the 110s. in those instances there was no errors in the times and its not like i wasnt going all out indoors, i was simply a pretty shitty starter and a pretty great closer.
so i dont think the times are SOOOO weird. they seem legit to me as ive known many runners who fit the same profiles.
-
Viewing 34 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.