Need help with some times

    Posted In: Sprints

        • Participant
          sneaky on March 5, 2006 at 7:27 am #11684

          What would a 6.38 55m be in the 100?and what would a 35.9 be in the 200 and 400?Thank you

        • Participant
          utfootball4 on March 5, 2006 at 7:40 am #52392

          6.38=10.6-10.7. its hard to guess, too many factors..

        • Participant
          davan on March 5, 2006 at 7:51 am #52393

          If you ran 6.38FAT, then you will probably run in the 10.6x and lower come outdoor by the end of the season. A guy around here ran a best of 6.93Fat for 60m and ended up running in the 10.7s regularly with a best of 10.65, without making it to his peak (injury kept him out of the finals of the state meet–still ran in the 10.6s a second time in the heats though).

        • Participant
          sneaky on March 6, 2006 at 1:41 am #52394

          what about the 200 and 400 time?

        • Participant
          scarter on March 6, 2006 at 2:11 am #52395

          According to the Petrovskiy Model, a 10.7 equates to a 21.4 200m.

          Respectfully,
          –Smoot

        • Keymaster
          Mike Young on March 7, 2006 at 10:58 am #52396

          A 35.9 300m should equate to something like a 49 mid.

          As I've said before on these forums I'd be cautious about making 55-100m extrapolations as they leave too much to chance to be accurate.

          Check out the mercier tables for time equivalents (not necessarily the same as extrapolations):

          https://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/Mercier/index.html

          ELITETRACK Founder

        • Participant
          fabio on March 7, 2006 at 11:55 pm #52397

          mike is correct about being careful. my senior year in high school I ran a 6.79 55m which would equat to 11.30 100m. but I ended up running 11.18.  The calculator wasn't able to consider my great ability to maintain my speed for longer distances since the final 40-45m of my 100m is the best part.

          this year I ran 6.66 in the 55m which would equat to 11.05. With the above mentioned, I should be under 11.0 this year…or should I say I will be under 11.0 this year

        • Participant
          sneaky on March 8, 2006 at 8:20 am #52398

          mike is correct about being careful. my senior year in high school I ran a 6.79 55m which would equat to 11.30 100m. but I ended up running 11.18. The calculator wasn't able to consider my great ability to maintain my speed for longer distances since the final 40-45m of my 100m is the best part.

          this year I ran 6.66 in the 55m which would equat to 11.05. With the above mentioned, I should be under 11.0 this year…or should I say I will be under 11.0 this year

          so what would you assume?cause i broke 11, after runnin a 6.7 55 last year

        • Participant
          fabio on March 9, 2006 at 5:12 am #52399

          I still can't assume a time for you. I've never seen you run so predicting a time for you based on that information would be relatively impossible.

        • Keymaster
          Mike Young on March 11, 2006 at 10:52 pm #52400

          this year I ran 6.66 in the 55m which would equat to 11.05. With the above mentioned, I should be under 11.0 this year…or should I say I will be under 11.0 this year

          Perhaps if your training was the same. It could mean that you need to work more on acceleration development though.

          ELITETRACK Founder

        • Participant
          captinpain on March 13, 2006 at 6:42 am #52401

          100 meter: 10.6

          If that 300 was ran on a 400m track then

          200 meter: 21.7
          400 meter: 50.0

          I'm assuming it was on a 200m track though or you could just race those distances

          200 meter: 21.4
          400 meter: 49.0

    Viewing 10 reply threads
    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.