Hey everyone!
I'm doing a little statistical poll that compares one's average running mile time to their average swimming mile time. (I realize that is harder...because when we swim a mile straight--generally for us as competitive swimmers we are swimming it in a race and going for pbs...but what I am looking for is more like if you were to swim consecutively for an hour...how many miles would you get in swimming at a nice constant pace that you could withhold for a longer period of time.)
And then I would like to compare the level of fitness for your age that those respective would put you at...mostly I am interested in simply seeing the correlation between the two sports, because almost anyone would agree that cross-training is a positive aspect of your swimming regime.
My Data:
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Background: Swimming: competitive swimmer since 4th grade (swam in college all 4 years) Running: no competitive history really (just a few seasons of high school track) like to run...as a 7th grader ran a 6:23.04 mile in the presidential fitness challenge...haven't hit that mark again haha.
Swimming: 19:30minutes at a leisurely pace...I've never swam the mile in a meet.
Running: 7:40ish at the moment (hoping to bring that down to at least 6:50 over the summer)
Parents
Former Member
But why did track choose the 1,500 meter as a standard event distance rather than 1,600?
This is not known with certainty. There are 2 theories:
1) Some tracks in France were 500 m and 3X500=1500. This theory is largely discounted, the reason being that track started as an English event (where tracks were more likely to be 440 yards or so) and spread to the U.S. before it caught on in continental Europe, so it's unlikely that the size of French tracks played much of a role. Note that races like the 500m or 1000m never developed much in popularity (although they do exist to this day, esp the 1000), which might have been expected if the tracks were 500 m.
2) The current best theory is that it was chosen by continental European track federations as a way of maintaining the same skills as the mile, but not bowing to the English, which 1600 meters would have been perceived as doing. Politics in sport is not a new thing.
-LBJ
But why did track choose the 1,500 meter as a standard event distance rather than 1,600?
This is not known with certainty. There are 2 theories:
1) Some tracks in France were 500 m and 3X500=1500. This theory is largely discounted, the reason being that track started as an English event (where tracks were more likely to be 440 yards or so) and spread to the U.S. before it caught on in continental Europe, so it's unlikely that the size of French tracks played much of a role. Note that races like the 500m or 1000m never developed much in popularity (although they do exist to this day, esp the 1000), which might have been expected if the tracks were 500 m.
2) The current best theory is that it was chosen by continental European track federations as a way of maintaining the same skills as the mile, but not bowing to the English, which 1600 meters would have been perceived as doing. Politics in sport is not a new thing.
-LBJ
