Originally Posted by Chivito550
Maybe you're right, but it is just an extra 109 metres.
The 0.5 seconds doesn't tell the full story though. How fast did Ciara run the last 109 metres? Was she hanging on after almost being flat out at the 1500 mark, or did she finish like a train (I've no idea as the camera was on Hassan).
She pretty much dead even split it which is how I could predict her being close to or slightly faster than her PB in that post. You're overthinking it here I think. 109m makes a difference because it takes away your ability to sprint earlier and there is a fatigue factor, it's why people thought it was really bold of Kejelcha to target both records in one race earlier this year.
The problem with the IAAF scoring tables isn't the tables themselves, it's the way people use them that's a problem. They are a competitive equivalence, not a cross referenced time equivalent. Smaller sample sizes from events that have less exposure or people running will create less accurate predictions. They shouldn't be used to predict times, they can be used to say a 12.7 100 guy is as competitive against his peers in his event as a 17:20 5k guy is in his event or whatever(just an example), not that the times are the same.
The NCAA conversion tables for 1500/mile are the opposite, they are not created to illustrate competitiveness, they are created for time equivalance. It seems like a very small difference but it's very important when it comes to getting a time equivalence vs a competitive equivalence. Depth matters more in the IAAF tables, time is matters more in NCAA conversions