2007-12-26 20:14:34 · 7 answers · asked by Diamond D 1 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
and a 25.52 200 meter
2007-12-26 20:28:13 · update #1
A direct conversion would result in a 4.87, 40. More than likely your looking at a 4.75 to 4.80.
2007-12-29 02:34:59 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. Me 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends what kind of runner you are and how good of a start you get. Your only way to find out is to run the 40 and get a friend to time you. Do it 10 times on the same surface.
2007-12-26 20:18:51 · answer #2 · answered by ctown 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simply going by the math, we get a theoretical time of 4.89.
On the one hand one suspects that you might slow down a bit over the full hundred, so your time could be a bit better, but on the other, you might be a slow starter, so your time could be a bit worse.
My guess is you'd be around 4.85.
2007-12-26 21:04:49 · answer #3 · answered by lepernthern 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The high 4.5's would be the absolute fastest you'd have with those times. I'd guess, honestly, you'd be closer to 4.68 to 4.74. You could be lower if you have an excellent start.
I was a 4.52 in college and I ran a 10.9 100m and roughly a 23.00 200m.
2007-12-26 20:45:49 · answer #4 · answered by ad048868 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just run the damn thing, it is even shorter than a hundred. Why ask, when you can run a forty and know? You are dumb.
2007-12-26 21:52:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
see if your high-school has laser timers.... hand time is very inaccurate when dealing with such small amounts of time. if i had to guess though, i'd say you're working in the 4.5 area (maybe a tad faster)
2007-12-26 20:23:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is that 12.25 seconds, minutes, hours, or what?
2007-12-26 21:06:29 · answer #7 · answered by nontarzaniccaulkhead 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋