Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Sub 5 minute Mile or Sub 3 hour Marathon. Which is a better achievement?

  • 09-09-2010 10:10pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭


    Came across an interesting discussion on letsrun here. The responses seem to be pretty 50/50.

    http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3697914&page=0

    So for the average person with no talent what is the greater achievement, going sub 5 for the mile, or sub 3 for the marathon?

    What is the better achievement for the average person: 39 votes

    Sub 5 Mile
    2% 1 vote
    Sub 3 Marathon
    97% 38 votes


«134567

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,107 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    My vote goes to sub 5.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    Poll added


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,553 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    Which is better, an apple or an orange?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,638 ✭✭✭token56


    Like any comparison between a long distance event and middle/short distance event it's always difficult to compare.

    I'll go with sub 3 hour being more difficult simply because I think it would be easier for me personally to run a sub 5 min mile than it would for me to run a sub 3 hour marathon. I also know alot more people who could run a sub 5 min mile than a sub hour marathon. I guess that's partly because it would be a much more common distance to have ran also.

    I'd also think the amount of training required to completed a sub 3 hour marathon might be a bit more intensive than that which would be required to do a sub 5 min mile.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,983 ✭✭✭TheRoadRunner


    From 6 months of inactivity I could (in theory) run a sub 5 minute mile off 6 weeks training. Would probably need 20 weeks to go sub 3 so me the sub 5 is easier. Others could run sub 3 off little training but may never go sub 5 for the mile. Different horses for different courses


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭christeb


    Personally I could do a sub 5 mile with about 6 weeks of training from now, whereas I'd need at the very least 6 months of high mileage training to do a sub 3 marathon


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,724 ✭✭✭kennyb3


    Sub 3 would imho require alot more dedication from the average man on the street (lets not get into the definition of average or dedication please) - what i mean is as others above have said it would often require 6 months to a year minimum of running to achieve the sub 3hr mara.

    Anyway what is the point in comparing the two? so you can say someone who has done one is better than someone else? comparing achievements is pretty sad imo


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Also, how old is your 'average person'.
    At 38, I don't know if a sub-5 mile would even be possible for me, but it would certainly take much more work now than it would have 15/20 years ago.
    Sub-3 marathon... it's not something I'm going to do in the next 12 months, but the deadline for doing one is a lot further out. If I stay injury free and do the training, maybe in 2/3 years time. Or maybe it's a goal I'll set in 10 years time. 10 years from now my chances of doing a sub-5 mile are even slimmer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,584 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    I believe sub 3 is the minimum a club runner should be doing.
    Sub 5 would take a little more work and a lot more pain.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    Very hard to compare the two and depends on the person. The pain for a fast mile is not the same as a fast marathon. Some people will run sub5 off a little training, It took me maybe 2-3 years to do that and I didnt think the sub5 mile was an achievement back then, was finishing 15-20 seconds down on people the same age. Now if i was to run one next year it would be a major achievement.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 173 ✭✭oldrunner


    The world record for the marathon is 2hrs 3 minutes 59 seconds. If you run a marathon in 2hrs 59minutes 59 seconds, you would take 1.45 times as long as the world record.
    The world record for the mile is 3minutes 43.13 seconds. If you run a mile in 4 minutes 59.9 seconds, you would take 1.344 times as long as the world record.
    Statistically, breaking the 5 minute mark is 8% better than breaking 3 hours, relative to world record times.
    In order to run 1.344 times faster than the marathon world record, you need to run 2 hours 46 minutes 38 seconds.
    Breaking 3 hours is just a hang up in marathon runners' minds. It is clearly a lot easier than breaking 5 minutes for the mile.
    Having said that, it's horses for courses. I can trot out sub 5 minute miles but will never run a marathon and would probably break down training to go sub 3 hours.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 469 ✭✭bart simpson


    oldrunner wrote: »
    The world record for the marathon is 2hrs 3 minutes 59 seconds. If you run a marathon in 2hrs 59minutes 59 seconds, you would take 1.45 times as long as the world record.
    The world record for the mile is 3minutes 43.13 seconds. If you run a mile in 4 minutes 59.9 seconds, you would take 1.344 times as long as the world record.
    Statistically, breaking the 5 minute mark is 8% better than breaking 3 hours, relative to world record times.
    In order to run 1.344 times faster than the marathon world record, you need to run 2 hours 46 minutes 38 seconds.
    Breaking 3 hours is just a hang up in marathon runners' minds. It is clearly a lot easier than breaking 5 minutes for the mile.
    Having said that, it's horses for courses. I can trot out sub 5 minute miles but will never run a marathon and would probably break down training to go sub 3 hours.
    if you were trying to do either, over the space of a year you could have a good few shots at breaking 5 minute mile, you will only get one or two shots at the sub 3 marathon in a year.
    World records are attempted more frequently at shorter distances than they are at marathon distance


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 173 ✭✭oldrunner


    The world record for the mile (and the 1500m) hasn't been broken in over 10 years, the marathon record fell two years ago.

    There is a myth that training for shorter races is easier or less work than training for marathons. Yes, it generally involves less mileage and, probably, less time. But the effort involved is completely different.

    Making a horse racing comparison - the thoroughbred horses run the short races on the flat and get retired to stud, the others run the long distances over jumps and get retired to the knackers yard.:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,724 ✭✭✭kennyb3


    oldrunner wrote: »
    The world record for the mile (and the 1500m) hasn't been broken in over 10 years, the marathon record fell two years ago.

    There is a myth that training for shorter races is easier or less work than training for marathons. Yes, it generally involves less mileage and, probably, less time. But the effort involved is completely different.

    Making a horse racing comparison - the thoroughbred horses run the short races on the flat and get retired to stud, the others run the long distances over jumps and get retired to the knackers yard.:)
    Think you ve missed barts point there a bit, firstly we aint talking about world records we are talking about achieving sub 5 or sub 3, i think looking at world records for professional athlethes when talking about the average man is a little irrelevant.

    Secondly he wasnt saying one is harder or easier, merely the average man will get plenty of attempts at sub 5 but only 1, maybe 2 a year at sub 3


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭christeb


    tunney wrote: »
    I believe sub 3 is the minimum a club runner should be doing.

    I'll start writing my resignation letter

    I tend to agree though, anyone who has been running with a clud for any length of time is at this level


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 173 ✭✭oldrunner


    I appreciate that you can get it badly wrong on the day in the marathon and won't get another chance for some time. But, on average, the average man won't get it wrong.
    The fact that you get more chances to run mile races is irrelevant, you either can do it or not. If your best is 5:10, it doesn't matter how often you try, you still won't break 5.
    Presumably, the spread of running ability follows a normal distribution pattern. As such, world record holders will be at one end of the bell curve (whether they are mile record holders of marathon record holders). Therefore. you would expect the 'average' runner to be in the middle of the curve. It is probable that relative performance standards across different distances are comparable (but, in the absence of a huge database of performances, unprovable). As such, a sub 5 mile is comparable to a 2:46 marathon relative to averages (and, therefore, a better achievement than breaking 3 hours).
    The 3 hour time is just a 'neat' break point that is a major hang up for many marathon runners.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,553 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    oldrunner wrote: »
    The 3 hour time is just a 'neat' break point that is a major hang up for many marathon runners.
    As is the 5 minute mile. It's meaningless. Like sub-3 it's just a label.
    If you want relevant information from this discussion, ask someone who has done both.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,724 ✭✭✭kennyb3


    oldrunner wrote: »
    I appreciate that you can get it badly wrong on the day in the marathon and won't get another chance for some time. But, on average, the average man won't get it wrong.
    The fact that you get more chances to run mile races is irrelevant, you either can do it or not. If your best is 5:10, it doesn't matter how often you try, you still won't break 5.
    Presumably, the spread of running ability follows a normal distribution pattern. As such, world record holders will be at one end of the bell curve (whether they are mile record holders of marathon record holders). Therefore. you would expect the 'average' runner to be in the middle of the curve. It is probable that relative performance standards across different distances are comparable (but, in the absence of a huge database of performances, unprovable). As such, a sub 5 mile is comparable to a 2:46 marathon relative to averages (and, therefore, a better achievement than breaking 3 hours).
    The 3 hour time is just a 'neat' break point that is a major hang up for many marathon runners.

    Yeah presumably! Maths and statistics are great, something i like, can be used in very manipulative ways to prove many points. So the fact that my 5k time is a lower % of the WR 5k time than my half marathon time means im a much better 5k runner. Great, i ll focus on 5k's so. Not trying to be smart but you have to take a step back from maths sometimes and be logical.

    Ignore the maths for one second and ask yourself do you really believe a 2:46 marathon is equal to a 5min mile?

    Take 100 people give them 2 years and you d soon get your answer. anyway i think this has been done to death before.

    My point: dont use maths to manipulate everything


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 173 ✭✭oldrunner


    kennyb3 wrote: »
    do you really believe a 2:46 marathon is equal to a 5min mile?

    Yes, I do.
    But, I am not saying that the same person can do both (just because you can run 5 minutes doesn't mean you can run 2:46 and vice versa). But, on average, they are equivalent performances.
    kennyb3 wrote: »
    My point: dont use maths to manipulate everything

    Not sure how I am doing that - just applying simple ratios to relative performances.

    I think this is a bit of a 'big ender' 'little ender' debate.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    kennyb3 wrote: »
    Ignore the maths for one second and ask yourself do you really believe a 2:46 marathon is equal to a 5min mile?

    I could believe that, that marathoners are more likely to be able to run under 3 hours than sprinters are to be able to run under 5 minutes. They're both essentially arbitrary distances and times after all, there's no reason why they should be exactly proportional in difficulty.

    But it's just a silly question. What's a better achievement, climbing a mountain or free-diving? High-jumping or long-jumping? Beating Mario Galaxy 2 or beating Mass Effect 2?

    At the very top level, the 'better achievement' is the one that gets you a medal, which is neither of those times. For everyone else, the better achievement is the one that you worked harder for, or took more pleasure in.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭Gringo78


    Reminds me of Racing Flats Big 8 Targets:

    1 mile - 5 mins
    3k - 10 mins
    5k - 20 mins
    5miles - 30 mins
    10k - 40 mins
    10miles - 1 hour
    Half Marathon - 90 mins
    Marathon - 3 hours

    Everyone will look at that list and pick out the ones that they think are well easy to acheive, others beyond them. All nice round numbers though, no other scientific basis really.

    A lot of people though rarely run a mile race. They might do one in 5:10/5:15 and think, yeah, I'd knock 15sec off no hassle with another shot at it but seconds off your mile time are like minutes of your marathon time.

    As for whats an 'acheivement' - in my book if you had to work to get it, its an acheivement. If it came naturally, with no training then you don't have talent, you have wasted talent. So I'll look at some 4hr marathoners and say, what a guy, and I'll look at some sub 3 marathoners and say what a waster.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    Daniels VDOT Tables puts a 4:57 mile as equivalent to a 2:43:25 marathon and a 2:58:47 marathon as equivalent to a 5:27 mile.

    As for which is a better achievement it depends on the runner, their training, age, background...

    [edit]

    Been thinking about this. The mile may be the harder absolute performance but I reckon the difficulty for the average runner is probably roughly equivalent. The training cycles for a mile could be cut back to 6 - 8 weeks with a race (or time trial) at the end of it. This means you could have 6 or 7 full training cycles per year to learn how to maximise your performance. A marathon training cycle is 18 weeks so you get 2 attempts a year, set yourself up wrong - emphasise the wrong training components - and you've wasted 6 months. Worse yet you may waste another six months fixing the wrong parts of the plan. So the journey to the start line is harder for the marathon but the journey from start line to finish line is harder in the mile.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,156 ✭✭✭aero2k


    tunney wrote: »
    I believe sub 3 is the minimum a club runner should be doing.
    Sub 5 would take a little more work and a lot more pain.

    What's your PB for each?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,214 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    oldrunner wrote: »
    It is probable that relative performance standards across different distances are comparable (but, in the absence of a huge database of performances, unprovable).

    The IAAF scoring tables are based on statistical analysis of thousands of performances and are an accurate way of comparing performances across events.

    The 3 hour marathon is worth 529 pts, while the 5 minute mile is worth 464 pts.

    Comparing individual performances to world records is a bit fraught, since world records are, by their very nature, extreme outliers in the statistical sense. You are comparing a 3 hour marathon to Gebrsilassie's 2:03:59 now, but in a few weeks' time someone might run a 2:02 marathon, and your score has been devalued for no good reason.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭myflipflops


    A 5 minute mile is the equivalent of about a 4.40 1500 which is achievable by plenty of 16/17 year old juvenile female athletes in any year. You would expect a good 14 year old male athlete to be running sub 5 too. A sub 3 marathon is a different prospect altogether.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,553 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    Gringo78 wrote: »
    1 mile - 5 mins
    3k - 10 mins
    5k - 20 mins
    5miles - 30 mins
    10k - 40 mins
    10miles - 1 hour
    Half Marathon - 90 mins
    Marathon - 3 hours

    Everyone will look at that list and pick out the ones that they think are well easy to acheive, others beyond them. All nice round numbers though, no other scientific basis really.
    Gringo - when did you get so wise? :)
    It's funny, I look at that list every year, and every year my perceptions/interpretations are completely different. Right now I'm thinking the 1 Mile, 3k and the 10 mile are the toughest. All of the others are soft. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    In order of difficulty (IMO), easiest first:

    5k - 20 mins
    10k - 40 mins
    Half Marathon - 90 mins
    Marathon - 3 hours
    5miles - 30 mins
    1 mile - 5 mins
    10miles - 1 hour

    I've never raced 3k so no idea on it. First 3 are soft, marathon is hard but doable with a mix of luck / talent / dedication. After that progressively more talent is needed and a sub 60 10 mile is impressive running.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭ManFromAtlantis


    kennyb3 wrote: »
    Yeah presumably! Maths and statistics are great, something i like, can be used in very manipulative ways to prove many points.


    you're not an accountant by any chance ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    Daniels VDOT Tables puts a 4:57 mile as equivalent to a 2:43:25 marathon and a 2:58:47 marathon as equivalent to a 5:27 mile.

    As for which is a better achievement it depends on the runner, their training, age, background...

    [edit]

    Been thinking about this. The mile may be the harder absolute performance but I reckon the difficulty for the average runner is probably roughly equivalent. The training cycles for a mile could be cut back to 6 - 8 weeks with a race (or time trial) at the end of it. This means you could have 6 or 7 full training cycles per year to learn how to maximise your performance. A marathon training cycle is 18 weeks so you get 2 attempts a year, set yourself up wrong - emphasise the wrong training components - and you've wasted 6 months. Worse yet you may waste another six months fixing the wrong parts of the plan. So the journey to the start line is harder for the marathon but the journey from start line to finish line is harder in the mile.
    Think your forgot about the winter base thats needed for the mile , this can be basically very similar to marathon training so there is no way you would have 6-7 cycles per year. There is a reason that there is only a track season once a year .


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,724 ✭✭✭kennyb3


    you're not an accountant by any chance ?
    ha ha funny you should say that..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,762 ✭✭✭✭ecoli


    shels4ever wrote: »
    Think your forgot about the winter base thats needed for the mile , this can be basically very similar to marathon training so there is no way you would have 6-7 cycles per year. There is a reason that there is only a track season once a year .

    Make that twice a year dont forget indoors:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    shels4ever wrote: »
    Think your forgot about the winter base thats needed for the mile , this can be basically very similar to marathon training so there is no way you would have 6-7 cycles per year. There is a reason that there is only a track season once a year .

    I was assuming a runner going into a 12 month period with the goal of either sub 5 mile or sub 3 marathon, someone with a decent base already. If you dedicated to nothing other than the mile then you should be able to maintain your base fitness for 12 months and either race or time trial every eight weeks for 6ish attempts at the mile. By the same logic you could probably compress the marathon into 12 weeks and get three cracks at it but the general point still stands - marathon training runs off a longer cycle so the learning curve is significantly shalower


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    I was assuming a runner going into a 12 month period with the goal of either sub 5 mile or sub 3 marathon, someone with a decent base already. If you dedicated to nothing other than the mile then you should be able to maintain your base fitness for 12 months and either race or time trial every eight weeks for 6ish attempts at the mile. By the same logic you could probably compress the marathon into 12 weeks and get three cracks at it but the general point still stands - marathon training runs off a longer cycle so the learning curve is significantly shalower

    If that was the case then there would be no need for a big winter each year prior to a track season, If your not getting your big miles in during the winter then the summer wont go well. I think after 3 months of mile specific training you'r going to be spent and injury prone so its part of the reason too.on

    I don't agree that the marathon cycle is much bigger to be honest just the nature of the event takes more time to recover from so less racing. The training for a track season is as hard but give you more change to race as recover from 1500m-5k only take days.

    Maybe its just me but my view of training for a mile would be a good winter (XC)followed by a track season that you might get 3-4 cracks at a mile race.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    ecoli wrote: »
    Make that twice a year dont forget indoors:D

    Shushhhhhhh
    Its really just a mid winer tune up for some runners ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 173 ✭✭oldrunner


    shels4ever wrote: »
    Think your forgot about the winter base thats needed for the mile , this can be basically very similar to marathon training so there is no way you would have 6-7 cycles per year. There is a reason that there is only a track season once a year .
    Totally agree. I specialise in mid distance. From September to February I put in the base work - typically, 40 to 50 mile weeks with cross country racing for strength, one session a week with something like 6 or 8 x 1k, and one tempo run session. From Feb to early May, I work on sessions to get the leg speed right (still keeping mileage to about 40 a week) and in May and June, its about speed endurance gradually building in the races (mileage drops to 30 -35). You only really get peak performance over a 6 to 8 week period in the year. Pick up an injury along the way and a whole year can go by.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭myflipflops


    Daniels VDOT Tables puts a 4:57 mile as equivalent to a 2:43:25 marathon and a 2:58:47 marathon as equivalent to a 5:27 mile.
    .

    Can you send me a link to this table? I'm intrigued by what Coghlans 3.50 indoor mile is equivalent to. Or my own mile time for that matter.


    I'll be slated for this but a 5 minute mile is walking pace for a young male athlete**. I may only have Tingle for support on this matter but really, we should be comparing a 4.30 miler to a 2.55 marathoner in terms of relative perfromance.

    The world marathon record is under 4.45 per mile for 26.2 consecutive miles and we are discussing a 5 minute mile as an achievement??


    **Again, i refer to a male athlete from about 18-30 who train properly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭Gringo78


    Gringo - when did you get so wise? :)

    I think it was sometime around 11am on June 1st 2009, 17 miles into a failed sub 3 attempt marathon :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 469 ✭✭bart simpson


    age is important to, im 26 so i think now i would find a 5 minute mile easier to get if i trained for it, in 10-15 years time a sub 3 would prob be easier, if you were to pick a ramdom 100 18 year old year olds sub 5 would be easier, a random 100 40 year olds sub 3 hour would be easier imo....but still what would a random 100 30 year olds find easier???


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 183 ✭✭ManwitaPlan


    Can you send me a link to this table? I'm intrigued by what Coghlans 3.50 indoor mile is equivalent to. Or my own mile time for that matter.


    I'll be slated for this but a 5 minute mile is walking pace for a young male athlete**. I may only have Tingle for support on this matter but really, we should be comparing a 4.30 miler to a 2.55 marathoner in terms of relative perfromance.

    The world marathon record is under 4.45 per mile for 26.2 consecutive miles and we are discussing a 5 minute mile as an achievement??


    **Again, i refer to a male athlete from about 18-30 who train properly.


    1. Your first point is valid..5 mins is not fast (although calling it walking pace for a young male is wide of the mark).

    2. your second point is rubbish...no way should we be comparing 4.30 to 2.55.

    4.30 is a damn good time for the mile. McMillan puts it at an equivalent of 2.32 for marathon...we all know McMillan is off but the point stands...4.30 is in a different stratosphere to 2.55.*


    *Unless your talking about 1500 again in which case what you said is right.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 911 ✭✭✭heffsarmy


    I don't think neither is an achievment, with proper training for an average guy these targets are achievable. If you hit one, you will hit the other with specific training. But I think the marathon is harder as it requires more training.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 173 ✭✭oldrunner




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭myflipflops


    2. your second point is rubbish...no way should we be comparing 4.30 to 2.55.
    .


    I believe talent as a relevant factor kicks in at about 4.05-4.10 for 1500 so a 4.25-4.30 mile. I reckon the same can be said for a 2.50 marathon.

    I personally disagree with the accuracy of all these comparison tables that people are quoting.

    It's actually quite strange that I'm arguing against the mile times in favour of the marathon when i was effectively an average 1500-3000 athlete when fit and never even ran a half marathon.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    ecoli wrote: »
    Make that twice a year dont forget indoors:D

    Much harder to run faster indoors though than outdoors. So if you cant set a sub 5 time outdoors then you more than likely wont indoors.

    Scratch the above if your name is Eamonn Coghlan :D a 3'49 mile indoors with extremely tight bends (11 laps to the Mile I think it was when he set that time) and yet just a 3'51 outdoors. Logic turned on its head!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    I believe talent as a relevant factor kicks in at about 4.05-4.10 for 1500 so a 4.25-4.30 mile. I reckon the same can be said for a 2.50 marathon.

    Dont think I would agree with this. Just looking at this from a womens elite point of view, numerous major womens 1500m championships have been won in 4:05 - 4:10. (Think I actually remember Mastercova winning the Europeans in 4:18 but thats a bit of an exception) On the otherhand nobody will ever get anywhere close to a medal with a 2.50 marathon for women. Nobody would even qualify with that time.

    Also no way does a 4:25 to 4:30 Mile equate to a 2.50-3.00 marathon in terms of talent. Sure Paula Radcliffe has a mile PB of 4:24. No way on earth that performance is of the same level as some random woman nobody knows who gets a 2.50 in the London Marathon for example.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    The world marathon record is under 4.45 per mile for 26.2 consecutive miles and we are discussing a 5 minute mile as an achievement??

    Hang on, if we are going to start comparing the average people to elite athletes then a sub 3 hour marathon is also not an achievement. In fact it would be less of an achievement as it is further off the world record percentage wise, than a sub 5 mile is, as somebody has already pointed out.

    Of course both are achievements. Takes a lot of hard work, a bit of luck, and a small bit of talent. Didnt Lance Armstrong run a sub 3 hour marathon and said it was one of the hardest thinsg he ever did? I believe he now has his sights set on a sub 5 minute mile? If he sees them as achievements then I don't see why the average person cant.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭myflipflops


    04072511 wrote: »
    Dont think I would agree with this. Just looking at this from a womens elite point of view, numerous major womens 1500m championships have been won in 4:05 - 4:10. (Think I actually remember Mastercova winning the Europeans in 4:18 but thats a bit of an exception) On the otherhand nobody will ever get anywhere close to a medal with a 2.50 marathon for women. Nobody would even qualify with that time.
    .

    This happens when the whole field jogs around incredibly slowly for 800 or at a below steady pace for 1200 and the kicks. If 25% of a marathon field were together with 25% of the race to go, it would probably be a race being won in the 2.40's.

    04072511 wrote: »
    D
    Also no way does a 4:25 to 4:30 Mile equate to a 2.50-3.00 marathon in terms of talent. Sure Paula Radcliffe has a mile PB of 4:24. No way on earth that performance is of the same level as some random woman nobody knows who gets a 2.50 in the London Marathon for example.

    This is a fair point and a decent reference (although using the greatest female marathoner ever doesn't quite fit in with the average male!). Maybe I should revise the marathon time down a bit.


    The main thing that stumps me on this thread (and your other one on a similar topic) is how easily people underestimate their potential. Somebody referred to me as potentially insulting runners when I think that believing them capable of higher achievements would be a compliment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    Here is 2 excellent posts on the letsrun thread that I thought I would post up here.



    Excellent question.

    I think which is easier is based in part on individual talents. I had a high school classmate who couldn't break 5:00 in the mile who broke 3:00 in the marathon rather easily as a high school senior.

    I had other classmates in the 4:20s for the mile who likely had the talent for a sub 2:40 marathon, who would never dream of doing marathon training, considering it too hard.

    I'd vote as more impressive for the marathon in the high 2:50s over the mile in the high 4:50s, as fewer healthy males in their 20s, talented or otherwise, have achieved that milestone.

    Separating out the specific limitation of what's "a more impresssive achievement," if you took two large groups of nontalented 20 somethings and over two years had half train as milers and half as marathoners, more of the marathoners would break 3:00 than milers under 5:00. High schools sort very well the relatively few students for whom sub 5:00 miles are easily achievable. Then give them some fairly elementary after school seasonal training and break that barrier. Schools don't bother sorting for who can run a sub 3 hour marathon, with intensive year round training, which is a much larger group.

    Marathon training, although arduous to most non marathoners, is very transformative. Most people attempting marathons today undertrain significantly, so sub 3 will impress even them. Still, train properly, and sub 3 is a breeze for most every 20 something male, many of whom would have great difficulty in also going sub 5, even training as a miler. Mile training is not as transformative, as the speed component is harder to attain with training than endurance is.







    Recognition's post make tons of sense. First off, let's point out that of the two, the mile is the more talent-intensive event.

    I was a late bloomer as a kid, but even as an adult as serious about competitive running as they get, I never broke 60 for a quarter, ran 2:17 for 800m. While I suppose you can say that the ability to absorb training loads is itself a type of talent, my competitive success came from marathon traning, with lots of tempo thrown in. My marathon buildups would normally total 650 miles in ten weeks, with some 80-plus mile weeks. I occasionally saw the high side of 100, and one spring break ran 120.

    During the summers I raced 10ks etc., but always pointed for two or three all-comers miles, for which I would include some miler-type speedwork, 400s, 200s, even, because the sub-5 was a grail of sorts for me. I was running 5:03s race after race when I was dependably running 2:53s for the marathon. I finally broke 5 by mere tenths, and that fall ran 2:46.

    It is true that talented kids, (Mick Jagger, even, at 30,) could break 5 minutes rather handily on relatively little training, and would be at the same time years away from being able to handle the training load that allows many runners of lesser raw talent talent to break three.

    Which is more impressive? Personally, the sub-5 stretched my limits more, definitely. A person of my abilities, given the inclination and the time, can find a 3-hour marathon readily accessible, but the sub-5 nip and tuck regardless.

    Yet the sub-3 hour marathon says more about the runner and less about his raw talent, or his genetic inheritance.

    I doubt anyone will argue that Lance Armstrong is anything other than impressive as an athletic specimen, and an endurance athlete at that. Still I think that a sub 5 mile would have been much easier on and for him than the sub-3 hour sqeaker he ran as his marathon debut with one record-holder after another running with him every step of the way. He described his marathon debut as the most he'd ever suffered physically,or words to that effect. I'll bet he could have broken 5 in the mile with a hangover.

    So, it depends on who you are, and where your talents lie.There are many people, no doubt, for whom the sub- 3 is no big deal, and the sub-5 beyond their abilities.
    And there are no doubt others who could cruise the sub-5, but could never absorb enough training to go under three.
    Even an exceptional talent will not run a sub-3 on no training or inadequate training.

    The mile is talent-intensive, the marathon training- intensive.

    BTW, point taken about applicability of equivalency charts over widely different distances. That said, Purdy and Garner have a 4:59.3 "worth" a 2:52:15. I was running in both neighborhoods at about the same time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    This happens when the whole field jogs around incredibly slowly for 800 or at a below steady pace for 1200 and the kicks. If 25% of a marathon field were together with 25% of the race to go, it would probably be a race being won in the 2.40's.

    .

    To be honest you could also say the same about the marathon. I have seen numerous womens championship marathon races where the field have jogged around for the first 16 miles or so, and nothing happening and yet the Gold would still be won in the 2:24-2:28 range.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,656 ✭✭✭village runner


    christeb wrote: »
    Personally I could do a sub 5 mile with about 6 weeks of training from now, whereas I'd need at the very least 6 months of high mileage training to do a sub 3 marathon


    What is your pb for a mile ??? I can see a challenge coming on..........


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,209 ✭✭✭Sosa


    What is your pb for a mile ??? I can see a challenge coming on..........

    I am racing a mile next thursday night with no specific training done,aiming for sub 5...i will report back


  • Advertisement
Advertisement