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

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

1…34689…11

Comments

  • #152
    shels4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    robinph wrote: »
    For some reason it counts as an Olympic qualification course though. :confused:

    Why anyone in their right mind would try to get their time on that course is beyond me, just this year the conditions made it a daft fast course to skew the results.

    Maybe they would try because of the $ involved ;)
    I'm sure the likes of Cragg and co. picked up a nice little packet just to be on the start line


  • #153
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,409 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Guys, I did 4 K last night in 16:45. How's that for an average joe?


  • #154
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    walshb wrote: »
    Guys, I did 4 K last night in 16:45. How's that for an average joe?

    Come along to Rathfarnham next weekend and find out :)


  • #155
    zico10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭zico10


    walshb wrote: »
    Guys, I did 4 K last night in 16:45. How's that for an average joe?

    Fairly average.

    On the OP's question, I think a sub 5 minute mile is a greater achievement. I only ever use metric measurements and I'm not going to change to answer this question. To run 1.6 odd km in under 5 minutes, you need to be holding a pace of 3.07minute/km. To run a sub 3 hour marathon, you need to be running at a pace just under 4.15minute./km Whether you find these paces easy or not, I still think there's no hiding from the fact that one is significantly quicker than the other.
    And yes I am well aware that a marathon is over 42km, so there's no need to point it out.


  • #156
    Krusty_Clown
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,513 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    zico10 wrote: »
    Fairly average.

    On the OP's question, I think a sub 5 minute mile is a greater achievement. I only ever use metric measurements and I'm not going to change to answer this question. To run 1.6 odd km in under 5 minutes, you need to be holding a pace of 3.07km/minute. To run a sub 3 hour marathon, you need to be running at a pace just under 4.15km/minute. Whether you find these paces easy or not, I still think there's no hiding from the fact that one is significantly quicker than the other.
    And yes I am well aware that a marathon is over 42km, so there's no need to point it out.
    3.07km/minute? Then you could do a mile in around 31 seconds. Now that would be far more impressive than a sub-3 marathon.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Krusty_Clown
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,513 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    walshb wrote: »
    Guys, I did 4 K last night in 16:45. How's that for an average joe?
    Not bad for an average Joe. Equivalent of about 21:23 for 5k, which would have you finishing somewhere around 200th position in the Rathfarnham 5k (of around 700 runners).


  • #158
    zico10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭zico10


    Krusty_Clown wrote: »
    3.07km/minute? Then you could do a mile in around 31 seconds. Now that would be far more impressive than a sub-3 marathon.

    The 4.15km/minute is even better.:o


  • #159
    Mellor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,377 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    zico10 wrote: »
    Fairly average.

    On the OP's question, I think a sub 5 minute mile is a greater achievement. I only ever use metric measurements and I'm not going to change to answer this question. To run 1.6 odd km in under 5 minutes, you need to be holding a pace of 3.07minute/km. To run a sub 3 hour marathon, you need to be running at a pace just under 4.15minute./km Whether you find these paces easy or not, I still think there's no hiding from the fact that one is significantly quicker than the other.
    And yes I am well aware that a marathon is over 42km, so there's no need to point it out.

    By that logic, a 15 second 100m is an even greater achievement as it is an average pace of 2m30s. :P
    Which is obviously incorrect


    I'm not sure what point you are making. Obviously one is a quicker pace. How does that make it greater achievement


  • #160
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    Mellor wrote: »
    By that logic, a 15 second 100m is an even greater achievement as it is an average pace of 2m30s. :P
    Which is obviously incorrect


    I'm not sure what point you are making. Obviously one is a quicker pace. How does that make it greater achievement

    The IAAF scoring tables is the table used by the IAAF to compare performances across events. As it is compliled by the governing body of our sport it can be viewed as fairly reliable. According to the tables the sub 5 minute mile is a better performance.

    What's a better achievement depends on the person and whether they are fast twitch or slow twitch. Obviously for somebody with a slower twitch, the sub 5 minute mile would be a better achievement as the sub 3 marathon would come easier to him/her. The opposite would be true for a fast twitch runner.

    http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/33/41/20110124082825_httppostedfile_IAAF_Scoring_Tables_of_Athletics_2011_23299.pdf

    The result of the poll here is probably irrelevant as the majority of posters here run marathons rather than track races so are naturally going to vote for the marathon.


  • #161
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    04072511 wrote: »
    The IAAF scoring tables is the table used by the IAAF to compare performances across events.

    So... what is it actually measuring? How rare a 5 minute mile (for example) is in comparison to a 3 hour marathon?


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Krusty_Clown
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,513 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    04072511 wrote: »
    The IAAF scoring tables is the table used by the IAAF to compare performances across events. As it is compliled by the governing body of our sport it can be viewed as fairly reliable. According to the tables the sub 5 minute mile is a better performance.
    Live by the sword, die by the sword:
    Based on the IAAF table, the 10km race walk in 1:00:35 is tougher than both of the challenges and is the greatest of these achievements.

    If you want to compare apples and oranges, you have to take the peaches too. I don't mean to undermine the 'walk', merely to point out the irrelevance of making comparisons across disciplines.


  • #163
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    Krusty_Clown wrote: »
    Live by the sword, die by the sword:
    Based on the IAAF table, the 10km race walk in 1:00:35 is tougher than both of the challenges and is the greatest of these achievements.

    If you want to compare apples and oranges, you have to take the peaches too. I don't mean to undermine the 'walk', merely to point out the irrelevance of making comparisons across disciplines.

    There's a hell of a lot more similarities between the 1500m/Mile and the Marathon than there is between the race walk and the marathon, but since you've brought it up, yes that would be about right. A 60 minute 10km race walk is a bloody good performance.

    And if it was irrelevant to make comparisons across disciplines then why are the IAAF (the governing body of the sport) issueing tables then? And why do they have athlete of the year awards and all that? All the many events fall under the one sport called 'Athletics". With the sport having so many different disciplines and distances, comparisons are natural and inevitable.

    This thread is an example:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056389104&page=1

    Nobody on this thread has been talking about the irrelevance of comparing different performances across disciplines.


  • #164
    TheRoadRunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,983 ✭✭✭TheRoadRunner


    Krusty_Clown wrote: »

    If you want to compare apples and oranges, you have to take the peaches too. I don't mean to undermine the 'walk', merely to point out the irrelevance of making comparisons across disciplines.

    Thank you, thank you thank you. I reckon (nothing to back this up) these tables were first introduced so points could be awarded in multievents such as the decathlon. I think they are irrelevant when comparing 2 events for a specific individual. As has already been stated the "achievement" will depend on the individual, their natural ability and what they like to do in training


  • #165
    thirtyfoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭thirtyfoot


    RayCun wrote: »
    So... what is it actually measuring? How rare a 5 minute mile (for example) is in comparison to a 3 hour marathon?

    No, benchmarked against the best in the world and constantly evolving. These tables have been around a while and while there are some flaws are the best comparison across disciplines.


  • #166
    TheRoadRunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,983 ✭✭✭TheRoadRunner


    04072511 wrote: »

    This thread is an example:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056389104&page=1

    Nobody on this thread has been talking about the irrelevance of comparing different performances across disciplines.

    Just because some people didn't post doesn't mean they think they were irrelevant ;)

    Go and enjoy your IAAF tables! I'll set my own bench marks. Don't need some statisticians in the IAAF telling me what is a good performance (for me) and what is not. I don't know how the IAAF come up with these points but you can be guaranteed there will be biases in some events. Again, I've nothing to back this up but if you have something to say the contrary I'll take that on board.


  • #167
    thirtyfoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭thirtyfoot


    TheRoadRunner wrote: »
    Thank you, thank you thank you. I reckon (nothing to back this up) these tables were first introduced so points could be awarded in multievents such as the decathlon. I think they are irrelevant when comparing 2 events for a specific individual. As has already been stated the "achievement" will depend on the individual, their natural ability and what they like to do in training

    These weren't introduced on the multi events, the scoring in multi are different. The Hungarian tables are statistically based and based on years of results and performances. Yes they take elite into account and granted don't take into account whether someone started the sport late or work long hours or have kids or have diabetes or their gran is sick and lives with them or whatever, but when it comes to comparison across events they are the best indicator.


  • #168
    TheRoadRunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,983 ✭✭✭TheRoadRunner


    thirtyfoot wrote: »
    No, benchmarked against the best in the world and constantly evolving. These tables have been around a while and while there are some flaws are the best comparison across disciplines.

    So technically a freak like Bolt has in theory has reduced the number of points awarded to a 9.99 100 metres by lowering the world record significantly? Or is that too simplistic?


  • #169
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    thirtyfoot wrote: »
    No, benchmarked against the best in the world and constantly evolving. These tables have been around a while and while there are some flaws are the best comparison across disciplines.

    So, how fast a time/long a throw etc is compared to the world record? Or average performance at world championships? Why is the 110m hurdles record worth 1277 points and the 100m record worth 1356?
    I'm not clear on the model here...


  • #170
    zico10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭zico10


    Mellor wrote: »
    By that logic, a 15 second 100m is an even greater achievement as it is an average pace of 2m30s. :P
    Which is obviously incorrect

    I'm not sure it is, but not by the logic you're using. Which if you think is the same as the logic I'm using, then you're only half correct. 3.07/km is not just faster than 4.15/km, it's significantly faster and you have to hold this for significantly longer than 15 seconds.
    I don't know enough about sprinting (and I don't think you do either) to comment on the noteworthiness of a 15 second 100m. I have no idea what the average person could do 100m in and I honestly have no idea how difficult it would be to cover the distance in 15 seconds. Maybe it's not the ultimate authority, but the McMillan running calculator, which seems to have the final say in a lot of disputes here ranks them thus; 1st - sub 5 minute mile, 2nd - 15 second 100m, 3rd - sub 3 hour marathon.
    I really am surprised by the discrepancies in the results of the poll. Maybe the achievement of going sub 3 is a personal goal for some and for that reason they see it as a greater achievement.
    I'd be interested to see how the sub 3 hour marathoners around here voted. And of this bunch it'd also be interesting to see, how many of them have also ran sub 5 minute miles. I'm fairly sure the numbers would drop.
    I've never ran a mile race and I probably never will, but I think I'd be a long way off going sub 5 if I did. Properly trained, I'd be 100% certain I'd run run a sub 3 hour marathon. Maybe it's this that's clouding my judgement, but this was my reasoning in voting for the sub 5 minute mile.

    Mellor wrote: »
    I'm not sure what point you are making.

    The point I am making is that a sub 5 minute mile is a greater achievement than a sub 3 hour marathon. I thought that would have been obvious. The clue is in the thread's title.


  • #171
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    TheRoadRunner wrote: »
    So technically a freak like Bolt has in theory has reduced the number of points awarded to a 9.99 100 metres by lowering the world record significantly? Or is that too simplistic?

    No, not all World records have the same score on the tables. Some are stronger than others.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    thirtyfoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭thirtyfoot


    TheRoadRunner wrote: »
    So technically a freak like Bolt has in theory has reduced the number of points awarded to a 9.99 100 metres by lowering the world record significantly? Or is that too simplistic?

    It won't dramatically reduce it but will have an effect. That's why using the IAAF tables to compare Irish Records should use the Hungarian table of the year of the performance to get a fairer indication.


  • #173
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    zico10 wrote: »
    Maybe it's not the ultimate authority, but the McMillan running calculator, which seems to have the final say in a lot of disputes here ranks them thus; 1st - sub 5 minute mile, 2nd - 15 second 100m, 3rd - sub 3 hour marathon.

    McMillan really isn't the way to go about comparing performances.

    The IAAF tables have a sub 3 hour marathon as equivalent to a 12.77 second 100m, which would be about right. There's no way in hell a 15 second 100m is equivalent to a sub 3 hour marathon.


  • #174
    TheRoadRunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,983 ✭✭✭TheRoadRunner


    thirtyfoot wrote: »
    It won't dramatically reduce it but will have an effect. That's why using the IAAF tables to compare Irish Records should use the Hungarian table of the year of the performance to get a fairer indication.

    man that sounds more complicated. So technically a record set in 1990 might get 1000 points while the same record if scored in 2011 might only get 900 points? (edit that actually makes sense to me)

    By the way for me, a sub 5 minute mile would be the harder achievement. Assuming I was coming back from a 3 month lay off I could run the marathon time off slow miles (50 miles a week). For the mile I'd need 50 miles a week with 2 threshold sessions a week


  • #175
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    04072511 wrote: »
    The IAAF tables have a sub 3 hour marathon as equivalent to a 12.77 second 100m, which would be about right.

    Why? What is the methodology behind the decision to award those two performances the same points?
    When you say that is 'about right', based on what? How hard you think those two times are? For who? How many runners compete in both 100m and marathon at the same age?

    I know you don't like the McMillan calculator (and I think you attach more weight to it than most people who use it), but even those who use it would say you can't make a useful prediction for the marathon from a 100m time.


  • #176
    zico10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭zico10


    04072511 wrote: »
    McMillan really isn't the way to go about comparing performances.

    The IAAF tables have a sub 3 hour marathon as equivalent to a 12.77 second 100m, which would be about right. There's no way in hell a 15 second 100m is equivalent to a sub 3 hour marathon.

    Equivalent by what logic? Could the average male runner clock a 12.77 100m? Like I said previously my knowledge of sprinting isn't all that vast, but I think it's far more likely the average male runner could run a sub 3 hour marathon.


  • #177
    Krusty_Clown
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,513 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    zico10 wrote: »
    I'd be interested to see how the sub 3 hour marathoners around here voted.
    I didn't vote, because of the 'greyness' of the premise of the thread. It's still a good thread/discussion, I just think 'achievement' is a personal thing, and depends on one's proclivity for a specific type of event. Once I've run a sub-5 mile, I'll come back and vote. Until then, I think my current view is that a sub-5 is tougher for me, but I have never tried.


  • #178
    thirtyfoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭thirtyfoot


    From the Hungarian horse's mouth is below. While it doesn't divulge the exact calculation method this is the definite statistical tool for comparing performances. It wasn't always packaged as the IAAF Scoring Table, it was the Hungarian tables. I can remember using these tables when a teenager many moons ago. As I say there are some small flaws but these are the best indicator across events in my opinion.


    The Scoring Tables of Athletics are based on exact statistical data and according to the following
    principles:
    The scores in the tables of different events cover equivalent performances. Therefore, the tables can be used to compare results achieved in different athletic events.
    Due to obvious biological differences, it is not proposed to fully compare men's and women's performances. Thus, the system contains scoring tables for men's and women's events respectively.
    The tables are progressive, which means that the same improvement of results at higher levels leads to a greater increase in the scores. For example, to improve from 8.30m to 8.60m in the Long Jump is
    obviously more difficult than to improve from 6.30m to 6.60m. The degree of progressivity in the
    running (walking, hurdling) events is different than in the jumping and in the throwing events due to
    biomechanical reasons.
    The IAAF Scoring Tables of Athletics can be used for multiple purposes, including:
    • To determine the Result Score of a performance for the World Rankings;
    • To evaluate the competitions;
    • To establish the best athlete award in a specific competition;
    • To produce national, club, school and other rankings;
    • To use it in championships of clubs, etc.
    To make comparisons easier, events are edited as follows:
    • Sprints, Hurdles and Relays
    • Middle Distances
    • Long Distances and Steeplechase
    • Road Running
    • Race Walking
    • Jumping and Throwing events and Decathlon/Heptathlon
    Should a performance fall between two results on the tables the lower score shall be considered.
    In view of tradition and in effort to keep things simple, the Scoring Tables include only whole number
    scores for expressing performances.
    Hand times:
    • Sprints and Hurdles up to 200m: add 0,24 sec
    • 300m, 400m and 400m Hurdles: add 0,14 sec
    The tables are being continuously reviewed. When noted, discrepancies shall be removed and, if
    necessary, new events shall be added so that the Scoring Tables are always accurate and up to date.
    Dr. Bojidar Spiriev
    (1932-2010)


  • #179
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    zico10 wrote: »
    Equivalent by what logic? Could the average male runner clock a 12.77 100m? Like I said previously my knowledge of sprinting isn't all that vast, but I think it's far more likely the average male runner could run a sub 3 hour marathon.

    A samoan shot putter who was 20 stone plus ran a 100m in 15.66 seconds at the Worlds in Daegu. 15 seconds isn't particularly quick.

    I can't give a technical answer to these questions as I didn't compile the tables, but to me those times would look very comparable to each other.

    For example, Ailis McSweeney's 100m Irish record is 11.40 seconds. It's not a hugely strong record in the grand scheme of athletics and certainly wouldn't compare to Catherina McKiernan's 2:22:23 for the marathon which was truly world class. McSweeney's record would probably equate to something like 2:35 for the marathon (without looking at the tables). A 11.40 would probably get you as far in 100m at an elite level as a 2:35 would in the marathon. Is it that hard to imagine then that a 12.77 would be close to being in line to a 2:59.59?


  • #180
    thirtyfoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭thirtyfoot


    TheRoadRunner wrote: »
    man that sounds more complicated. So technically a record set in 1990 might get 1000 points while the same record if scored in 2011 might only get 900 points? (edit that actually makes sense to me)

    Probably but not that dramatic but that is good as it is progressive and constantly evolving.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    thirtyfoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭thirtyfoot


    RayCun wrote: »
    Why? What is the methodology behind the decision to award those two performances the same points?
    .

    Years and years of statistical analysis of high level performances in both events.

    IAAF Scoring Tables based on hard stats.
    A/R/T Scoring Tables (if they existed) based on feeling good about yourself and self-achievement.


Advertisement