For an average fit and healthy male in their 20's with no great deal of talent which would be a more impressive achievement, to go Sub 5 for a mile on the track or to go sub 3 hours for a marathon?
For an average fit and healthy male in their 20's with no great deal of talent which would be a more impressive achievement, to go Sub 5 for a mile on the track or to go sub 3 hours for a marathon?
marathon... both performances are about "equal" in terms of talent required, but since it takes a lot more training just to finish the marathon and much more care to pacing and all, i'd say it's more impressive. another way to look at it is the fact that there are WAY more people in existence who have gone sub 5 but not sub 3-hours.
For a women sub 5 is better
for a man sub 3 is better
Hope that helps.
if you can do one you can do the other.
additionally, neither are impressive.
Ohia wrote:
if you can do one you can do the other.
That certainly isn't true anyway.
I'm a 4:52 miler and a 3:00:20 marathoner
I would say sub 3 is more impressive
I reckon you can do sub 5 off just reasonable ability and not that much training whereas sub 3 you have to have reasonable ability and work hard to get there
A 4.59 Mile equates to a 2:48 Marathon according to McMillan. The sub 5 mile is the better performance.
A 4:59 mile is 1.34 times that of the World Record for the mile.
A 2:59:59 marathon is 1.45 times that of the World Record for the marathon.
The mile is the better time in my opinion.
And all this thing about training more for a marathon is mad. You need to work bloody hard to get sub 5 for the mile.
going sub 5 is shit that HS sophs do all day long.
I have run sub 3 but have never run sub 5. It is a goal of mine but at the age of 40 it is going to be tough.
Just get your faster stuff in. Make sure you do your strides, stretch well, and do some drills as well. Put it this way, my jr year of HS, we had 11 guys on the track team that ran under 5 mins for the mile at some point in the season.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
I reckon you can do sub 5 off just reasonable ability and not that much training whereas sub 3 you have to have reasonable ability and work hard to get there
I assume you are joking!
Based on how the person described themselves, I would definitely say sub-5 is better. With the proper training, time and effort, the OP might eventully run sub-3, but I can't say that for the mile. Remember, we are talking about someone on a H.S. track team.
Btw, both are difficult if you have no talent and don't have a running background.
I guarantee it would have taken more work to take any of those 11 dudes and make them sub 3 hr runners than sub 5 runners. only about 4 or 5 of them probably had the ability to go sub 3 hrs.
The greatest achievement is to give yourself to God.
Neither one is an achievement
a sub 5 mile during a sub 3 marathon is better
inside the box wrote:
a sub 5 mile during a sub 3 marathon is better
Only if you're at least 40 minutes below sub 3, otherwise crash & burn, baby.
Many more athletes have run a sub 5:00 mile, I'll assume. It takes less time
a better comparison would be:
SUB 5 VS SUB 2:50