Now I have done neither and probably never will but I'd be of the thinking obviously for the 1500 type runners it would be the sub8mins 3k and the more endurance guys the sub14mins 5k? Any one think otherwise? Are they equal enough in difficulty for some runners?
I would say they're equally difficult. But, it really depends on what type of runner you are. I've ran close to 14 for 5k but I didn't come even close to 8 min for 3k. Whereas, I knew a few milers who either came close or who broke 8 but didn't run anything close to 14.
All in all though, I'd say if you can run one, you should be able to run very close to the other.
oijjerer wrote:
I would say they're equally difficult. But, it really depends on what type of runner you are. I've ran close to 14 for 5k but I didn't come even close to 8 min for 3k. Whereas, I knew a few milers who either came close or who broke 8 but didn't run anything close to 14.
All in all though, I'd say if you can run one, you should be able to run very close to the other.
Yes they are pretty much equivalent, but individuals will vary (based on type) on which is easier for that person.
rio f wrote:
Now I have done neither and probably never will but I'd be of the thinking obviously for the 1500 type runners it would be the sub8mins 3k and the more endurance guys the sub14mins 5k? Any one think otherwise? Are they equal enough in difficulty for some runners?
initially i was going to say sub 8 3k. But now im thinking that flat 3k really just indoor event. If ncaa had flat outdoor 3k I think most runners who could go 14 flat would go 8 flat. my 3k pr is way off sub 8, but my 5k is right at 14 flat. but 3k done indoor of same year that 5k was done at end of outdoor season.
the 8 min 3 km is a little better i think
I know two guys who ran sub 14:00 without ever going sub 8:00. One guy ran 13:46 and 8:01, the other ran 13:57 and 8:09. The first guy was a 5K specialist, it was his best event. The other was much better at the longer stuff, and had a 2:15 marathon best set in the 70s when 2:15 was significant. He only had a 3:54 1500 PB, while the first guy had a 3:48.
But I agree that it would be easier for some people to run sub - 8:00 than 14:00. Both are damn impressive, that's for sure.