What's more impressive to the general public - running under 4:30 for the mile or finishing the Boston Marathon?
What's more impressive to the general public - running under 4:30 for the mile or finishing the Boston Marathon?
4:30 mile no question.
Most people know that it doesn't require THAT much skill/talent/hard work to finish a marathon. Most people do know that it takes a lot of talent to run a sub 5.
Something with a reasonable time limit is always more impressive.
I would say finishing Boston, as the question cites "the general public." The general public has very, very little knowledge in regard to running, and a certain time in the mile would be meaningless to them. They have heard of the BM, and would be impressed by it. In fact, most people think all running races are "marathons"...you know, 5k marathons, 10k marathons, etc.
outsiderunner wrote:
I would say finishing Boston, as the question cites "the general public." The general public has very, very little knowledge in regard to running, and a certain time in the mile would be meaningless to them. They have heard of the BM, and would be impressed by it. In fact, most people think all running races are "marathons"...you know, 5k marathons, 10k marathons, etc.
Ding ding ding....
For me, finishing the marathon is definitely more impressive. Running a 4:30 mile is obviously a lot harder, and rarer, but that doesn't make it more impressive. Most people finishing the Boston marathon are normal people, with a normal life, that took time out to accomplish a goal. A 4:30 isn't fast enough to be impressive, but it still indicates talent more than hard work, and a dedicated runner rather than a normal person.
4:30. Tell someone that you ran, say, 4:25, and they think that's just a stone's throw away from breaking 4.
JohnBoston wrote:
For me, finishing the marathon is definitely more impressive. Running a 4:30 mile is obviously a lot harder, and rarer, but that doesn't make it more impressive. Most people finishing the Boston marathon are normal people, with a normal life, that took time out to accomplish a goal. A 4:30 isn't fast enough to be impressive, but it still indicates talent more than hard work, and a dedicated runner rather than a normal person.
No time indicates talent unless you actually have an idea what the talent level of the individual is.
BahStun heheheh wrote:
What's more impressive to the general public - running under 4:30 for the mile or finishing the Boston Marathon?
A 26.2 mile 'thon' is always more impressive than a mile marathon. Next question.
The marathon for sure. Non athletes gave no idea what a good mile time is. If you doubt it, tell your co workers that you ran a mile in 3 mins and 9 secs and see how many even react.
Aren't there qualifying standards for Boston? If so then qualifying then finishing would seem more impressive.
Yes. Any non-runner has no idea the difference between 4:30 and 5:30 and will be impressed equally by both. The same non-runner will be more impressed by finishing a marathon, because to them, the distance is what makes it hard.
When I come into work and gloat about winning a local 5k in 15 min, my coworkers tell me to stfu and stop bragging about running child distances. They have no idea what it takes.
Billy Talent wrote:
JohnBoston wrote:For me, finishing the marathon is definitely more impressive. Running a 4:30 mile is obviously a lot harder, and rarer, but that doesn't make it more impressive. Most people finishing the Boston marathon are normal people, with a normal life, that took time out to accomplish a goal. A 4:30 isn't fast enough to be impressive, but it still indicates talent more than hard work, and a dedicated runner rather than a normal person.
No time indicates talent unless you actually have an idea what the talent level of the individual is.
2:03 marathon?
Beware absolutes.
Critical Thinking wrote:
4:30. Tell someone that you ran, say, 4:25, and they think that's just a stone's throw away from breaking 4.
I'm a high schooler whose PR is 4:20. It makes me cringe when people ask me if I think I'll break 4. Usually I say something like "Maybe in 6 years"
NJXC Guy wrote:
I'm a high schooler whose PR is 4:20. It makes me cringe when people ask me if I think I'll break 4. Usually I say something like "Maybe in 6 years"
A 20 seconds improvement isn't overly impressive compared to chopping off 2 hours from a 6 hour marathon and become one of those select few sub-4 thon'ers.
Madmandoc wrote:
The marathon for sure. Non athletes gave no idea what a good mile time is. If you doubt it, tell your co workers that you ran a mile in 3 mins and 9 secs and see how many even react.
When guy's at work ask me about running they tell me that they could easily run a four minute mile. (Non-runners )
I just nod and agree but them same guy's say they could never run 26.2
To the general public FINISHING the Outer-Podunk 1/2 Marathon is more impressive than a 4:30 mile.
Locally owned running stores and Runners World have to take on the task of educating the public.
I think it is great that so many people are taking up running but just finishing should not be elevated to the status of a 15:00 5K.
Coach wrote:
Aren't there qualifying standards for Boston? If so then qualifying then finishing would seem more impressive.
exactly. any joker could enter an all comers track meet and run the mile without ever qualifying for it. so even if they ran sub 4:00, big deal. all they had to do was show up and run! much less impressive than being in and completing a race with actual qualifying standards. duh.
plus 4 to 4.5 mins a LOT shorter than 3 to 5 hours. so how can this even be a question??
marathon all the way.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
Coach wrote:Aren't there qualifying standards for Boston? If so then qualifying then finishing would seem more impressive.
exactly. any joker could enter an all comers track meet and run the mile without ever qualifying for it. so even if they ran sub 4:00, big deal. all they had to do was show up and run! much less impressive than being in and completing a race with actual qualifying standards. duh.
plus 4 to 4.5 mins a LOT shorter than 3 to 5 hours. so how can this even be a question??
marathon all the way.
Agreed. The only two athletic competitions involving running that I've ever heard of are the Olympic Games and the Boston Marathon. You clearly have to be elite to participate in either of these.
The mile! Are you kidding? I ran a 5k turkey trot last year and lots of fatties even finished that no problem...one mile...ha!
This is from experience... most people don't know that 4:30 isn't that quick, but it sounds fast to them, ***and they don't often meet someone who has run that time.
On the contrary, most people who don't live under a rock know someone who has at least finished a marathon (even if it's not Boston).
So, to the general public, a 4:30 mile is more impressive.