slowest 5k time for a sub 222 marathoner

RTC wrote:

I remember seeing the bios for the runners in the 2004 Trials and there were several in there with 5k PR's over 15 min. There were also several with 10k PR's over 32 min.

Your memory is different than mine. I remember a handful of runners (e.g., Mayeroff, Miles and Miles) with 10K PRs over 30 minutes, but I don't remember anyone with a PR over 32 minutes. There might have been one or two, but it sure wasn't several.

Brent wrote:

RTC wrote:

I remember seeing the bios for the runners in the 2004 Trials and there were several in there with 5k PR's over 15 min. There were also several with 10k PR's over 32 min.

Your memory is different than mine. I remember a handful of runners (e.g., Mayeroff, Miles and Miles) with 10K PRs over 30 minutes, but I don't remember anyone with a PR over 32 minutes. There might have been one or two, but it sure wasn't several.

Yeah, I was a little off because I thought there were 4 or 5, but I went and looked and there were only 2 with 10k PR's over 32 min. However, there were 15 with 10k PR's over 31 min, and 9 of those were over 31:30. Check out the link below for some bio's that list 10k PR's and half marathon PR's.

Going back to the 1990s, Eric Peters was supposedly capable of running at one pace only, no matter what the race distance.

Margaret Okayo a 2:20 marathoner has a best of 15:22 for 5k.

I believe Beck ran 2:24 with a 5k PR right at 15:00 and a 10k PR in the mid to high 31s? Of course when you're putting in 140-160 miles a week who the heck has the time to fool around with a 5k?

Alan

Wrong on both Beck posts: I've downloaded his old training logs from his old website.

See link below - wasnt this the weekend before Boston 2001. The dude ran 15:27 the week before Boston, not 16:10. He went out in B/2001 in 16:51 not 16:20 and ran 2:24:17 there (despite 3 bathroom stops and a headwind)not 2:22. He didnt run 140 miles/week but for one week out of a build up of 11 weeks at 110. He ran Boston the next yr in 2:28.

I doubt there is a runner out there who's honest 5K PR can be repeated x8 at 10 sec slower pace. You couldnt do that in a track workout with a 1 mile stumbling jog in between more or less in a marathon.

Dirk Diggler wrote:I doubt there is a runner out there who's honest 5K PR can be repeated x8 at 10 sec slower pace.

I would tend to agree. The 14:29/2:15 example I gave earlier in the thread was Paula Radcliffe. Her marathon pace is just about exactly 30s slower than her 5k pace, and her times get relatively "better" with distance. For her to be only 10s/mile slower, she'd have to run 2:06:40. I can't see that happening.

Ian Thompson of Britain ran 2.09.16 in the Commonwealth marathon in New Zealand in 74.

His best time at 5000 was 14.15 and he wasn’t very impressive at any other distances either.

Ken Pliska's 32:45 PR within 24 months of his trials effort

should give us all some hope.

Hopeful wrote:

Ken Pliska's 32:45 PR within 24 months of his trials effort

should give us all some hope.

Pliska ran 5:12 pace for a half-marathon in March 2002, 18 months before he qualified for the Trials. You're saying that within 6 months of that half, he had never run faster than 5:16 pace for 10K? Methinks someone hasn't done enough research.

I would have thought so BUT if you click on the "2004 OTM Bios" link above you'll see it in black & white. There were a number of guys in the 31-32 range, that catch is that all had nothing slower than a 1:08 half marathon effort to their credit, including Pliska who I believe was 1:08 flat. Goes to show you that shorter distance times aren't necessarily indicative of marathon success.

Bob the Builder wrote:

Mayeroff was around 14:20.

At the time of my Marathon PR (2002, Berlin 2:18) my best 5km was 15:11.

I ran my 5km PR of 14:17 last year in Belgium.

Jason

Hopeful wrote:

I would have thought so BUT if you click on the "2004 OTM Bios" link above you'll see it in black & white. There were a number of guys in the 31-32 range, that catch is that all had nothing slower than a 1:08 half marathon effort to their credit, including Pliska who I believe was 1:08 flat. Goes to show you that shorter distance times aren't necessarily indicative of marathon success.

Even more than that, it goes to show that some people just never bother racing certain distances when they are in shape. If someone has a half-marathon PR that is at a faster pace per mile than their 10K PR, then, obviously, their 10K PR is basically meaningless.

It's way below 15 and 2:22, but Ronaldo da Costa set the marathon world record of 2:06:05 with just once having broken 28 (27:53) in the 10k. His second half was 1:01:23. Of course 28 is not slow by any means for a human to cover 10,000m, but relative to other guys who have run similar marathon times, it's a higher ratio of 10k to marathon pace. It just shows how specific and unique the marathon distance is.

Hopeful wrote:

I would have thought so BUT if you click on the "2004 OTM Bios" link above you'll see it in black & white.

http://www.coolrunning.com/results/02/ma/Feb24_Hyanni_1_set9.html

I got this far but am too lazy to determine whether this is a certified course.

As another poster said a listed 32:45 is moot when a guy has run 1:08:10 for a half. Also turned up a 19:31 4 miler that is probably short, I mean it's an April Fools Day race after all.

There may be a handful of guys who can run 2:22 while honestly in no better than 32 flat 10K shape. If they are pure endurance monsters. I am sure this is far more common in women - testosterone/power thing, or whatever.

15:40

2:23:13

I think KK would fit this same profile. The guy is basically a pure marathoner. When he was running his sub 2:06's, I believe he was barely running sub 29 or sub 1:02-1:03.

stipe wrote:

I think KK would fit this same profile. The guy is basically a pure marathoner. When he was running his sub 2:06's, I believe he was barely running sub 29 or sub 1:02-1:03.

Honestly, you are all kidding yourselves if you think that there are sub-2:22 marathoners who can't break 32:30 for 10k, or that there are sub-2:06 marathoners who can barely break 29 for 10k or 1:03 for a half-marathon. Sure, KK might have run 1:03 for a hilly half in sweltering heat in Puerto Rico leading up to a sub-2:06, and there might be 32-minute 10-k runners who have run sub-2:22 at St. George or Steamboat or some other downhill "marathon," but if you look carefully at the courses, conditions, and timing of their various races, the correlation between performances over a wide range of distances is pretty tight.

For various reasons, the top female marathoners may run relatively slower for shorter distances. Even among those runners, however, the correlation is not as far off the charts as one might guess. When Paula R. ran her 2:15+ paced time trial in London behind a cadre of Kenyan men, and when she ran her 2:17+ world best, she was probably in condition to run solidly under 30 for 10k. A 2:17 for a sub-30 10K runner training 150 miles a week is decent, but not exactly shocking.

oldguy wrote:

Honestly, you are all kidding yourselves if you think that...

No. Runners wouldn't do that.

My best times are 13.5 for 100 meters, 27.1 for 200, 56.6 for 400, 2:03.7 for 800, 4:29 for the mile (okay, 1600), 15:41 for 5K (road), 32:57 for 10K (also road) and 1:12:11 for the half-marathon. I have been running for 15 years and have averaged 85 miles a week in that time. However, because the Trials standard is 2:22, I know I can run 2:21:45 on the right day. I can list a few hundred other guys who feel the same way, this validating this belief. So please; go rain on someone else's parade.