sub 4:00 vs. sub 13:50

By looking at how the world record slows down as the distance get longing we get the following as equivalent marks

4min mile

13:48 5k

28:41 10k

10.28 100m

2:17:31 Marathon

45.7 400m

hey man galen rupp ran 4:01.xx and 13:37 the same year.

here we go again.... wrote:

Zuzu, explain to me how you came up with 13:47?? Give me some solid #'s to back up that # you have appeared to pull "out of thin air". I gave solid #'s to back my comparison up.

The equivalence chart I formulated was derived from extremely deep all-time lists from the high school level to the elite level and a regression formula was fitted to the data for corresponding time-for-place in each event. Recreational level performances were also taken into account, but the linear nature of the relationship between performances tends to break down toward the recreational level (6:00-ish for the mile, 21:20+ for 5,000m or slower). Actually, predictions using regression formulas should normally not be made outside the range of the collected data. I haven't updated the conversion chart since 1997; maybe it's time to do so, since 5,000m marks on the world level appear to be getting barely faster relative to some of the other event times.

At the top of my chart (just faster than WRs), "equivalent" performances include times of 3:23.8 (1,500m), 3:40.2 (mile), 7:16.1 (3,000m), 7:51.1 (2-mile), 12:33.2 (5,000m) and 26:09.3 (10,000m).

At the journeyman collegiate level, some "equivalent" times are 3:49.9 (1,500m), 4:08.4 (mile), 8:15.2 (3,000m), 8:54.9 (2-mile), 14:19.3 (5,000m) and 30:00.3 (10,000m).

Near the bottom (at the "fitness runner" level), we have times of 5:34.1 (1,500m), 6:01.1 (mile), 12:11.3 (3,000m), 13:10.0 (2-mile), 21:23.6 (5,000m) and 45:22.9 (10,000m). To convert mile times to 1,600m times, multiply by 0.994.

To see how well the chart holds up in predicting recent performances, let's look at last year's marks on the world list, the U.S. list, and the collegiate list.

Per the T&F News web site, the 2005 IAAF outdoor lists have the 100th best performers at:

1,500m 3:39.05

3,000m 7:51.70

5,000m 13:26.81

10,000m 28:23.56

My equivalence chart shows comparable performances to 3:39.05 as 7:50.5, 13:35.0 and 28:23.8. The 5,000m marks on the world list were obviously very deep last year compared to my chart. This has been a trend over the last few years.

The 2005 U.S. list only went 40 deep on the T&F News archives, with the 40th performers at:

1,500m 3:43.54

3,000m 8:01.36

5,000m 13:50.17

10,000m 29:03.43

Again, my chart looks very good except for being a bit slower in the 5,000m ... 3:43.54 is "equivalent" to 8:00.8, 13:53.3 and 29:03.6.

Using the 2005 college outdoor list (including foreign athletes), the 100th best marks were:

1,500m 3:47.09 (includes a few converted mile marks)

5,000m 14:10.96

My chart has 3:47.09 "equal" to 14:06.7. In this case, the collegians "underperformed" relative to the chart, but it is usually typical for more runners to perform better at shorter distances during high school and college.

According to the IAAF scoring tables a 4 min mile is worth the same # of points (1075) as a 13:40 5k

http://www.iaaf.org/newsfiles/22163.pdf

http://www.iaaf.org/newsfiles/22164.pdf

According to the McMillan calculator a 4:00 mile is equal to a 13:51

http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/Running%20University/Article%201/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm

Neither way (or any other calculator) is a perfect equivilant

smokey wrote:

How many Americans have run a sub 4:00 mile and how many Americans have run a sub 13:50 5000 meters? I would guess that the numbers are pretty close.

Don't know how many American's have run under 13:50, but I think it is near the 300 or so Americans who have gone under 4 minutes in the mile. If the IAAF gives the same number of points for a 13:40 5000 as it does for a 4 minute mile, and with the IAAF international lists being dominated by African runners, then a 4:00 mile and a 13:50 5000 meters are probably about equal for Americans historically.

Sub 4 mile is actually about the equivalent of a 14 minute 5k. The history of athletics world records show that these barriers were reached at about the same time.

The mile outside of English speaking countries is just not a very important distance. For example Rui Silva just a few years ago became the first Portuguese guy to run a 4 minute mile. It is not an olympic distance. It is not even a simple 4 laps of the standard 400m track.

There are many more 5k races so of course you are going to get more guys going under 13-50 or whatever in the 5 k rankings.

My PRs within 2 years were:

800m 1:48.9

1500m 3:44.5

mile 4:00

5k 13:42

8k 22:43

Obviously I had decent balance of speed and endurance. If you ask me, I'd say 4:00 and 13:50 efforts are close enough to compare, considering than any comparison of totaly different events- even between the 1500m and the mile- needs to be asterisk'd with a "comparers are morons."

The reality wrote:

Sub 4 mile is actually about the equivalent of a 14 minute 5k. The history of athletics world records show that these barriers were reached at about the same time.

The mile outside of English speaking countries is just not a very important distance. For example Rui Silva just a few years ago became the first Portuguese guy to run a 4 minute mile. It is not an olympic distance. It is not even a simple 4 laps of the standard 400m track.

There are many more 5k races so of course you are going to get more guys going under 13-50 or whatever in the 5 k rankings.

If someone can run a 3:42.0 1500, they can break 4:00 in the mile. Even outside of Africa, I am certain that there are many more runners who can break 14:00 in the 5000 than there are runners who can run a 3:42.0 1500. I don't even think the numbers would be close. From what I have read, a sub-4:00 mile is more likely the equivalent of a 13:45-13:50 5000.

The reality wrote:

Sub 4 mile is actually about the equivalent of a 14 minute 5k. The history of athletics world records show that these barriers were reached at about the same time.

WEAK ARGUMENTS.

1) actually 13:50 and 4:00 were broken around the same time. 14:00 was broken in 1942! By 1955, one year after the 4:00 barrier was broken, the 5k record was down to 13:40, and the mile record was "only" 3:58 by this time. In 1956, the mile record was still 3:58, and the 5k record was 13:36! SO.......if you are going to use THAT era (when the WR's were around the times that are being compared in this discussion) as a yardstick, then around 13:40 would seem close to 4:00.

2) BUT....in those days more people were attacking the mile barrier than any 5k barriers, therefore many more quality runners were trying to achieve it. The Mile was the "golden distance", and every 5k runner worth anything tried the mile sometimes, as did any 800 runner. So the mile had more quality efforts in those days, but despite that fact, the times of that eara still reflect a 13:40 probably being worth about 4:00 mile. But since I still think more quality athletes and efforts were put into running a fast mile in those days (and the mile was held more often), I still say around 13:35 ='s 4:00 in terms of pure quality and vs the best times ever run in the repsective events.

... I still say around 13:35 ='s 4:00 in terms of pure quality and vs the best times ever run in the repsective events.

A 13:35 5000 meters is way too low in trying to = a 4:00 mile. The 2004 U.S. Olympic T&F Trials had "B" standards of 3:43.0 and 13:48.0 for the 1500 and 5000 and the 1500 field was capped at 30 while the 5000 meter field was limited to only 24. If a 3:42.4 1500 = a 4:00 mile, then you would have a similar number of U.S. men running 13:45-47 5000 meters as you would have running 3:42.4 1500's or 4:00 miles, so I would say a 13:45-47 5000 ='s 4:00 mile in the numbers of U.S. men who can run each.

look, I see your point, and many have made the same point in different ways, but I don't think that comparing the # of US performers from one year under 2 times in different events (3:42 1500m let's say, and 13:50 5000 ) is entirely fair. Why?? Because....

A)

the US is stronger overall in the mile than the 5000. They always have been. And now with the Africans really showing their strength in the 5 & 10, it is clear that the "white man" (majority of US distance runners) is better suited for the mile than the 5000. The white man's best events seem to naturally be the truly "middle events", such as 800 & 1500 (and lately, showing some promise at the 400). To make my point more clear: what is the US better at..........the 100m or the marathon ?? The 100m of course(because of all our west african descended sprinters). But if we used YOUR argument for time comparisons, then a 10.17 100m (the 20th best US performer last year) would be equal in quality to a 2:18 marathon, which, from what I can see, was the 20th best US performer at the marathon. Now as far as the UNITED STATES goes.....yeah, maybe that is indeed what the times are equal to. But as far as the WORLD goes......no way.....10.17 is a much more quality time and everyone knows it. Don't reward a performance in grading it just because a country is weak at that particular event. I bet the 10th best Ethiopian performer in the 100m doesn't consider himself the equal to the 10th best Ethiopian 10,000m runner, right? Yes, that is a more extreme example, but it demonstrates my point that all countries are not equally good at all races.

B) also, from year to year, a country is just deeper in one event than they are in others or deeper compared to a different year. But even just picking last year alone, and even with the US likely to have more quality runners at the mile than the 5000 (see point above), more people in the US broke 13:50 than broke 3:42.

There is no way that a 13:50 5k ='s a 4:00 mile. I would be willing to say around 13:40, but not slower than that. Personally I think it is a lot closer to 13:30 than to 13:50. But I would say that in my final analysis, that 13:35 would be right on the $. Remember in 1956, the mile record was 3:58 and the 5000 was 13:36, and that was when the mile was the GLAMOUR event, and lots of long distance training was not fully in vogue yet (which would benefit longer race performances), and the Africans, who are better at the 5 and 10, had not fully emerged. Despite all that 13:36 ='d 3:58 back then. Today, the 5k times have improved more than the mile, so I would say 13:35 ='S 4:00.

You'd be hard pressed to get me change my after seeing all those #'s.

This is my guess

4 Flat Mile is the Equivalent to the Event times below

100 Meters= 10.00 = 4:00 Mile

400 Meters= 44.25 = 4:00 Mile

400 Hurdles= 47.25 = 4:00 Mile

800 Meters= 1:47.00 = 4:00 Mile

1500 Meters= 3:44 = 4:00 Mile (This should be the easiest as 60 sec. quaters 4 times is 4 flat and so 60/4 is 15 sec. but I must give a second leway for you are traveling same speed for a little shorter dist. 100 meters less

3000 Meters= 8:00 ""

2 Mile= 8:40 ""

3k Steeple= 8:50

5K= 14:00 ""(Lets face it people not all World Records are Equally developed therefore not on the same level of difficulty, for example only east Africans are running these distances 20 sec. faster, but in the mile you can find people from almost anywhere that can or did have someon of its ethnicity run within a few seconds of mile record the Americans, Canadians, Kiwis, Italians, British, German, Russian, Ukraine-Heshko, Morroco, all ran under close to it

10k= 28:00

this isn't really on topic, but if you are correct and 14:00 5k is equivalent to 4:00 mile, wouldn't the 28:00 for 10k be vastly superior to 4:00 as it is two times the distance as the 5k and at the same pace. Did you mean to type 29:00 for 10k. By the way, I would also guess sub 14:00 is well easier than 4:00. Maybe I am just too slow, but I am hoping to break 14:00 5k and think about 4:06 to 4:08 is about the best i could manage.

Meaty

Here is how you tell:

Go find a bunch of retired guys who have 5k PR's between 13:50 and 14:00 but do NOT have a sub 4 minute mile on their resume and ask them if they would trade that PR for a sub 4 minute mile.

Then find a bunch of retired sub 4 minute milers with 5k PR's of 14:00 of slower, if they would trade their sub 4 minute mile for a 13:50 5k PR.

Answer that question and you'll have your answer.

But, as I have always said, a sub 4 minute mile race performance is a "special" category. NOTHING is equivalent.

you are correct. There is NO way a 13:50 or 14:00 5k is worth a 4:00 mile. As the other guy said, 14:00 was broken about 12 years before 4:00 was broken.13:40, at best, is worth 4:00.

mplatt wrote:

Here is how you tell:

Go find a bunch of retired guys who have 5k PR's between 13:50 and 14:00 but do NOT have a sub 4 minute mile on their resume and ask them if they would trade that PR for a sub 4 minute mile.

Then find a bunch of retired sub 4 minute milers with 5k PR's of 14:00 of slower, if they would trade their sub 4 minute mile for a 13:50 5k PR.

Answer that question and you'll have your answer.

But, as I have always said, a sub 4 minute mile race performance is a "special" category. NOTHING is equivalent.