sub 4
Purple Goose wrote:
??
sub 4
Purple Goose wrote:
??
2:14.
Would go to the olympics and win almost all the races in South America to which Marilson do Santos doesnt go.
i have so little speed and so much endurance that if i can run sub4, i will be able to jog a 2:14
sub 4, duh.
2:14 might be statistically superior to sub 4 but sub 4 actually means something. that marathon time is just an "equivalence". maybe if the choice were between sub 4 and 2:09?
Chilean wrote:
2:14.
Would go to the olympics and win almost all the races in South America to which Marilson do Santos doesnt go.
this.
how f-ing sweet would it be to go to the Olympics?!? as great as it would be to run sub-4 in the mile, i would take the chance at the Olympics ANY DAY over that. its the Olympics. that's what we're all seriously dreaming about...
4:00 marathon.
Would you rather break 4:00 for the mile or 8:00 for the 3k?
Sub-4, easy. Why would people want to run for 134 minutes when they can get more recognition for <4?
A good mile result is useless for me because only a few countries measure in miles. Where I live eyebrows would be raised over the second part of "sub4 mile" -- "How long is a mile?"
Gut reaction - Sub 4
No brainer Sub 4. No-one other than runners knows what 2:14 means.
How about Sub 4 or sub 2:09? - brings the $ aspect in.
2:14 for sure. It is a superior performance and worth more cash.
The fact that a sub 4 min mile means more to the non running public carries no weight with me. I have never run to satisfy anyone othe than myself.
I'm surprised at how many responses are based on how others will perceive you as "fast". I guess that is why some people run.
cake and eat it wrote:
Sub 2:14 thon with a sub-4 last mile.
^This is the correct response.
why does everyone here care so much about what other people think of how fast they run?
You guys who are talking in terms of what will impress other people: you should go on the website of Gerald C. Matics and read his free novel entitled 'coming back, coming up.' he talks about a runner who gets to the night before the last race of his career then realizes he has been the whole time just running to please other people. It's such a silly way to be yet it is so easy to fall into that trap.
if i still have my day job, i'd choose sub 4. it would definitely impress more people -- everyone is familiar with the 4-minute barrier, whereas 99% of the population will ask if a 2:14 marathon is considered "good".
then again, if i could run sub 2:14 i wouldn't have to keep my day job, and would probably have a better chance at making the olympics.
of course, it also depends how much you mean by "sub" in each case.
Though it's most likely a fact that most recreational joggers and non-joggers alike will be amazed at a sub-4 mile, it's not like they start worshipping you then. It's just a "hey, wow, that's fast" reaction. I can guarantee you that they just don't say "what? sub-4? oh my gosh, let me see what I have in my wallet to help you to your fame and fortune dream goals". Sub-2:14 whether recognized or not, is a superior performance and pays better. Plus the respect earned is worth much more and it is an understood performance.
As a sidenote, I think that a sub-2:14 guy can train effectively and reach a sub-4 mile sooner than a sub-4 guy can reach a sub 2:14.
I'd enjoy the training that goes along with a 2:14 much more than a sub 4. I prefer trails to track sessions. I haven't raced anything less than a 5k for a few years and don't miss it. Have to go with the 2:14.
FALSE!!! I would think its definately the other way around. Take Ryan Hall for example... Never broken 4. Its like saying Jason Hartmann could break 4 before David Torrence could run sub 2:14.