What could have Pre run for the marathon?

o.O wrote:

I love going off PRS though as if 5 and 10k have any correlation to marathons.

Ritz

5,000 m - 12:56.27

10,000 m - 27:22.28

Marathon - 2:10:00

(all in the same year)

Hall

5,000 m - 13:16.03

10,000 m - 28:07.93

Marathon - 2:06:17

Alberto Salazar didn't even break 13:30 or 27:30 and ran a decent marathon too I believe but I sure some knowledge math dependent jackass will come on and call me a moron a couple times and show me a calculator that says he was in sub 13 shape when he did the marathons.

You're using the word correlation incorrectly here. A correlation means there is a significant statistical relationship where, as one variable goes up, the other goes up or down by the same margin. If you're talking about a hypothetical relationship, you are just guessing that the two are 'related' in some way. Only when you have done a statistical test with the two can you talk about correlation. Good job trying to sound smart, though.

Correlation: mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.

Amateur Lexicographer wrote:

someone else wrote:

You're using the word correlation incorrectly here. A correlation means there is a significant statistical relationship where, as one variable goes up, the other goes up or down by the same margin. If you're talking about a hypothetical relationship, you are just guessing that the two are 'related' in some way. Only when you have done a statistical test with the two can you talk about correlation. Good job trying to sound smart, though.

Correlation: mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.

Key word: mutual. It's a statistical term.

someone else wrote:

Amateur Lexicographer wrote:

Correlation: mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.

Key word: mutual. It's a statistical term.

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that 5k/10k/marathon times aren't correlated, or that the other guy was wrong for saying they weren't?

Strange because we aren't talking statistics?

Either way, in the fancy world we live in there are these words that are used that have multiple definitions and that by using a word differently than somebody else(in your case using a word strictly for statistics) does not make them dumber than you because you limit yourself in such a odd fashion.

Amateur Lexicographer wrote:

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that 5k/10k/marathon times aren't correlated, or that the other guy was wrong for saying they weren't?

They aren't in the context you are referring.

In a broad sense they are correlated, but in a specific sense, no.

Just because runner A has run X and Y times in the 5k/10k in reality has no bearing on their marathon potential. Runners excel within a specific distance range that their bodies and mentality. Pre, a 3:54 miler, was a middle distance/distance guy, even more than Ritzenhein (whose best distances are 3k to 5k).

While I think that Pre could run in the 2:10-2:12 range, I don't feel that he would be near the marathoner that fellow Duck Ken Martin was.

o.O wrote:

Strange because we aren't talking statistics?

Either way, in the fancy world we live in there are these words that are used that have multiple definitions and that by using a word differently than somebody else(in your case using a word strictly for statistics) does not make them dumber than you because you limit yourself in such a odd fashion.

I agree. I think "correlate" means the same thing in technical and non-technical usage however. E.g., height and weight of a human being are correlated. 5k, 10k and marathon PRs are correlated for individuals.

I guarantee you he'd run into the wall.

malmo wrote:

Amateur Lexicographer wrote:

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that 5k/10k/marathon times aren't correlated, or that the other guy was wrong for saying they weren't?

They aren't in the context you are referring.

In a broad sense they are correlated, but in a specific sense, no.

Just because runner A has run X and Y times in the 5k/10k in reality has no bearing on their marathon potential. Runners excel within a specific distance range that their bodies and mentality. Pre, a 3:54 miler, was a middle distance/distance guy, even more than Ritzenhein (whose best distances are 3k to 5k).

While I think that Pre could run in the 2:10-2:12 range, I don't feel that he would be near the marathoner that fellow Duck Ken Martin was.

They may not be strongly correlated for an individual but I'm sure they are correlated some. I'm sure Pre could have snuck under 2:20, and I am saying this just based on his 5k/10k PRs.

The whole thread is pointless.

Correlate that, dbags!

Spanker #1138 wrote:

The whole thread is pointless.

Correlate that, dbags!

Point: an objective or purpose to be reached or achieved.

The point of this thread is to entertain ourselves by discussing a hypothetical running related question.

Pre had the wrong mentality for the marathon.

shoe guy wrote:

and runn, what shoes are the "right shoes" you're referring to? Pre actually never got any serious injuries you should really look into it and do your research before you come to these conclusions

Pre DID have pretty serious sciatica that flared up now and then. Missed a good chunk of training because of it one year.

asfasfd wrote:

Pre DID have pretty serious sciatica that flared up now and then. Missed a good chunk of training because of it one year.

Which year? As far as I know Pre never had any serious injuries, and one bout of sciatica (if true) doesn't really qualify as "serious".

Agreed... sciatica was Pre's only problem and I'm pretty sure he just ran through it. He never got stress fractures, any surgeries, achilles problems, etc.

Anyway, I would hesitate to attribute your new 12oz pillows on your feet to keeping you healthy recently runn... just saying. Bill Rodgers ran 140 mpw in very simple shoes, as did Shorter and Pre.

I thought he did, in 'The Purple Runner.' The London Marathon.

we're 0-2 buddy. i tried on the first page.