How good is a 2:30 marathon really?

web reader wrote:

Sub240 wrote:

A 2:30 marathon is far more impressive than a 4:30mile.

McMillan calculates a 2:30 as a 4:26.5 mile.

It won't come out well, but,

Your Equivalent Performances

Event

Time

Pace/Mi

Pace/Km

100m

13.1

-

-

200m

26.2

-

-

400m

54.7

-

-

500m

1:11.4

-

-

800m

2:00.2

-

-

1000m

2:37.0

-

2:37.0

1500m

4:07.5

-

2:45.0

Mile

4:26.5

4:26.5

2:45.6

2000m

5:37.9

4:31.8

2:48.9

3000m

8:49.4

4:44.0

2:56.5

2 Miles

9:28.7

4:44.3

2:56.7

4000m

12:03.3

4:51.0

3:00.8

3 Miles

14:50

4:57

3:04

5000m

15:23

4:57

3:05

4 Miles

20:08

5:02

3:08

8000m

25:22

5:06

3:10

5 Miles

25:30

5:06

3:10

10km

31:58

5:08

3:11

15km

49:32

5:19

3:18

10 Miles

53:33

5:21

3:20

20km

1:07:24

5:26

3:23

1/2 Mara

1:11:07

5:26

3:23

15 Miles

1:22:02

5:28

3:24

25km

1:25:37

5:31

3:26

30km

1:44:08

5:35

3:28

20 Miles

1:52:37

5:38

3:30

25 Miles

2:21:58

5:40

3:31

Marathon

2:30:00

5:44

3:34

Nutella1 wrote:

I'd also like to see a list of people who have run sub4:30 for the mile vs. sub2:30 for the Marathon. Probably a 10:1 ratio.

I doubt that is quite true, but even if it is, what does it prove?? That talented runners often don't move up to the marathon to batter their legs to "just" run a 2:30.

I bet the ratio of runners that have run a 2:30 marathon is 10:1 vs, let's say the # of runners who have run a 100 mile race in.... (I don't know, pick a mediocre time). SO I guess, by your logic, a 2:30 is "easier," and "less impressive", than the mediocre 100 miler, right?

This is actually why lots of runner move up in distance, because they know they don't have talent or ability to run anything impressive at lower distances, so they move up where less and less talented people are willing to race, and by process of elimination, they become "more impressive" (i.e., less competition).

If you ARE willing to put in the miles, and ARE durable (don't get injured, which is a talent itself), than a 2:30 is certinaly no more impressive than a 4:30 mile. I've know several 2:30 marathoners that fit that description, who had zero speed, and couldn't have broken 4:30 in the mile if they spent their life shooting for it. So for some, a 4:30 mile is "harder", and for some, a 2:30 marathon is.

Something like 100 kenyans have broken 2:10 in the marathon in last year or so, so that oughta tell you something about 2:30, and that is: if you are a natural distance runner, it is still certainly an impressive time vs the general population, but nothing out of this world. Just like a 4:30 mile: again, impressive, takes some talent and hard work and is much better than most people could ever hope for, but not out of this world.

Nutella1 wrote:

I'd also like to see a list of people who have run sub4:30 for the mile vs. sub2:30 for the Marathon. Probably a 10:1 ratio.

I think it'd be a better ratio than that. It depends on what exactly you're asking though. If you're asking how many people have done both...at any point in their life, then yeah, lots of people have done that. However, if you're asking how many could run a sub-4:30 mile while in sub-2:30 shape...that's a different story. That's where that ratio might be correct.

FWIW, I ran a 4:26 mile at age 19, and a 2:29 marathon last month (age 25). If you asked me run an all-out mile right now, I know I couldn't break 4:30.

Considering Bekele has never run a 2:30 marathon i'd say its pretty good.

I ran 4:06.9 in college and I am currently struggling in training to achieve a 2:30 marathon. I feel like that says something about the marathon. At least for me.

In 1972 it was a good enough barrier to get a runner in the marathon trials.

Actually 2:29:59

The runners I knew, who broke it were in the top 1% of runners based on stats available atbthat time.

Runners who break it now are probably even ranked higher. Elite? No.

But pretty damn good.