Which American-born runner has the fastest combined mile and marathon PRs?

Why not just do the rankings based on their lowest combined standings in the mile and marathon?

I could see your method if they ran them both in the same day. But top milers are fastest in track season while marathoners tend to run their fastest non-aided times in the fall and winter.

At least lets see who was the best when they were actually training for it.

Sagarin wrote:

Can't find Ken Martin's 1500/mile PR.

Ken Martin USA 3:57.84

As best as I can tell, he and Culpepper are the only two Americans with a sub 4 mile and a sub 2:10 marathon.

Note: before anyone goes down the usual path, a sub 4 mile is actually running a verifiable 1 mile race in competition faster than 4 minutes. It does not include metric "equivalents," stories of a fast practice times, people who probably could have done it, etc.

Sorry, Greg Meyer is also sub 4 and sub 2:10.

Homeruns.

My guess Llyod and Paul Waner.

mcgato wrote:

Sagarin wrote:

Can't find Ken Martin's 1500/mile PR.

Ken Martin USA 3:57.84

As best as I can tell, he and Culpepper are the only two Americans with a sub 4 mile and a sub 2:10 marathon.

Note: before anyone goes down the usual path, a sub 4 mile is actually running a verifiable 1 mile race in competition faster than 4 minutes. It does not include metric "equivalents," stories of a fast practice times, people who probably could have done it, etc.

Yep, that's what I think, so Culpepper wins, even though Martin's PR was, arguably, on a tougher course, as was Dixon's.

I think the best metric would be to add up their IAAF scoring totals for each event.

Fair enough, but we could throw steeple, 5,000, and 10,000 times in there too. I simply wanted to know who the fastest American miler was that moved to the marathon and ran the fastest there as well, though I didn't phrase it that way. The mile and marathon are such different events that excellence in both is obviously quite rare. So no American has gone sub-3:55 and sub-2:10, though Culpepper was close.

Paul Cummings 3:37 (indoor AR) and 2:11:32.

Arturo Barrios 3:35 and 2:11:43. Not sure if he was a US citizen for both.

Salazar ran a 4:01 mile.

Sagarin wrote:

Fair enough, but we could throw steeple, 5,000, and 10,000 times in there too.

Why? That's not the thread topic.

Why not compare IAAF scoring points? It seems to be a much better way of evaluating the two events than adding times together, doesn't it?

Actually, yes, but it's not really what I'm looking for. Part of the problem is that a 2:09 at NYC is probably vastly different than a 2:09 at Chicago, so it's difficult to get a fair comparison. And I don't know how you correct for that. Was Martin's time worth a minute faster?

If you compare IAAF points, then Culpepper has the slightest of advantages (using Hall's London marathon as PR), but they are basically equivalent.

Data:

hall 1500 = 1071 (3.42.70 1500)

marathon (2:06:17) = 1229

total = 2300

culpepper mile = 1136 (3.55.1 mile)

marathon = 1168

total = 2304

Obviously Hall's Boston time puts him well ahead. In fact, he only needs to shave a few seconds off his PR to be ahead.

To be more specific, a 2:06:02 puts Hall ahead of Culpepper based on the IAAF metric.

Assuming, of course, that neither runner lowers their 1500/mile PR any time soon.

Sagarin wrote:

Actually, yes, but it's not really what I'm looking for. Part of the problem is that a 2:09 at NYC is probably vastly different than a 2:09 at Chicago, so it's difficult to get a fair comparison. And I don't know how you correct for that. Was Martin's time worth a minute faster?

You're thinking way too much. You can't "correct" times. Thye are what they are.

malmo wrote:

...

Why not compare IAAF scoring points? It seems to be a much better way of evaluating the two events than adding times together, doesn't it?

Agreed.

One of the problems with adding the times is that this favors marathoners since the marathon mile pace will be roughly 25% higher than the actual mile pace. You'd get a better comparison by multiplying the two times.

Better still, use the IAAF scoring tables.

So Hall really is a 2:04 marathoner.

Actually, I would be fine with Hall if he would've followed through on his commitment to break 4:00 in the mile. He probably had 3:55 capability.

Sagarin wrote:

So Hall really is a 2:04 marathoner.

????

percent calculator wrote:

If you compare IAAF points, then Culpepper has the slightest of advantages (using Hall's London marathon as PR), but they are basically equivalent.

Data:

hall 1500 = 1071 (3.42.70 1500)

marathon (2:06:17) = 1229

total = 2300

culpepper mile = 1136 (3.55.1 mile)

marathon = 1168

total = 2304

Obviously Hall's Boston time puts him well ahead. In fact, he only needs to shave a few seconds off his PR to be ahead.

So let's declare Hall the winner. What I was really looking for were athletes that had both broken 4:00 (preferably closer to 3:55) and 2:10, though I din't state it. But so few exist (two?), that using the IAAF tables are probably the best way to go. Hall surely could've broken 4:00. Amazing how close he and Culpepper are in points.

mcgato wrote:

[quote]Sagarin wrote:

Can't find Ken Martin's 1500/mile PR.

Ken Martin USA 3:57.84

As best as I can tell, he and Culpepper are the only two Americans with a sub 4 mile and a sub 2:10 marathon.

[quote]

Greg Meyer sub 4 indoor/ 2:09 flat

Sagarin wrote:

percent calculator wrote:

If you compare IAAF points, then Culpepper has the slightest of advantages (using Hall's London marathon as PR), but they are basically equivalent.

Data:

hall 1500 = 1071 (3.42.70 1500)

marathon (2:06:17) = 1229

total = 2300

culpepper mile = 1136 (3.55.1 mile)

marathon = 1168

total = 2304

Obviously Hall's Boston time puts him well ahead. In fact, he only needs to shave a few seconds off his PR to be ahead.

So let's declare Hall the winner. What I was really looking for were athletes that had both broken 4:00 (preferably closer to 3:55) and 2:10, though I din't state it. But so few exist (two?), that using the IAAF tables are probably the best way to go. Hall surely could've broken 4:00. Amazing how close he and Culpepper are in points.

Culpepper comes out ahead using the only scoring system that makes sense and the only legitimate times available. Therefore let's declare Hall the winner.

I love your logic.