If I ran a 3:42 1500 can I tell people I’m a sub -4 miler?

I ran sub-4 on a downhill course at altitude. Try explaining that one easily...

A bit of a stretch wrote:

The days are over when I could try again. The races I did at the time were almost all 1500m with the exception of some indoor mile races (which may have been 1600 for all I know) at which I ran a best of 401.

So I’m left with this 1500 but the rest of the world asks about the mile.

Yes you are.

You are not a sub 4 minute miler. Funny how it didn't seem to matter to you back then, but does now. Explore that thoguth. Maybe you weren't a sub 4 guy back then either?

And 1600 is not a mile. Its another 1.5 seconds short.

This is what you get when you never go for it.

Regerts. Yes Regerts.

A bit of a stretch wrote:

Is there any 1500 time that allows for this particular boast?

If you ran 3:42 flat for 1500 then perhaps you can.

If you ran say 3:33 flat for 1500, then who could possibly deny you are a sub 4 miler?

some random sub 4 guy wrote:

If he ran 4:50 for 2k, he most certainly has run a mile under 4 minutes.

What if his lap splits were:

46, 66, 66, 66, 46

Then his first and last 1600s were 4:04, his middle 1600 was 4:04, and he never broke 4:00.

far too much time on your hands guys!!!!

sillyman wrote:

A bit of a stretch wrote:

The days are over when I could try again. The races I did at the time were almost all 1500m with the exception of some indoor mile races (which may have been 1600 for all I know) at which I ran a best of 401.

So I’m left with this 1500 but the rest of the world asks about the mile.

Yes you are.

You are not a sub 4 minute miler. Funny how it didn't seem to matter to you back then, but does now. Explore that thoguth. Maybe you weren't a sub 4 guy back then either?

And 1600 is not a mile. Its another 1.5 seconds short.

This is what you get when you never go for it.

Regerts. Yes Regerts.

The 1600 is the more interesting question to me; as someone who's somewhat traditional, I think the answer on the 1500/mile is "no" regardless of what the time you ran.

Maybe it's just because we ran the 1600 exclusively in HS, but I refer to that as my mile time, without the 9 meter disclaimer. I think if you got comfortably under 4 in the 1600, you'd be justified in saying you were a 4 minute miler. But I guess that's totally hypothetical for all but a few people as the 1600 doesn't seem to be run outside of high schools.

Sorry but 1500 is not a mile. The 3k is not 2 miles. The 8k is not 10k. It goes the other direction also. Some races set up 1500 FAT enroute to a mile. Otherwise the runners can't get a 1500 time even if they are overly conservative.

Sub 3:42 yes.

I want to start a thread "slowest person over 800m to run a sub 4 minute mile"

I knew someone who could only do 1:53/54 but did 3:58.

NMNM wrote:

Ford Palmer once ran the only perfect 4 minute mile, going 4:00.000, but that is still not a sub-4.

If the timing system says you ran 4:00.000 then in reality Ford ran somewhere between 3:59.9991 and 4:00.0000 so there is a 90% chance he broke 4 minutes. Timing systems round up.

Fortunately for Ford (lol) he has broken 4 and doesn't need to worry about the 4 flat.

Hardloper wrote:

What's wrong with being a 4:01 miler? Most people will assume you could have broken 4 anyway

Nothing is wrong with being a 4:01 miler. But 4:01 is not 3:59. Don't run 4:01 and claim 3:59.

klodo wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

What's wrong with being a 4:01 miler? Most people will assume you could have broken 4 anyway

Nothing is wrong with being a 4:01 miler. But 4:01 is not 3:59. Don't run 4:01 and claim 3:59.

nothings "wrong" with being a 4:01 miler. it isnt against the law to run 401, but sub IS better. Things are better.

sdfasdafsfds wrote:

some random sub 4 guy wrote:

If he ran 4:50 for 2k, he most certainly has run a mile under 4 minutes.

What if his lap splits were:

46, 66, 66, 66, 46

Then his first and last 1600s were 4:04, his middle 1600 was 4:04, and he never broke 4:00.

But those weren’t his splits... he ran the first mile under 4.

Ok, here's one for you: at 43, I ran a mile indoor race. My watch read 4:59.89 at the finish. My daughter who was right on the line hand timed me at 4:59.86. Both of those watches round to 4:59.9. However, my FAT was 5:00.21.

Can I claim to have run sub 5?

Old Man Here wrote:

Ok, here's one for you: at 43, I ran a mile indoor race. My watch read 4:59.89 at the finish. My daughter who was right on the line hand timed me at 4:59.86. Both of those watches round to 4:59.9. However, my FAT was 5:00.21.

Can I claim to have run sub 5?

Oh, hell, that would piss me off. The situation, not you saying you're sub-5.

You can tell people you're a giraffe if you want to, but if you haven't run an actual sub-4 mile, then you're not a sub-4 miler, period.

Of course you can tell people you are a sub-4 miler. It's called lying. Welcome to Letsrun!

I ran 3:45 for 1500. When people ask what my mile time is I say 4:03 because it's easier to say 4:03 than to explain what a 1500 is and what the conversion to the mile would be.

Old Man Here wrote:

Ok, here's one for you: at 43, I ran a mile indoor race. My watch read 4:59.89 at the finish. My daughter who was right on the line hand timed me at 4:59.86. Both of those watches round to 4:59.9. However, my FAT was 5:00.21.

Can I claim to have run sub 5?

Yes. 2 of 3 witnesses with modern timing equipment confirm it.

That said- one of my closest friends is usually within 1/100 of FAT timing when he hand times 100 and 200m races. We call him Dr Jason Accutrack. In your case, Dr J would call you a sub 5 miler.

OP, take it with a grain of salt: you're definitely in Sub 4 mile shape, but until you have a clock that says so, you have not run under 4 minutes for 1 mile.

{once upon a time in 2002, I ran under 10 minutes for a steeplechase, which was a PR and first time under 10. My hip number came off, and it didn't correlate on the race results. My teammates and coach had me at 9:48, and it was videotaped--yes TAPED! I know I ran what I ran, but to this day, the race results do not show it. Don Chadez's FlashresultsWest did not count me as a finisher, let alone a sub 10 Steepler. I don't know why, but 16 years later it still bugs me! So yes, most of us runners have results that exist, but at the same time, do not exist.}

A bit of a stretch wrote:

Is there any 1500 time that allows for this particular boast?

No, you have to ACTUALLY run the mile in less than 4, very simple. Your idea will make a bunch of 2:07-2:10 marathoners claiming to be 2:04-2:05 guys. Get real.