if he is actually 48 low out of the blocks, FAT, then not only is he a better talent, there is also some chance he could be faster than 14:40 if he decided to make that his thing.
48 is better, but if you are talking about times from 40 years ago, then they are closer than they are today. Shoes, tracks, and training technology (watches, heart rate and heart variability monitors) and training knowledge have helps distance running far more than sprinting.
So if you are 50-60 year olds talking about the old days, then you are pretty close. If you are recent college grads, then your friend is better, but you are both still pretty good. It's not easy to run 14:40. Even with all the advantages you have today. It requires some talent and training.
And the post about breaking 2:40 in a marathon...give me a break. All you need to break 2:40 is maybe 15:45 talent. If that.
if he is actually 48 low out of the blocks, FAT, then not only is he a better talent, there is also some chance he could be faster than 14:40 if he decided to make that his thing.
Hogwash. I've know plenty of 48 runners who struggled to break 6:00 in a mile. Yea, with training they could get down to 5:00, but they wouldn't be 48 any more.
Now a 800 meter runner who can run 48...then yea, they could probably run 14:40, but not many 200-400 types. No matter how much they make it their thing. It's easier for a natural middle distance guy to run 48 than a natural sprinter to run anything under 15.
if he is actually 48 low out of the blocks, FAT, then not only is he a better talent, there is also some chance he could be faster than 14:40 if he decided to make that his thing.
Hogwash. I've know plenty of 48 runners who struggled to break 6:00 in a mile. Yea, with training they could get down to 5:00, but they wouldn't be 48 any more.
Now a 800 meter runner who can run 48...then yea, they could probably run 14:40, but not many 200-400 types. No matter how much they make it their thing. It's easier for a natural middle distance guy to run 48 than a natural sprinter to run anything under 15.
I think that's all covered by the part where I said "there is some chance"
you are absolutely correct. i agree with everything in your second paragraph.
If you guys were in high school when you ran those times, I’d definitely go with the 14:40. Otherwise, probably the 48 low, especially if we’re looking at it in terms of the times elite women run
The 48-low is more impressive, I think that's been well established, but let's not act like 2-3 seconds in a 400m is "right there" with world-class times lmao
Does saying "48 low" mean the guy doesn't remember his actual time? The timers were lazy that day and wrote down "around 48"? He ran so many stellar quarters that he just gal-darn lost track of his actual best time?
Or is it supposed to sound cool to say "such-and-such time low"? If that's the case, why? Does it imply a certain casualness..."I'm so into track that I don't need to use precise language like one of the masses, just throw around general numbers for those in the know"? Are you are so in tune with running that there is a significantly measurable difference between "low" and "high" to mark the general memory of one's talent, but it is not worth your energy to state the actual tenths of a second?
Just wondering.
More likely the guy said something like 48.16 and the OP doesn't remember exactly what it was, but registered 48-low in his head when he heard it.
Initially I really thought they were about even, but the more I think about the more I think he might have been better. That sucks, but I need to know!
If he was better, what marathon time would I need to run to be better than he was? I don't even dislike the guy, nice dude, but I can't not be the fastest in the office.
"Better" is a very subjective term, but according to the World Athletics tables, 48.20 is worth 968 points whereas 14:40 is worth 871 points.
If you guys were in high school when you ran those times, I’d definitely go with the 14:40. Otherwise, probably the 48 low, especially if we’re looking at it in terms of the times elite women run
Definitely this. I know some of this has changed with spikes but typically there used to be way more 48. 400 guys than 14:40 guys. If you ran 14:40 when you were 22 or something, not as impressive.
This is an underrated comment. There are roughly 50 or so women currently in ~14:40 shape or better. For a woman to even be thinking of medaling in a global championship these days it takes being in ~14:10 shape, and any woman capable of 14:10 is certainly capapable of casually running a 14:40. A 48 low for a woman is most likely getting them gold in any global championship.
The real question is how you're going to convince your co-worker to move up in distance and see what he can do at 800/1500 with that 48 low speed.
This. If you really want to settle it, you've got to go head to head in an 800 m. But to do that, you'll also have to reveal yourself as so insecure that you derive self-worth from being the fastest guy in the office (which is presumably mostly comprised of people who really don't give a crap about how fast people run). If you're lucky, he's similarly insecure and will take up the challenge. If he's a well-adjusted person, he might just laugh at you and tell everyone else in the office how much of an idiot you are.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.