You can think whatever you want, you are pretty much wrong. Look at the PRs of most 2:14 guys. Most of them are 4:05-4:12 milers who happen to have great endurance.As far as living on a 2:14, it isn't going to be a great lifestyle.
@$$Man wrote:
As a sidenote, I think that a sub-2:14 guy can train effectively and reach a sub-4 mile sooner than a sub-4 guy can reach a sub 2:14.
2:14 would get me to the Olympics - so I choose that.
I would go for sub 4 because I never had the leg speed to do it. Whatever, training I had done I could never get close. At least with 2:14 there was some slim possibility that I could have done it with enough training
Sub-4:00.
From a 2:15 guy.
Consider this:
3:54 (converted from 1500m) is USA Olympic Trials qualifier
2:20 is USA Olympic Trials qualifier
With this being said, 2:14 is better, but running sub 4 is something special as well and more people can relate to running that fast. No idea that 2:14 is 26.2 miles at 5:06
Personally, I feel the 2:14 is more impressive.
JMS wrote:
I'm surprised at how many responses are based on how others will perceive you as "fast". I guess that is why some people run.
------------------------------------
Yes, nearly all people care a great deal about how other people perceive them. If it's not running, then it's something else. Almost everyone who goes out and run as hard as they can for 26.2 miles or a quick mile has put some weight on other people's opinion of them. Why are you trying to finish the thing? Why do you want to go fast and faster and faster? You do so, in part, to impress other people. So what? Why are other people impressed?
Part of your satisfaction is in knowing that you have done something difficult. Because it's difficult, few people will or can do it. And if few people can do it, that makes you special...or dare I say it...better than others...at least at this thing. It feels good to be good!
...the sub-4:00 mile! That feat takes speed, strength and endurance. I've seen many runner's 'muscle' a 2:14 marathon, but few have done so in a sub 4:00mile...'speed', as like in 'Bolt', either you got it or you don't!
None of the top seven Americans all-time at 10000m has broken four for the mile. Meb, Abdi, Nenow, Ritz, Salazar, Virgin, Williams. Would any of these guys have a problem with 2:14 on his best day? Radcliffe ran 2:15; I don't see her threatening four.
yogi wrote:
None of the top seven Americans all-time at 10000m has broken four for the mile. Meb, Abdi, Nenow, Ritz, Salazar, Virgin, Williams.
-----------------------------------------------------------
That's interesting. But perhaps they did not care that much about the mile? However, I would definitely perfer the 2:10, 09, 08 over a 3:59 mile.
I thought this would be an easy question...but no. At first, I thought the sub 4 of course. But I could win some big marathons with that 2:14, which would include some cash and standing before those who love running, on the podium...maybe often?
The sub 4 is cool and I could be a contender at some top track races...if invited. Hey, that might yield some cash too.
I don't care, I'll take either one!!
3:59 is roughly the auto qualifing time for D1 NCAAs. In the world scene, 3:59 would not put you at the top of any finishing results. 2:14 would give you the win in a lot of big city marathons.
running the streets wrote:
Personally, I feel the 2:14 is more impressive.
Having never run as slow as 2:14, or as fast as sub 4:00, I'd go with the sub 4:00 mile.
I have run 2:18 for the marathon and 4:18 for the mile. I know that if I ran more than 75 miles per week that I could get under 2:14. I know that I could never run sub 4 no matter what I did. So I would pick sub 4.
Despite being a distance guy my whole life, I'd have to say sub-4.
Like others have said, since you are first exposed to running, the "4 minute mile" is one of those landmarks that gets into your mind. Until the OP's question, I had never thought specifically about a "2:14" marathon.
JMS wrote:
I'm surprised at how many responses are based on how others will perceive you as "fast". I guess that is why some people run.
I'm much more surprised as to the number of responses that are based on how much money they could make.
I would chose sub-4 not because it would impress other people, but because of the legacy surronding the event. Even if it is not a common distance and 3:59 is not that impressive nowdays, it is the one time that from when i started running has been the ultimate barrier.
JMS wrote:
I'm much more surprised as to the number of responses that are based on how much money they could make.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the money does not matter as much to me as you might think, but it IS an indicator of suscess. And all us runners long to be suscessful. There was a time when I won awards at nearly every race I was in. At some point back then, I had the feeling that awards meant very little to me? However, as years pasted and my power declined, the awards also declined. It was then that I realized that I liked getting awards. They were an indicator of suscess at running. Is that bad?
It may have been posted already, but a sub-4:00 guy is capable of a sub-2:14 with the proper training, but the reverse is not true in many cases. There's the answer.
I can just imagine telling the average non-runner that I have just run a sub 2:14 marathon and having them respond, "you finished a marathon! That's great! Did you have to walk at all or did you run the whole thing?"