Head says sub 27
Heart says sub 4
Head says sub 27
Heart says sub 4
I'd rather split a sub-4 on my way to a sub-27.
My choice is the sub-27 10k
A better question would be sub 28 or sub 4. Which would you choose?
As I asserted, it is not possible, as humans are currently constructed, to be capable of breaking 27 but not break 4. However I suppose some runners could run 27:59, for example, and not be able to break 4.
In case one may misunderstand, one can obviously run 26:59 and not break 4, but the ability to break 4 is present even if it is not pursued.
Sub 27= serious medal threat, multi time US champion, top sponsorship from shoe contracts, competitive range at any distance, likely a very lucrative marathon career, and if most of that pans out, a cushy retirement, coaching offers, and a book deal for your memoirs
Sub4 = might make NCAA indoors...maybe
Idiot wrote:
A better question would be sub 28 or sub 4. Which would you choose?
As I asserted, it is not possible, as humans are currently constructed, to be capable of breaking 27 but not break 4. However I suppose some runners could run 27:59, for example, and not be able to break 4.
I don’t think you people know the literal meaning of possible... sub 27 is 65s, Sub 4 is 59s. If someone was completely endurance based and had very little speed, there is the POSSIBILITY that they could go sub 27 and not sub 4. It is 100% possible but very very unlikely. But it still is within the realm of possibility
Bill Oregon wrote:
Idiot wrote:
A better question would be sub 28 or sub 4. Which would you choose?
As I asserted, it is not possible, as humans are currently constructed, to be capable of breaking 27 but not break 4. However I suppose some runners could run 27:59, for example, and not be able to break 4.
I don’t think you people know the literal meaning of possible... sub 27 is 65s, Sub 4 is 59s. If someone was completely endurance based and had very little speed, there is the POSSIBILITY that they could go sub 27 and not sub 4. It is 100% possible but very very unlikely. But it still is within the realm of possibility
This is why I stopped posting here and am going to stop again. As somebody who is significantly smarter than most posters here, including you, it is a squandering of my time. You do not understand human physiology. Anybody who breaks 27 is endurance based. Also 65 second laps give you 27:05, for the record. It is not POSSIBLE to break 27and not be able to break 4. It means that you can run 13:30 and 13:29.99 back to back. You cannot do that unless you can run 13:10. You cannot run 13:10 unless you can break 4. This is obvious. Educate yourself.
Idiot wrote:
Bill Oregon wrote:
I don’t think you people know the literal meaning of possible... sub 27 is 65s, Sub 4 is 59s. If someone was completely endurance based and had very little speed, there is the POSSIBILITY that they could go sub 27 and not sub 4. It is 100% possible but very very unlikely. But it still is within the realm of possibility
This is why I stopped posting here and am going to stop again. As somebody who is significantly smarter than most posters here, including you, it is a squandering of my time. You do not understand human physiology. Anybody who breaks 27 is endurance based. Also 65 second laps give you 27:05, for the record. It is not POSSIBLE to break 27and not be able to break 4. It means that you can run 13:30 and 13:29.99 back to back. You cannot do that unless you can run 13:10. You cannot run 13:10 unless you can break 4. This is obvious. Educate yourself.
Ahmad Hassan Abdullah
Idiot wrote:
Bill Oregon wrote:
I don’t think you people know the literal meaning of possible... sub 27 is 65s, Sub 4 is 59s. If someone was completely endurance based and had very little speed, there is the POSSIBILITY that they could go sub 27 and not sub 4. It is 100% possible but very very unlikely. But it still is within the realm of possibility
This is why I stopped posting here and am going to stop again. As somebody who is significantly smarter than most posters here, including you, it is a squandering of my time. You do not understand human physiology. Anybody who breaks 27 is endurance based. Also 65 second laps give you 27:05, for the record. It is not POSSIBLE to break 27and not be able to break 4. It means that you can run 13:30 and 13:29.99 back to back. You cannot do that unless you can run 13:10. You cannot run 13:10 unless you can break 4. This is obvious. Educate yourself.
Bernard Kiprop Kipyego
Bill Oregon wrote:
Idiot wrote:
This is why I stopped posting here and am going to stop again. As somebody who is significantly smarter than most posters here, including you, it is a squandering of my time. You do not understand human physiology. Anybody who breaks 27 is endurance based. Also 65 second laps give you 27:05, for the record. It is not POSSIBLE to break 27and not be able to break 4. It means that you can run 13:30 and 13:29.99 back to back. You cannot do that unless you can run 13:10. You cannot run 13:10 unless you can break 4. This is obvious. Educate yourself.
Bernard Kiprop Kipyego
Sorry I’m not on your level of “intelligence”
Sub 4 might not even get you to Nationals in the US. Sub 27 will guarantee you olympic teams (-Kenya & Ethopia) and likely finals.
Having come very close to the sub-4 (and tragically far from the sub-27), the only difference for me with the mile would be that I could say "I ran a 4-minute mile" vs. "I ran a sub-4 minute mile".
The sub 27 would have changed a lot more in my life and allowed me to make running a career.
Definitely sub 27.
Star wrote:
58 people have run sub 27, not 113
1) not related to the quote above: i always laugh when someone tries to "correct" someone's hypothetical posit. it's hypothetical for a reason, and the original poster makes it clear that the 10k is more impressive, and why he chose two imbalanced marks. oh well...
2) i'd take the mile. everyone knows that all 58 dudes who broke 27 were on drugs, and i've been led to believe that it's quite possible that 4910 of the 4911 may have been on drugs as well. i'll take the mark where i know at least one clean dude has done it...
that's my story and i'm sticking to it,
cush
socal cush wrote:
2) i'd take the mile. everyone knows that all 58 dudes who broke 27 were on drugs, and i've been led to believe that it's quite possible that 4910 of the 4911 may have been on drugs as well.
... quite possible that 4910 of the 4911 of the dudes who broke 4 in the mile, that is...
sorry,
cush
Bill Oregon wrote:
My friend and I were discussing which one we would rather do if we could only have 1. The 10k is much more impressive among runners but the mile is much more impressive among the general public. I choose 10k, you guys?
You and your friend should find a nice tall tree and one will climb the tree while the other cuts it down. First one to accomplish task wins.
By the way, your friend climbing the tree would be the one representing those that believe a sub-4 minute mile is in anywayhow remotely close to being as good as running sub 27.
Bill Oregon wrote:
Bill Oregon wrote:
Bernard Kiprop Kipyego
Sorry I’m not on your level of “intelligence”
Sorry I'm not on any level of "intelligence"
I think you can make more money as a runner with a sub 27.
I know a sub 4 guy (3:58) who got $4000.00 a year from Nike and couldn't make enough in prize and appearance money to make a living.
Star wrote:
Logical choice wrote:
I would take sub 27 because then I could get the sub four as well.
Yes
Pretty sure every man who ran sub 27 either has or could run sub 4.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I'll take both for 200, Alex.
Bill Oregon wrote:
Idiot wrote:
This is why I stopped posting here and am going to stop again. As somebody who is significantly smarter than most posters here, including you, it is a squandering of my time. You do not understand human physiology. Anybody who breaks 27 is endurance based. Also 65 second laps give you 27:05, for the record. It is not POSSIBLE to break 27and not be able to break 4. It means that you can run 13:30 and 13:29.99 back to back. You cannot do that unless you can run 13:10. You cannot run 13:10 unless you can break 4. This is obvious. Educate yourself.
Ahmad Hassan Abdullah
Are you thick? He's run 12:56.
Do you have any idea of the level of running ability required to break 13?
Sub 4 in the mile is not even a standard amongst elite athletes with the ability to break 13. That's a joke.
They can and do routinely close 5k and 10k races with low 4 minute miles in fast races. Faster in slow races.
The more I read this site the more I realise hardly anyone knows anything about running here. Probably why half the threads have nothing to do with athletics.