Sub 15 5k or sub 2:30 marathon. Which is more impressive?

I ran 2h28 for the Marathon but never sub 15 for the 5k. In fact i was never close, PB of 15:25

I was at once probably at 2h25 Marathon shape but i dont think I ever got to sub 15 5k.

Around my peak I struggled to break 9 for the 3k, something I remember doing only once in a time trial, running 8.57 and collapsing after finishing

So i have to say, sub 15 5k by a significant margin.

The marathon does look more impressive to non-experienced runners. Averaging 17 km/h for 42 km sounds more impressive than 20 km/h for 5k - only if you dont know enough of long distance running.

IMO the marathon time. 5000 meters is run during cross country for high schoolers, with the top all being at least sub 15. Later on, it is a collegiate track distance and pretty competitive.

They don't have marathons in high school. They don't have them in college either (at least to my knowledge). It is mostly the runners who stick with it after school who are able to get a good time in the marathon. Thus, the marathon time of 2:30 is a testament to dedication.

highhoppingworm wrote:

I know the VDOT answer is the 5k but I think most people never recognize their VDOT potential at longer distances. So what time do you all find more impressive, a sub 15 5k or a sub 2:30 marathon?

I personally am more impressed with the marathon time but am wondering if I am in the minority.

That's why VDOTs exist. Don't get confused with VO2Max, which some people will not reach. That's why there are ranking systems to efforts.

If that doesn't solve it for you put it into an age graded ranking table for a 30 year old (aka no discount).

A 2:29:59 is 83.29%

A 14:59 is 84.42%

Which is more impressive to you now?

I also need to go with the 5k under 15. While I know marathoners under 2:30 who can’t sniff a sub 15, I also know many sub 15 guys who can’t get even close to sub 2:30.

I think the difference is that the guys who are sub 15 can up the mileage and get under 2:30 fairly easily, whereas many of the 2:28-2:29 guys who try to do that will have immense trouble. This is also a factor of age though of course.

Both are very impressive, but I say the sub 15 for sure

Sub-15 is more impressive.

Think of it using women’s times as well. Sub-15 is getting you Diamond League entries and puts you in contention to go to the Olympics/WCs. 2:30 is what, like top-50 in the US?

FWIW I have run under 2:20 and sub 15 is not easy without some specific training

Both are equally impressive but think this: running 4:50 pace for 3.1 miles or running 5:43 pace for 26.2 miles. I would say running 5:43 pace for 26.2 miles is way more impressive than running 4:50 pace for 3.1 miles.

Sub-15 to me. Just more of a special speed/strength combo than just pure endurance and training which you’ll see in many a sub 2:30 guy.

The 2.5 hr thon is a bit of an exercise in 1/2 measures. Many that run 2:28 should have gone for 2:22. It’s 5:45s. Anybody with time on their hands which should be time spent with you can roll bloody 5:45s for a morning worth of jogging. 15 is not done without talent or some amount of manning up. You lose points for the CA time tt sub 15 5k. That’s like a 15:20 in a real race. If’n you do it in CO or UT where there is not cheater air and dead still conditions it’s worthy.

They are close enough in VDOT terms to be about equal. Thus the marathon is more impressive because of the overall commitment required to run one all out (presuming all out is going to be just under 2:30)

It requires a longer term commitment of time, miles, learning about hydration/nutrition, pacing, etc. to run a fast marathon as opposed to a fast 5k. Also you can not run an all out marathon as often as you can test yourself by running an all out 5K. Good weather and a fast course are greater factors in the marathon but not as much in the 5k.

In the USA there is less incentive and opportunity to run a fast marathon in high school and college than there is to run a fast 5k. So it takes additional effort to go out and try for the fast marathon when younger.

I have PRs of 14:42 and 2:27. However my 5K was in college at the age of 22, and my marathon PR was at the age of 29. I was probably close to sub 15 at the age of 29, but I would have needed a competitive track meet to do it. I think as you get farther away from your early 20s, sub 15 gets harder. You can still pound out mileage long after college. I’d say both are close, but sub 15 is harder.

i would say the latter just because a majority of collegiate and quite a few high schoolers can quite easily throw down a sub 15. a lot of sub 230 marathoners are normal dudes with a job, kids and responsibilities (and possibly no high level coaching). if you ask the 32 year old sub 230 guy...he might say sub 15, but that would only be because he never ran in college or maybe even high school and its much harder to develop that high end speed at an advanced age.

Sub-15 for sure, having hit both over the years but rarely in shape for either.

a regular guy wrote:

The marathon does look more impressive to non-experienced runners. Averaging 17 km/h for 42 km sounds more impressive than 20 km/h for 5k - only if you dont know enough of long distance running.

That sums it up nicely.

a regular guy wrote:

I ran 2h28 for the Marathon but never sub 15 for the 5k. In fact i was never close, PB of 15:25

I was at once probably at 2h25 Marathon shape but i dont think I ever got to sub 15 5k.

Around my peak I struggled to break 9 for the 3k, something I remember doing only once in a time trial, running 8.57 and collapsing after finishing

So i have to say, sub 15 5k by a significant margin.

The marathon does look more impressive to non-experienced runners. Averaging 17 km/h for 42 km sounds more impressive than 20 km/h for 5k - only if you dont know enough of long distance running.

Similar

I ran 2:29 but was nowhere near 15 min for 5k, similar to a few other posters.

I don't think I could even hold 3 min for 5x1km reps.

I ran a 2,35 marathon with a 16,25 5k PB. I know several runners who has run sub 2,30 and hasn´t been close to sub-15. Any runner who can run sub-15 and devote 4-5 months of marathon training should easily be able to run sub-2,30.

In the age of super shoes easily sub 15 5km. I can just run under 15 for 5km, but 2:16 for a marathon now. BOING BOING BOING

5k for sure.

I went for both as a masters runner with specific training and hit neither, but the sub-2:30 marathon was a reasonable goal while the sub-15:00 was a long shot (I made it through 3000m on pace before the wheels came off and I went 15:22).

And that’s coming from a guy whose best distance as historically the 5000m.