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

None, nothing extraordinary about it. I did both, I was a mere mortal 38 years ago, and still are a mere mortal.

I am more impressed by a sub-2:30, but that’s because I ran collegiately and was immersed with sub-15:00 guys for 5 years. If I see a sub-2:30 guy he’s the “local legend” type who wins all the local road races.

early1980's wrote:

None, nothing extraordinary about it. I did both, I was a mere mortal 38 years ago, and still are a mere mortal.

None, nothing extraordinary about it. I did both(2:25:44 and 14:25) I was a mere mortal 38- 44 years ago, and still are a mere mortal

It is obviously very dependent on the individual runner and where their specific talents lie. It's real easy to look at the race conversions and conclude you can run a specific marathon time. But it's more difficult to approach your peak physical performance in the 5K than marathon.

I think it easy to assume that a marathon build-up and race will be completely successful. It is much easier to get injured marathon training. There are fewer opportunities for a good marathon race in good conditions, particularly if you don't do like the elites and bail by mile 20 if you are not going to have a good race. It's much easier in the 5K to say, "I had a bad race", "conditions were bad", etc. and try again next week.

Wowzers wrote:

It is obviously very dependent on the individual runner and where their specific talents lie. It's real easy to look at the race conversions and conclude you can run a specific marathon time. But it's more difficult to approach your peak physical performance in the 5K than marathon.

I think it easy to assume that a marathon build-up and race will be completely successful. It is much easier to get injured marathon training. There are fewer opportunities for a good marathon race in good conditions, particularly if you don't do like the elites and bail by mile 20 if you are not going to have a good race. It's much easier in the 5K to say, "I had a bad race", "conditions were bad", etc. and try again next week.

*swapped that, more difficult to approach your peak physical performance in the marathon than the 5K

While I agree that maxing out your fitness is tougher in the marathon than in the 5000m, I think the sub 15:00 effort is nonetheless more impressive as it is indicative of more talent.

For the record, I’ve maxed out my fitness in the 5000m, but not the marathon and I think it’s harder to execute a marathon training cycle all the way through a positive race day outcome. But that wasn’t the question.

I think the 5k. Fewer people do it legitimately than you'd expect.

2:30 just involves a good training buildup for someone talented and in shape.

Work Commute Track Club wrote:

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

How much do they help for stuff like this?

If you can run 5:50 for an hour comfortably, would the shoes carry you with a bit of volume training? Say, an 18-mile training effort at pace is realistic.

I ran 2:27 two years ago (with vaporflys for reference), but in the marathon build up managed a 10k race two days after a 30k long run in 32:30 (16:05 for the 5k with some old and pretty heavy Mizuno racing flats from 10 years ago).

I would say that the sub 2:30 is harder and more impressive (but have never personally raced a track 5k). The marathon still requires a large degree of speed to run at that pace for such a long time.

Also how many opportunities do you get to run a marathon in comparison to a 5k? Maybe two a year if you want to run well. If you are running track, you can run half a dozen in a season. A marathon is, well, a marathon! You have to plan so much and make sure everything is right to get the best times and your chances to run are few and far between. Both are great achievements though, but the sun 2:30 takes the cake for me

This thread is about me. I struggled to break both barriers for years, but eventually did.

One big factor and difference between the two is the number of opportunities. One year I ran 15:10 and three weeks later I ran 14:58. That's something that is impossible in the marathon. For my marathon, I needed several months of preparation, peaking at about 100mpw, and only got one crack at it. Even the weather can trash your attempt. For that reason alone, I would consider giving the nod to the marathon for difficulty.

Number of opportunities and recoverability aside, I believe the actual performance of a 2:30 is slightly easier than a sub 15, even for me as a former mid-distance runner.

I ran 15:46 and 2:27:05.

I think that the relative difficulty between sub 15 and sub 2:30 depends on the age at which you begin running seriously. I ran XC in high school but only semi seriously over an eight week season. Then I took off seven years before starting to run again.

If I had run XC and track seriously in high school and college, I assume that would have resulted in a sub 15. However, by the time I started running seriously age (and a lack of coaching) probably would have limited my top end speed. However, a marathon does not require the same top end speed, you just need to put in the miles.

Even though I’m not a marathon runner and I know sub 15 is a better time, I’d respect a sub2:30 more because of the work it takes to get there. Lots of runners with semi decent talent can hit 14:5x off moderate training, however the marathon is a grind that takes a lot of commitment, and a lot of talented post collegiates don’t want to commit to that. Usually it’s the less talented guys that put in the work to get to sub 2:30. Could be biased from what I know though

Anybody running low 16s can run a 2:30 with some good pacing and a few long runs under their belt. Anybody in the 15s can do 2:30 without specific training after their higher miles weeks. But sub 15 takes a good bit of training and doesn't come by accident to a 2:30 guy/girl

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.

While the 5k is obviously a bit better, to be able to run sub 2:30, anyone short of elite potential runners, have to put in close to 70 miles per week of consistent training. Most people's bodies can't handle this consistent volume without injury. Factoring the number of folks derailed by injury I'd say the thon is more impressive.

MatthewXCountry wrote:

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.

While the 5k is obviously a bit better, to be able to run sub 2:30, anyone short of elite potential runners, have to put in close to 70 miles per week of consistent training. Most people's bodies can't handle this consistent volume without injury. Factoring the number of folks derailed by injury I'd say the thon is more impressive.

I agree with this.

I think it comes down to individual physical aptitude. I ran between 14:40 and 15:00 a bunch of times between ages 24-39... your basic high-school hero who did jack in college and picked up running again after graduation. Trained hard, but nothing exotic; 2-3 hard workouts a week during pre-competition build up, 40-50 mpw. But I never sniffed 2:30, because I physically couldn't handle running 60 miles a week. Guaranteed injury for me, every time. I'd plan a marathon, start a volume build, get injured, 4-8 weeks no running, get a few weeks back on my feet, and run in the 2:40s. My only halfway decent marathon was achieved by sticking with my 5K training routine... ran 2:32 with exactly one training run longer than 8 miles in the preceding 3 months.

So I'm more impressed with sub-2:30, because I couldn't do it.

My long term goal right now is to break 2:30 in the marathon. Ive been running marathons for the past 9 years with no track background besides high school sprinting and soccer. Literally lost weight and ran a 2:56 first marathon. I am not in 2:35 shape but it has taken me years to get there. Although I believe a sub 15 5k is physically more impressive, a 2:30 marathon takes so much preparation and dedication to running. I value time and dedication as more impressive a feat so the marathon to me.

Sub 2:30 marathon. So many more factors at play. Even if you’re in shape, hydration and nutrition strategy being off can kill it. Ever have GI issues midway through a marathon? Boom, guy in 2:30 shape runs a 2:32 because his stomach gave out at mile 21. Have a slightly off day? That’s 2-3 seconds per mile, now you’re a 2:31 marathoner. You need so many things to go right on the day of, and that’s if you even put in all the miles. If you blow it, you might have to wait months for another shot.

A guy in sub 15 shape can have several chances per season at it. Much higher intensity but much less can go wrong. Both are very impressive.

Sub-15.

A sub 2:30 marathon once got you into the Olympic Trials. A sub 15:00 never did. I vote marathon.