What do you think is more impressive over age 50, a sub 17 5K or sub 5 mile?
I have looked at various race equivalent calculators, plugged in a 16:59 5K and saw equivalent mile times ranging from 4:56 to 5:06. I think some of these calculators are way off, but it helps to illustrate that these two achievements are supposed to be in the ballpark of one another.
Based on my own observations, having looked at race results for multiple decades, it is my belief that a sub 17 5k over age 50 is more impressive than a sub 5 mile. It seems like nearly all of the over 50 runners who raced a sub 17 5k and also raced a mile were able to go sub 5, but I have found quite a few examples of sub 5 runners who could not come within striking distance of sub 17 despite multiple attempts. Now there could be other factors explaining this (e.g. training focus, course difficulty) but I do think at a minimum a sub 17 5K is a better predictor of sub 5 mile potential over 50 than the other way around.
Any thoughts on which achievement is more impressive?