sub 4:00 vs. sub 13:50

smokey wrote:

How many Americans have run a sub 4:00 mile and how many Americans have run a sub 13:50 5000 meters? I would guess that the numbers are pretty close.

You might guess that, but you'd probably be wrong, because they are NOT equal performances. And if you are right, it is only because the mile has been run so much more often through the years.

13:50 is 109% of the current WR

4:00 is 107 % of the current WR.

4:00 is just plain better, even if the total #'s are close.

The runners world race calculator says that if you run 4:00 for the mile you should be able to run 13:18 for 5k. So those must be truly equivalent performances. I'm hoping people are getting the sarcasm here. How do they seriously come up with these numbers, that must be the worst formula ever.

Those numbers certainly work out well for guys who develop their abilities to a balanced degree. For example both Lopes and Jones land right on those times. Foster and Viren are close. Why don't you think they are equal performances?

because all of the true mid D/mile guys who can run sub 1:50 or sub 4 but couldnt even hang for a 3k.

sub 4 takes more talent.

you can run 13:50 with hard work, but sub 4 requires talent

13:18 is an Olympic A standard, 4 flat is about a 3:43-44 and that isn't even a B standard for the Olypics.

acctuly a 4:00 mile is equal to a 3:41 1500

Seriously wrote:

13:18 is an Olympic A standard, 4 flat is about a 3:43-44 and that isn't even a B standard for the Olypics.

Equivalent marks:

1,500m 3:42.2

Mile 4:00.0

3,000m 7:57.6

2M 8:35.9

5,000m 13:47.7

10,000m 28:51.3

Foster and Viren were 3:54-3:55 milers, but were still better at the longer distances. Both had WRs at distances from 2 miles to 10,000m during their careers and both were international medal winners (including Olympic Games), with Viren of course winning those famous double golds in 1972 and 1976.

Foster was an excellent middle distance runner. He got a bronze in the 1970 Commonwealth Games at 1,500m and was 7th in the 1974 Commonwealths (where Bayi and Walker staged that memorable race, with Bayi winning and with both breaking the WR). Foster's 7th place time was a British record. He scored silver in the 5,000m in those 1974 Games. His 7:35.2 3,000m PR was a WR and was perhaps his best performance ever time-wise. He also ran a 2M WR of 8:13.8 at Crystal Palace, breaking Viren's 8:14.0 mark by running the last mile alone.

Viren also had WRs of 8:14.0, 13:16.4 and 27:38.4, the latter coming in the 1972 Olympic final after tangling with Gammoudi and falling mid-race, losing about 5 seconds to the leaders.

Obviously, these two were more successful at the longer track races, but they posted fairly competitive marks in the 1,500m and mile as well. Times of 3:37/3:54 were world class in those days.

g bizzel wrote:

acctuly a 4:00 mile is equal to a 3:41 1500

actually a 4 minute mile is equal to a 342.3 or something.

common cents wrote:

The runners world race calculator says that if you run 4:00 for the mile you should be able to run 13:18 for 5k.

Take a wild guess why your statement is so silly?

i would posit more americans can run 13:50 do to their training.

but the mile is sexy and get more opportunities for 4min.

I am a 5K runner, and I am closer to 4MN than 13.18 !!

4MN= 13.45-13.48

As of 2/1/05, there were 264 sub-4 minute U.S. milers:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/archive/ussub4s.html

Not sure how many U.S. runners have gone under 15:50 for 5000 meters.

should have wrote 13:50

the mile is not an olympic distance, nobody run it. That is why it is easier to run 4Mn than even a 13.40

I meant that is why less people run under 4mn than 13.40.Nobody run the mile

Zuzu's petals wrote:

Equivalent marks:

1,500m 3:42.2

Mile 4:00.0

3,000m 7:57.6

2M 8:35.9

5,000m 13:47.7

10,000m 28:51.3

.

What is so crazy about comparing random times in events against the best ever done in each respective event event?? I see nothing wrong with that.

4:00 is 17 seconds off the WR. Multiply that by 3.1 (which is how much longer, obviously, the 5k is compared to the mile) and you get about 53 seconds. 5k WR of 12:37 + 53 = 13:30. This also fits in perfectly with my comparisons of WR's. 13:30 / current WR of 12:37 = 1.07. 4:00/ 1.07 = 3:44 .

So........comparing a 4:00 vs the best ever done in the event (El G's 3:43) , and then trying to find an equivalent relationship between a 5k time and the best ever done in THAT event (Bekele's 12:37), and you get about 13:30. That is the fairest way to compare apples and organges. You might not like it, but it is.

4:00 is much better, in a qualitative sense, than 13:50.

Zuzu, explain to me how you came up with 13:47?? Give me some solid #'s to back up that # you have appeared to pull "out of thin air". I gave solid #'s to back my comparison up.

this guy is retarded. 4:00=13:30?

Uncommon source wrote:

common cents wrote:

The runners world race calculator says that if you run 4:00 for the mile you should be able to run 13:18 for 5k.

Take a wild guess why your statement is so silly?

That was kinda my point. I thought it was clear, but it obviously failed to penetrate your thick skull. it's ok as long as you remember you're not stupid, you're special.