it seems to mean a dam thing at all you gotta break 3:57. It just seems like so many guys are fast now we have to up the ante. Agreement, yes no?
it seems to mean a dam thing at all you gotta break 3:57. It just seems like so many guys are fast now we have to up the ante. Agreement, yes no?
you are ridiculous. sub 4 is the only sub 4
All hail the new leader of the neophytes.
One Oregon to bind them, one to rule them, one to control them.
If you do not run 3:57 you haven't broken 4. It doesn't make any sense either but it does.
3:43 is the new sub fooooo because no one can do it
not sub foooooo, milers run sub 4, 400 meter runners run the fooo.
I was beginning to think ILPs had been run over by a harvester or something like that.
More inane commentary....just when I had almost given up on him.
Sub4 = good, not great...so depending on what sub 4 you are talking about 4 in 1954 then the poster that mentioned 343 is correct. if you are talking about sub 4 for a prep runner in '64, then 353 is the new 4.
I can see why this barrier still holds some significance, but I kind of wish we would all focus on the 1.5k and stop this silly practice of racing 4 laps starting a bit behind the line.
Lets say that sub 8 two mile (another outdated distance) is the new sub 4.
Badgerbadgerbadger
If you want to be among the world's ten best the standard is 3:53 or under.
A 3:59 at the elite level really does not mean that much anymore. That is course if you are not from Vermont.
A 4 minute mile is like a major league baseball player hitting .300. It is impressive feat, but not unusual.
Actually, a 4 minute mile at the international level is more like a baseball player hitting .280.
joe 90 wrote:
Actually, a 4 minute mile at the international level is more like a baseball player hitting .280.
...in single A
A couple of questions for those posting on this:
1. Have you actually run either a sub 4 or sub-3:57?
2. When you ask someone who actually has accomplished both of these feats, which do they remember more fondly? My educated guess would be that the first sub-4 would be a more cherished memory.
It's a valid question. Those 3 seconds are approximately the difference between:
- National v International runner
- Qualifying standard v just missing out (B-standards)
- Govt. funded v no funding (some countries)
- Good shoe contract v modest or no shoe contract
This was not the case 10-20 years ago.
whatchu wanna run sub fo' fo'?
aren't distance runners supposed to run long distance? why don't you go for the super 4
I love peeps wrote:
it seems to mean a dam thing at all you gotta break 3:57. It just seems like so many guys are fast now we have to up the ante. Agreement, yes no?
I don't know I broke 3:57 and 4:00 for the marathon and neither one seemed too hard. I don't think sub-4:00 and sub-3:57 are much different.
Sub four is sub four, no matter the time frame.
Better to phrase is:
Sub four is to 19__ as 3:__ is to now.
If you say 3:57, I would guess 1965-1970. Any earlier and it becomes much faster
21 men went under 3:57 last year including 5 from USA
The mile has been discontinued.
A 3:53 mile is 3:37.1 1500m pace or a converted 3:35.7 1500m using the 1.08 factor. Taken into that context, the old standards and perceptions of mile performances suck.
3:35.7 is a non-African national class runner who fills the back of European fields to add racial diversity.
About 20 Americans run under 4 minutes for the mile in any given year. The population of the US is around 300,000,000. So your chances of running a 4 minute mile are over 1 out of a million. Even though it is common place at major track and field events it is still not a common feat.
Field & Track wrote: if you are talking about sub 4 for a prep runner in '64, then 353 is the new 4.
355