My vote is for the 5k but im biased because thats my event. Last year 134 guys got the 1500m standard and only 100 in the 5K. What do you guys think?
My vote is for the 5k but im biased because thats my event. Last year 134 guys got the 1500m standard and only 100 in the 5K. What do you guys think?
tough to say. Good to take into consideration the number of people who hit the mark in both events. But I would also guess that more people race the 1500 as their primary event than the 5000. That's just a guess though.
Obviously the Women's Steeple and Women's 10k are the toughest events in track and field..
the 5k (for collegiate athletes).
they are about equal
I agree that more guys probably race the 1500 than the 5k. But as for the tougher standard, it's a toss up. Plenty of guys who can run 14:12 can't run 3:47.8 and vice versa. That being said, I think the 3:47.8 guys could run 14:12 easier than a lot of 5k specialists could run 3:47.8 if they trained for it.
They're close enough. I have 3:47.8 "equal" to 14:10.6 based on linear regression of performances from all-time lists, yearly lists and a few hundred recreational runners.
But the college guys usually get fewer cracks at an all-out 5,000 than they do at the 1,500, what with recovery time between races being an issue during the collegiate season (plus, US collegians are liable to be a little more underdeveloped for the 5,000 at that age), so common sense says you'll probably see more fast 1,500s than 5,000s out of them.
The IAAF scoring tables have 3:47.8 equal to 13:58-ish (1005 points). Their numbers, if derived from actual marks, might be based on performances of the super-elites (who saw an explosion of great 5,000 performances in the last decade versus other middle distance and distance events), but if so, they are extrapolating way outside the range of the collected data when they assign points values for the 14:00 or slower guys. This practice is a no-no in data correlation and probably doesn't take into consideration the advanced age/maturity factor of the elites, their number of chances to race top-level 5,000s (sometimes with rabbits), etc.
It is what it is. The performances dictate the standards, so whether they're "physiologically equivalent" or not, 14:12 was tougher for college guys to hit than 3:47.8 was last year.
[quote]Centrifugal Bumble Puppy wrote:
They're close enough. I have 3:47.8 "equal" to 14:10.6 based on linear regression of performances from all-time lists, yearly lists and a few hundred recreational runners.
But the college guys usually get fewer cracks at an all-out 5,000 than they do at the 1,500, what with recovery time between races being an issue during the collegiate season (plus, US collegians are liable to be a little more underdeveloped for the 5,000 at that age), so common sense says you'll probably see more fast 1,500s than 5,000s out of them.
I agree. I ran a 3:47.1 in college but only ran a 14:28 pr in one of the handful of 5ks that I ran (for points in a couple of dual meets and doubling back at conference). You run the 1500m/mile alot more, with the DMR, esp. thrown in. Do I think I could have run a sub 14:10 5k? Probably, but who knows for sure.