??
??
4 in the mile. And I'm a long distance guy.
4:00 mile definitely.
4:00 mile definitely.
Sub 2:14. It's a superior performance (barely).
Sub 4
2:14 ($)
I will say sub 4, until sub 2:12 I would have to prefer, even though sub 2:14 is still a superior performance according to McMill
yeah I was going to mention without regards to cash, sub 2:17 even pays better than sub 4 would..
Sub 4.
Whenever a non-runner finds out that you run they always want to know your mile time.
Sub 4 sounds more impressive because most people don't know what a truly great marathon time is.
Also then you get you name on the sub 4 minute mile list
Even though virtually all non-runners know a sub 4 is good, I'd still prefer the sub 2:14. That'll win a lot of city marathons, and anyone that has "run" a marathon can appreciate how quick that is. Even the folks that plod a 5hr marathon.
Sub-4:00. I'd like to race more than twice a year.
Sub 4
I'd have to go with a blue collar 2:14
Can only dream of either wrote:
I'd still prefer the sub 2:14...anyone that has "run" a marathon can appreciate how quick that is. Even the folks that plod a 5hr marathon.
But they wouldn't know the difference between 2:14 and 2:19, or 2:14 and 2:11.
Most folks that have ever walked ,jogged or ran around a high school track,(thanks ,Larry Rawson for your ubiquitious insight),can very much appreciate a sub 4 mile.
Some still call 10ks," marathons" and the like. Me, I'd like to have the best 401 k ever.
Given the choice , I'll take the sub 4 mile.
I would much rather run 2:19 in the marathon than 4:10 in the mile.
However I'd rather have 3:59 than 2:13
Sub 2:14 thon with a sub-4 last mile.
a 3:59.99 per mile marathon. aka 1:44:48.
Sub-4.
Although I think the 2:14 would carry a little more badass-ness to it.