High school runners who aren't fully mature and running at their optimum in terms of strength may not be the best comparison, but a high-school 8:53.9 two-miler is 61st on the national list; 61st on the one-mile list is a 4:06. It seems very likely that a 14:10 5K is a much superior time to a 4:10 mile, as most of the posters here seem to think it is.
Well speaking personally 4:10 is tougher. I've only gone 4:13 in the mile but 13;56 in the 5k. But I know the all time list at my college has 9 individuals at 4:10 or better in the mile and only one at 14:10 or better in the 5k- on the indoor list where both events are run, they have another sub 14;10 guy outdoors.
So if your looking for averages a lot more guys are going to run 4:10 then 14:10, but for those of us who struggle to crack 60 for an all out 400m then 14:10 is much more attainable.
Depends on the person, and maybe the era.
When I ran in the late 70's early 80's - 4:10 guys were a dime a dozen. I was a 4:06 guy (in college). In Cali, there were 20-30 or more guys faster than me (and I'm talking 1500 meter specialist, not counting the 5k, steeple guys could move down).
There were no more than a dozen or so 14:10 guys. Most of those could also run 4:10 or faster. I can only think of one (Mark Conover) who could not run 4:10. There might have been a few more, but not many.
Personally, I never broke 15:00 in the 5k. While I doubtless could have if I had ever really tried, I would have had to make major improvements to get to 14:10 territory.
That said, I knew guys who could never get close to 4:10, but might have been able to at least get close to 14:10 (if they kept running longer and/or trained more).
I think we are all saying the same thing; however, the marks are not that far apart once I did a litte bit of analysis. I should not have used a H.S. comparison because H.S. kids don't train for the 5k. You also can't use a D111 comparision as someone did becasue any H.S. kid who was capable of running under 15 was likely under 9 minutes in the 2 mile and FLNC competitor and would proably end up at a D1 program. With that said, a legit D1 DISTANCE runner would probably find the 2 marks about equal. As I stated, I had a college teammate go 13:55 with only a 4:11 (1500 converted) PR.
I ran 4:11 / 14:45. 14:10? A distant dream and was probably never attainable for me at any point.
TrackCoach wrote:
You also can't use a D111 comparision as someone did becasue any H.S. kid who was capable of running under 15 was likely under 9 minutes in the 2 mile and FLNC competitor and would proably end up at a D1 program.
I don't follow the logic here. Yes, DIII doesn't get top recruits. However, it doesn't follow from those recruiting issues that the DIII talent pool would be skewed towards either 14:10 or 4:10. The fact that far more run 4:10 should tell us something.
Personally the 4:10 is a better performance. I think the problem is you are looking at it from a numbers perspective. If you took all those HS kids that are training for the 1600 and trained them for the 5000m and then continued into college training for the 5000m it would look much different. The best 1600/mile runners don't race the 5000 unless they are starting to get beat or are slowing down in 1600/5000. Look at Lagat. Would he be racing both( with emphasis now on the 5 )if he could still run 3:26 ?
As said before, they are intrinsically pretty similar performances. Due to the lack of aerobic development in NA and the preference to shorter races, the 14:10 will get you more places. In Kenya, I'd be willing to bet they are much more equal performances (that will get you nowhere in Kenya unless you're a girl)
4'10 NO QUESTION ASK. I RAN 3'53...COULDNT BREAK 15
NOT including high school runners, which is harder between 4:00 or 14:00?
14:10 is harder for sure. I would say 14:25 is probably more equal to 4:10. 14:10 is probably more equal to a 4:06-4:07 range.
we are we talking about girls times her right?
BOOM! wrote:
From the IAAF tables:
4:10.05 - 955 pts
14:13.67 - 955 pts
14:10.00 - 967 pts
4:09.01 - 967 pts
Bravo, I was just going to suggest the tables... IAAF, Hungarian, etc. These are not necessarily the end-all be-all case closed proof, but its better than the many ridiculous arguments posted such as "I looked at this years D3 indoor list and more ran under 4:10 than 14:10" or "More HS runners break 4:10 than 14:10" or "It was harder for me to run 4:10 than 14:10"
Oh, and the best thread thus far is: 4:10 is harder than 14:10, no matter what the distance.
Add Josh Lampron, Blake Williams and Chad Noelle to the sub 4:10 list.
Can fake a mile for 1200 meters... at that point, only 400 to go
Can fake a 5k for 2 miles...... at that point, 1 mile of rigging ass to go.....
frecklefart11 wrote:
14:10 is WAYYYYYY harder.
I ran 4:09 in college and I couldn't of went 14:10.
You went to college!? You should demand a refund.
Good work! I couldn't find a table that allowed me to compare a Mile and a 5K. Obviously all the rest of it is just subjective, anecdotal, dependent on conditioning, talent, etc. etc.
14:10 is arguably the superior performance- given that 90% of 14:10 guys can run a 4:10 mile, whereas the inverse isn't true.
This leads to some interesting patterns from a 5k perspective. In general the distance runners whose mile times are in the 4:15- 4:20 range are going to have a tough time cracking 14:20. If they want to get to the 14:10 level, one of the keys is getting their mile down to 4:10. You can't run 68s for 12 laps unless you can do 62-63 for 4 laps, although there will always be a few exceptions.
You can also see this pattern play out at the elite college level. Chris Derrick has been running 13:30 for 3 years now, although he's probably a much stronger runner than he was in '09. But most 13:20 guys have 1500m bests under 3:40, whereas Chris has run in the 3:42 range. It's the same pattern where to run 13:20 (64 pace), they need to be able to run 58-59 pace in the 1500.
There's always a few statistical outliers in the 1500-5k comparisons, notably Dathan Ritzenheim, a 3:43 guy who has cracked 13 min. Most sub 13 runners have 3:36 or better 1500m speed.
1500/5k guy wrote:
Personally the 4:10 is a better performance. I think the problem is you are looking at it from a numbers perspective. If you took all those HS kids that are training for the 1600 and trained them for the 5000m and then continued into college training for the 5000m it would look much different. The best 1600/mile runners don't race the 5000 unless they are starting to get beat or are slowing down in 1600/5000. Look at Lagat. Would he be racing both( with emphasis now on the 5 )if he could still run 3:26 ?
Not true at all. Every sub 14:10 guy I have ever known has run under 4:10 but the reverse isn't anywhere close to being true. BTW, there is nobody in the world currently capable of running a 3:26.