My 45 year old friend claims that if he breaks a 5:00 mile this makes him the 15th fastest miler ages 45-59 is this true

go gun wrote:

Yes, you are right. It is track and field, and it only counts if you race the actual distance on a track. It's not me you need to please, you need to adhere to the rules of track and field (not road racing, treadmill times, training times, estimations, conversions, etc.) if you want to get on a ranking list. The same rules apply to sub four miles. Do it in a mile race on the track or shut the f up. You don't get ranked anywhere for a time unless YOU ACTUALLY DO IT IN A RACE OF THE ACTUAL DISTANCE. These rules don't change when you turn 40.

In other words, you haven't run anything yourself. Didn't think so.

Now three things:

1) Please show me where I can find these official rules of track and field that declare I'm not allowed to call someone a sub-5 minute miler who's run a sub-4:37 1500. I would greatly like to see them.

2) Please explain to me when a performance list became synonymous with a "ranking list"--you don't seem to understand that they are not synonymous.

3)Please answer my questions about which meets count for achieving this sub-5 mile time according to you, as you don't seem to have a clue as to the actual rules of track and field, as determined by our governing body.

In lieu of that, take a valium and stop shouting with your all caps responses. Loud doesn't equal correct. And your tantrum only further erodes the validity of your opinion.

the answer to number 1 is a rule of logic

Is Alan Webb a sub 3:30 1500m runner? No he isn't.

1500m/mile conversions don't work the other way either.

like the man said, sack up or shut up.

1) NOT irrelevant, because you are praising those over 50 who broke 5 (MUCH more worthy of praise than a 45-year-old) when the thread was about a dude age 45.

2) You are correct generally in your point here (the Brian Sell point was a bit too far though), but I have some pretty recent history (within the last 2 years) with running that points to being able to break 5 minutes if only I trained a little (and the injury bug stayed away).

3) If you have no clue who I am, how do yo know that you were faster than me? How do you know how much weight I would need to lose? Seems like you're making a lot of assumptions, brother.

4) I last ran a sub 5 minute mile at age 41, so no, we're not talking 3 decades ago. BUT, this really wasn't supposed to be about me. I still truly do believe that MOST former college runners who were able to run 4:30 or faster then, even if they have let themselves go and haven't run in years, that they could train, and unless stricken by unusual illness or injury, that they could get themselves down under 5:00...again, this is MOST of them...as in greater than 50% of them...and that's a LOT of runners age 45...certainly more than 15 worldwide.

Finally, let's be clear here...I believe that just 5% OR LESS of ALL adult men could train and get under 5:00 for the mile. But, we're talking people who had the talent and did it in college (again, 4:30 or under I said), and within THAT pool, at age 45, half or more could train to get under 5:00.

tard day wrote:

the answer to number 1 is a rule of logic

It most certainly is not--unless you think it's logical to apply a rule which leads to an erroneous result. Case in point, my best 1500 in the past six years is 4:35, and I haven't raced a single mile in that time period. Consequently, I haven't been a sub-5 minute miler during that time period according to your "logic." Yet, I've run sub-15 for 5000 numerous times and have run mulitiple sub-5 minute 1600s for reps in practice (as recently as a few weeks back, 4:49-4:51). Very few members of my peer group would wave off my claim to being a sub-5 minute miler, and logic dictates that they're correct. And that you're not.

The point isn't that a sub-4:37 1500 is exactly equivalent to a sub-5 mile. The point is that the members of a group that have actually accomplished a particular achievement--in this case sub-5 minute miles after age 45--have every right to declare that others can be "members" of their group according to reasonable criteria.

Now, that doesn't mean we'll all agree on that criteria. In an earlier post, I stated my belief that membership in the sub-4 minute mile club--given how important an achievement that is in our sport--should belong only to those who actually run sub-4 for the mile. But then SoCal Cush, who ran 3:55 for the mile back in the day, responded that he disagreed, that he thought some 1500 times made the runners worthy of inclusion. Who am I to tell an actual sub-4 minute miler (a group of which I'm not a part) that he can't decide who else, given reasonable criteria, can be a member of his group?

There is no rule about this sort of thing. There are disagreements, but neither side of the argument can claim absolute authority.

It takes a lot of balls (and a serious case of delusion) to claim yourself as the keeper of the official track and field rules--especially when you have only a passing affinity with the actual rules.

And it takes a lot of work--and luck!--post age 45 to run sub-5 minutes for the mile, or sub-4:37 for the 1500. I'm guessing that the vast majority of those who have done that would willingly welcome others into the club with a reasonable claim for membership. And you can understand why we don't give much validity to the petty--and illogical--arguments of those who would deny the right to do so.

That said, if you haven't even attempted to run 1500 or mile at this age, please don't claim that you could if you only trained. That's my point of view--although I'm willing to have others disagree ... you know, since there is no rule.

Right of Switzerland wrote:

Some crazy stuff...

ROS,

I see I thought you were someone else who said they were faster than me. So, disregard my question in the other thread...you didn't say you were faster than me. Statistically you wouldn't have been, but who knows? You're still wrong about 45 year old former college runners not being able to break 5 minutes though...easily of them could do it...45 isn't that old.

Oh good grief, my 52-year-old brain has failed me. I have run a mile in the last six years. I ran a 4:34 on the track in Portland when I was 50 (doubling back from a 15:01 5K on the roads in So Cal that AM). So I am a sub-5 minute miler ... Oh, wait, that was two years ago. Maybe I'm not? ;-)

I can think of several runners aged 45+ who've recently gone under 4:50 for the mile on the track just in Bozeman Montana:

Kyle Strode 4:48

Ray Hunt 4:46

Pat Judge 4:44

Rob Walker 4:44

Peter Dan Sullivan 4:42

Scott Creel 4:42

Steve Morley 4:29

I might have forgotten one or two and the times are from memory, but at least 7 guys over 45 have gone under 4:50 for the mile in the last few years in just one local annual race.

If you allow for that track's NCAA altitude adjustment, Creel ran a time that adjusted under 4:30 and Sullivan either got under or was very close, aged between 40 & 45. Morley broke 4:30 unadjusted this year.

There are probably other races like this around the country that just happen without fanfare.

I ran a sub 5 mile up to age 57 and doubt I was ever in the top 15 ranking but this guy was.

Derek Turnbull New Zealand M65 4:56.3

why is this thread 7 pages long?

It's seven pages long because the list of guys over 45 who think they can break five minutes for the mile is seven times longer than the list of guys who actually can break the five minute mile.

I think it's time to have a track meet. All ages welcome, especially those younger runners who think so highly of themselves and so lowly of us old guys just because we might want to speculate about something. Might be time to show these young bucs a lesson. And, finally, you younguns' will be old like use someday....if you're lucky.

Heck...at 52 I just recently ran 3 sub 5 min miles with 3 mins rest (this is probably why Im injured now) In any case, this is no big deal as most of the 50 year olds on our team can do this. Was this an uphill mile the guy ran or what ??

PS..Hi Pete...Hi Cush!

Maybe the way to categorize is it is to recognize it as a great accomplishment but not rare. Definitely worth a pat on the back from your fellow warriors!

I love this idea.

sactomaster wrote:

I think it's time to have a track meet. All ages welcome, especially those younger runners who think so highly of themselves and so lowly of us old guys just because we might want to speculate about something. Might be time to show these young bucs a lesson. And, finally, you younguns' will be old like use someday....if you're lucky.

And to FP, put up or shut up. Your schtick gets old real fast.

Training times aren't race times. Silly old men.

True dog wrote:

Training times aren't race times. Silly old men.

Hey genius, some of has have legit race times posted on the web. Go figure.

Enough of this. I think the real question is as follows:

If I am running on a treadmill and cover a mile in under five minutes but the treadmill is in an airplane that is on a treadmill, will it get airborne?

Not sure, but it won't get you on the rankings list. Sack up or shut up.