I recently heard that more people have reached Mt. Everest's summit than have run a sub 4 mile. It made me wonder what the "Everest" of marathoning was, and how that compares to the number of 4 minute milers.
I would suspect that an equivalent marathon time would be slower than one might think at first, purely based on the numbers. More fit post-collegians, for example, seem to get into marathoning than miling.
My guess is that a low 2:19 is equivalant, what say you?
I would say 2:17.
sub-4. Everyone would understand.
I'd say 2:12. Most non-runners would think regardless of time that the marathoner would be the greater athlete."I ran a 3:57 mile last weekend.""I ran a marathon."Oh wow, how far is that marathon???!!! Let's have sex!
Bernie Sanders wrote:
I recently heard that more people have reached Mt. Everest's summit than have run a sub 4 mile. It made me wonder what the "Everest" of marathoning was, and how that compares to the number of 4 minute milers.
I would suspect that an equivalent marathon time would be slower than one might think at first, purely based on the numbers. More fit post-collegians, for example, seem to get into marathoning than miling.
My guess is that a low 2:19 is equivalant, what say you?
Sub 4 'thon is respectable, but nothing special.
Sub 4 mile is good, but won't even qualify for NCAA indoors these days.
Since the marathon is in the Olympics and the mile isn't, I'll have to give the nod to the 42.195 k race.
Bernie Sanders wrote:
My guess is that a low 2:19 is equivalant, what say you?
I'd say you're wrong, just like your socialist hero.
2:12, 5-minute miles, feels like the natural equivalent to the 4-minute mile but it does seem like it's harder to get the 2:12 mark. For instance, look at the world record progressions when Bannister first cracked four. The world record for the marathon at the time was Jim Peters' mark of 2:18:34.8 which he lowered to 2:17:39.4 about a month afterwards.
sub-4 wrote:
sub-4. Everyone would understand.
this
Sub 4. Everyone will probably say this.
Equivalent? Sub 2:10. No one will say this. Still,the fact is that it's only recently that the most talented runners have tried to run very fast in the marathon. Thus, it's only recently that marathon times have come down to the same level that track distances have been at.
If your purpose is to "wow" as many people as possible, then a sub 2:10 marathon would be the answer for me. The number of marathon finishers is magnitudes greater than those that have run a mile race. Those people would understand that a sub 2:10 is faster than most of them run a half.
Even for my own gratification I'd say sub 2:10 marathon. There are what, less than 20 that have done it in the USA? Less than 10 maybe. The number of sub 4 milers is something like 500 (yea, still extremely low in the grand scheme).
sub-4 wrote:
sub-4. Everyone would understand.
"Wow that's fast. There was a guy on my high school soccer team who did that. You should totally think about running a marathon. I bet you'd be awesome!"
IAAF gives 4:00 = 2:14:59, which seems about right.
That's right, our oh-so-clean Paula is at about 4:02 for the mile equivalent.
Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:
sub-4 wrote:sub-4. Everyone would understand.
"Wow that's fast. There was a guy on my high school soccer team who did that. You should totally think about running a marathon. I bet you'd be awesome!"
HAHAHA this
What's the actual difference percentage-wise between a 4 minute mile and the WR mile time? Take that percentage and apply it to the marathon world record time and you have your answer.
If you call Dennis Kimetto's 2:03 equal to El G's 3:43, a sub four is about a 2:12.
Jcjfjjfjf wrote:
If you call Dennis Kimetto's 2:03 equal to El G's 3:43, a sub four is about a 2:12.
Both WR's appear to be 1292 on the IAAF Tables as well. Those put a 3:59.9 mile at 1075. Which is 2:14:57 for the marathon on the tables. This seems pretty cut and dry.
JK's conversion chart has a 3:59 mile equivalent to 2:15:24 in the marathon. This is a little slower than I thought it would be, but whoever said 2:10 is way off; 2:10 is magnitudes better than a 3:59. Off the top of my head I would have guessed 3:59 is 2:12-2:14, but JK is a lot smarter than me, so I defer to him. (For comparison McMillan says 2:14:44.)
http://www.letsrun.com/2007/jkconversion.pdf
This might be a hard choice for me if I could only run one event. Sub-4 clearly is a more meaningful barrier, but 2:15 would get you to the Olympic Trials which is also significant. Plus, you could make ok prize money as a 2:15 marathoner; not much out there for a 3:59 miler.
Could I run a sub-4 mile and still run a 2:17:59 marathon? That would be my choice.
Purdy Points say 4:00 = 2:15:20
My choice is a sub 4 mile because it is a well established benchmark.
Interesting. So Paula Radcliffe's WR is essentially equivalent to a 4 minute mile?
Soprano wrote:
JK's conversion chart has a 3:59 mile equivalent to 2:15:24 in the marathon. This is a little slower than I thought it would be, but whoever said 2:10 is way off; 2:10 is magnitudes better than a 3:59. Off the top of my head I would have guessed 3:59 is 2:12-2:14, but JK is a lot smarter than me, so I defer to him. (For comparison McMillan says 2:14:44.)
http://www.letsrun.com/2007/jkconversion.pdfThis might be a hard choice for me if I could only run one event. Sub-4 clearly is a more meaningful barrier, but 2:15 would get you to the Olympic Trials which is also significant. Plus, you could make ok prize money as a 2:15 marathoner; not much out there for a 3:59 miler.
Could I run a sub-4 mile and still run a 2:17:59 marathon? That would be my choice.
A 3:59.99 is equivelent to a 2:07:37 marathon the difference is more people run the mile then the marathon which is why not all sub 4 milers are running or training for a marathon but if they did 2:07 is very realistic.