Would you rather run a sub 4 mile or [the difficulty equivalent] marathon time? What's an equivalent marathon time?

Not in any way is running a sub 4 mile easy....

You cant base the the equivalent time on just times americans have run, because far more competitive or pro american runners run the mile than the marathon.

Take a look at these lists....

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/mmaraok.htm\

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_mileok.htm

Interesting to note is that there has been over 2000 sub 2:10 marathons run and about half as many sub 4 minute miles.

Very true wrote:

Not in any way is running a sub 4 mile easy....

You cant base the the equivalent time on just times americans have run, because far more competitive or pro american runners run the mile than the marathon.

Take a look at these lists....

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/mmaraok.htmhttp://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_mileok.htm

Interesting to note is that there has been over 2000 sub 2:10 marathons run and about half as many sub 4 minute miles.

Pretty sure you should look again. There are 4720 "unique times" under 4, and that is ignoring the fact that the 1500 is the primary distance run, not the mile. Sub 4 mile or sub 3:42 1500 is way way way more prevalent than a sub 2:10 marathon.

the running ability required to run a 2:10 marathon is much more all-encompassing than a sub 4 mile. A 2:10 guy can run with success every distance down to a road 5k, where as most sub 4 milers (not all, but a majority) are pinholed to track races 3k and lower if they want success. For my own ego Id much rather run a fast mile, but if Im a runner trying to make a name for myself, the equivalent marathon is a much more impressive and worthy goal.

pinholed new usage for me

used in place of pigeon-holed I guess suggesting even more limited than pigeon-holed -- a. very tiny range.

tcolbs wrote:

the running ability required to run a 2:10 marathon is much more all-encompassing than a sub 4 mile. A 2:10 guy can run with success every distance down to a road 5k, where as most sub 4 milers (not all, but a majority) are pinholed to track races 3k and lower if they want success. For my own ego Id much rather run a fast mile, but if Im a runner trying to make a name for myself, the equivalent marathon is a much more impressive and worthy goal.

No one is debating that a 2:10 is more difficult than a sub-4 mile. However, it is irrelevant. It's been stated a few time on this thread that a 2:14+ is the equivalent to a sub-4. 2:10 is approximately fifteen light years away from 2:14+.

To think that a sub-4 miler cannot be successful beyond 3000m is ludicrous. You can drop a miler into a 10k - heck, a 10-miler - and they will perform just as well as a 2:14 marathoner.

I agree. I've run a 4:07 mile and a 2:21 marathon. I would have much preferred to have been a sub-four miler than a 2:15 marathoner.

way off wrote:

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.

I assume you're trolling?

Just in case, think of this: 2:07 won the last Olympics and 3:59 won't get you to NCAAs. 2:07 is DL 1500 quality on the track. 3:59 is worth about a 2:15 as people have stated.

kw1954 wrote:

I agree. I've run a 4:07 mile and a 2:21 marathon. I would have much preferred to have been a sub-four miler than a 2:15 marathoner.

Bingo! The marathon and other events don't have a signature historic Roger Bannister moment that has stuck in the sport and in the general public like the sub-4 minute Mile.

See:

Interesting comparisons:

In 1954 the world record for the mile was 3:59.4 (Roger Bannister)

In 1954 the world record for the marathon was 2:17:39 (Jim Peters)

In 1963 the world record for the mile was 3:54.4 (Peter Snell)

In 1963 the world record for the marathon was 2:14:28 (Leonard Edelen)

In 1967 the world record for the mile was 3:51.1 (Jim Ryun)

In 1967 the world record for the marathon was 2:09:36 (Derek Clayton)

This simplifies the equivalencies of a sub four mile to a marathon, a sub 2:15 marathon to a mile and a sub 2:10 marathon to a mile.

Is a 3:50 mile the K2 of running?

i see what you're trying to do, but it doesn't equate. Perhaps less good runners give a serious marathon a try? Or the marathon is just more difficult than a sub-4 mile?anyway, if we proceed with your logic, why haven't many more americans run 2:12?there are lots of sub 4's https://www.trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/archivemenu/13-lists/1476-tafn-us-sub-400-milersbut not many 2:12's for Americans.......

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.

kw1954 wrote:

Interesting comparisons:

In 1954 the world record for the mile was 3:59.4 (Roger Bannister)

In 1954 the world record for the marathon was 2:17:39 (Jim Peters)

In 1963 the world record for the mile was 3:54.4 (Peter Snell)

In 1963 the world record for the marathon was 2:14:28 (Leonard Edelen)

In 1967 the world record for the mile was 3:51.1 (Jim Ryun)

In 1967 the world record for the marathon was 2:09:36 (Derek Clayton)

This simplifies the equivalencies of a sub four mile to a marathon, a sub 2:15 marathon to a mile and a sub 2:10 marathon to a mile.

Add the Africans in and we end up at the 2:14-ish the thread has determined...

When El G ran 3:43 in 1999, KK ran 2:05:42.

Noone has yet run the mile equivalent to Kimetto's 2:02:57.

I expect we'll see the marathon continue to go faster still, but I cannot envision a mile much faster than 3:43 (certainly not sub 3:40).

The fact is, man was built to run long distances not run at top speed for very long.

I suspect that's why EL G's record has stood so long in the modern era of running and the marathon keeps getting faster.

Fascinating discussion.

As people have touched on with the discussion of Paula Radcliffe, a sub-4 mile would be seen as way more impressive for women.

A new women's marathon record in the 2:14's would be very noteworthy among the running community, but a relatively brief blip on the general sports news scene. A woman running under 4 for the mile would be big news everywhere.

BobbyBannister wrote:

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!

LOL

the effort translates to each:

18 min 5k'r , would run a 2:45 marathon

16:30 5k'r would run a 2:34 marathon

15:45 5k'r would run a 2:26 marathon

14:48 5k'r would run 2:17 marathon

14:00 5k'r would run 2:12 marathon

This is another reason why the time and victory by Jonas Hampton at the Hartford Marathon is spectacular. He never broke 31:00 in college.

oh please wrote:

Pretty sure you should look again. There are 4720 "unique times" under 4, and that is ignoring the fact that the 1500 is the primary distance run, not the mile. Sub 4 mile or sub 3:42 1500 is way way way more prevalent than a sub 2:10 marathon.

Plus there are also a couple of hundred indoor sub 4 times, so it looks like sub 4 has been done at least 5000 times (I admit that I did get a kick out of seeing one Roger Bannister on the list of mile times. 3505th and 4102nd fastest mile ever run).

Whoever said 2:15 looks like they have it about right.

If the equivalent really is 2:15 or anything faster, that's what I want. That'd qualify me for an Oly Trials, and to those of you saying a sub-4 is impressive to everyone, think about how the sentence "I tried out for the Olympic Team" sounds too non-runners.

I would say a 2:11.00 which is 5:00 minute per mile pace.