I would like to know which one you guys think is better. :)
I would like to know which one you guys think is better. :)
They're really close but I'd say the 10:10
10:10 is MORE better
10:10 is way better relative time than a 4:45 mile.
Travis123 wrote:
I would like to know which one you guys think is better. :)
not even close. 10:10 is superior.
According to the IAAF Tables 10:10 is superior.
4:45 Mile = 593 points
10:10 2 Mile = 611 points
A 10:10 2 mile is better than a 4:45 mile but BOTH are excellent times for 5th graders
using the 5 second rule, a 4:45 1600 ( 1:11 per 400) equates with a 10:08 3200 (1:16 per 400)
They are equivalent.
I was more of a 800/1600 guy, but I'd say the 10:10 is more impressive. My PR was about a 10:10 and I could go sub-4:40.
My soph year I ran 10:10 twice and 10:16 all the while struggling to break 4:50 (lots of 4:53-4:55, once managed a 4:49)
2 years later, I ran a bunch of low 4:30s but only managed a 10:12 and I almost had a heart attack doing that. Most of the time I was slower than 10:20.
Different coaches each year with different training methods. Soph year coach was an ex-miler; Sr year coach was an ex field guy. I always did exactly what each coach said so, in retrospect, it was kind of an interesting experiment.
10:10 is probably slightly better for a high school runner, 4:45 better for an adult, but they're pretty comparable.
Said mile an two mile not 1600/3200 .
your task now is to convert a 10:08 3200 to a 2 mile time. Perhaps you might want to convert the 4:45 1600 into a mile time (the op didn't write mile time did he/she?). Nevertheless the 5 second rule is a pretty simple way to compare times.
Tinman says 445 is slightly better surprisingly.
I'd say 10:10 is better at least in the sense that far more HS boys can run 445 than 10:10 I think.
I was a 445 ish guy but never near 10:10. Never under 11 probably.