My friend and I were discussing which one we would rather do if we could only have 1. The 10k is much more impressive among runners but the mile is much more impressive among the general public. I choose 10k, you guys?
My friend and I were discussing which one we would rather do if we could only have 1. The 10k is much more impressive among runners but the mile is much more impressive among the general public. I choose 10k, you guys?
Sub 4. Saves me from 23 more minutes of running.
In all seriousness, I would take the sub 4 just because of the history behind it.
At first thought, I'd choose mile. More generally prestigious, as you say, but not actually nearly as good.
After thinking about it more, I choose 10k, mostly because that implies you are running professionally and that would be cool. Also, I know you said you could only choose 1, but if you're sub 27 in the 10k you should be able to go sub 4 if you ever chose to.
Sub 27 would probably get you into the Olympics. So I would take that.
500 lb bench
I think sub 4 would be more equivalent to sub 2730 or even sub 28. Definitely would take sub 27.
I don't run around in short shorts with a scrawny bod and whiney voice to please the public now as it stands... so why change now.
of course i choose sub 27 10k.
I would take sub 27 because then I could get the sub four as well.
5k sub 13
See above
Sub 27 is way better, you can also run sub 13 and a fast 3000m or a very fast marathon.
If you're sub 27 in the 10k you're contending at major marathons if you so choose. That gets you all the prestige you need and it's way more impressive than sub 4.
Sub 27 min 10k
Nobody could possibly run sub 27 without being able to break 4.
Idiot wrote:
Nobody could possibly run sub 27 without being able to break 4.
Only a 3:43 1500m and a 26:50 10000m
https://www.iaaf.org/athletes/kenya/paul-kipngetich-tanui-240525fartleks and bagels wrote:
Idiot wrote:
Nobody could possibly run sub 27 without being able to break 4.
Only a 3:43 1500m and a 26:50 10000m
https://www.iaaf.org/athletes/kenya/paul-kipngetich-tanui-240525
You need to learn to think before you post. Tanui ran that 3:43 when he was allegedly 19 and he had not broken 27. My post is irrefutable.
I know it is very rare to have a sub 27 talent who couldn’t go sub 4 but let’s just say you were the anomaly in this situation. You only get one
Bill Oregon wrote:
I know it is very rare to have a sub 27 talent who couldn’t go sub 4 but let’s just say you were the anomaly in this situation. You only get one
One can accept your hypothetical but just so you and the ignorant masses are aware, the hypothetical is not possible.
Can I run the sub-27 at the Olympics? If so, that's what I choose.
Bill Oregon wrote:
My friend and I were discussing which one we would rather do if we could only have 1. The 10k is much more impressive among runners but the mile is much more impressive among the general public. I choose 10k, you guys?
Sub 4:00? Meh. If you had set the bar at sub-3:50, then I would definitely have taken that. As it is, sub-27:00 is just so much more impressive so I’ll go with that.