Would you rather go Sub 4 in the mile or sub 27 in the 10k

Idiot wrote:

Nobody could possibly run sub 27 without being able to break 4.

I don't think Paul Tergat ever broke 4 (or the 1500 equivalent), and I know Wanjiru never did. Obviously not doing it and not being able to are very different things (Tergat's 3k PR is nearly two sub-4s back to back!). Yes, I agree with you that in nearly every case in order to run a sub-27 10k you would need the ability to run a sub-4 mile. But could there every once and awhile be some rare exception? I'm thinking a Japanese-type runner, even though none of them have gone sub-27 yet. Is it possible to do 25 laps at 1:05 but not 4 just under 1:00? I don't know. It would certainly be very, very rare, but I'm not sure impossible.

A side note, and as neither of them broke 27 your point is still valid, but how crazy is it that Ritz and Hall never broke 4? The equivalent of their 1500 PRs (3:42.99 for Ritz and 3:42.70 for Hall) are also just a bit over. For Ritz this was run his freshman year at CU, and for Hall it was right after HS. By their primes they had obviously moved up to longer events, but how strange is it not to see those names on the US sub-4 list?

Dingler wrote:

A side note, and as neither of them broke 27 your point is still valid, but how crazy is it that Ritz and Hall never broke 4? The equivalent of their 1500 PRs (3:42.99 for Ritz and 3:42.70 for Hall) are also just a bit over. For Ritz this was run his freshman year at CU, and for Hall it was right after HS. By their primes they had obviously moved up to longer events, but how strange is it not to see those names on the US sub-4 list?

I said when Hall retired from marathoning that I wished before he beefed up he'd taken a few months just doing very low mileage and quarter mile repeats to try and knock off 4:00. That was his big goal he never accomplished in high school so how awesome would that have been to come full circle in the end? Would have been a much better ending to his movie.

20x300 wrote:

The Sub 27 in the 10k because you will most likely make the Olympics, maybe even win the trials. Honestly on your best day you could steal a a medal at the world or Olympic championships. Plus you could give a crack at sub 13 in the 5k. With those times you are living comfortably $$$$$ and have a great training group around you.

The OR in 10,000m is 27:01. I know it’s a tactical race, but you’re in contention to win the gold if you have the ability to run sub 27. There’s a 100% chance you make the games with that kind of PR. That level of runner is making cash and nationally famous. A sub 4 miler, at 3:59, is not even close to that level of either notoriety or ability.

Totally logical and great answer.

These two things are not even close to being equal in the modern context.

I ran 10k in 28 and change. Would trade that in a heartbeat for sub-4.

No way would I trade sub-27 for sub-4. That's on another level and would have put me on a World Championship or Olympic team.

is this even a question? sub 27

Meb ran 27:13 and never broke 4:00. Would 14sec in the 10K have made the difference? Maybe, but it is a good example of someone very close who did not break 4.

Most likely? wrote:

The OR in 10,000m is 27:01. I know it’s a tactical race, but you’re in contention to win the gold if you have the ability to run sub 27. There’s a 100% chance you make the games with that kind of PR.

There are 2 Americans with sub 27s and one of them never made the Olympics. I realize that was a timing thing, but just because once you can run a sub 27 doesn't mean you'll be an Olympian.

"The general public" is more impressed with the longer distance. PERIOD.

If you want to impress the general public, run ultra.

lollerama wrote:

.... never mind - I just saw it the second time around.

Alltime-athletics is infallible.

fartleks 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

HE ran 12:58 for 5k. When the WR for 5k was 12:58, the WR for the Mile was 3:46. Do you really think that he COULDN'T run 3:59 for the Mile when he could average 62.30 for 12.5 laps?

His 3:43 is from 2010, 5 years before his 12:58. So he didn't run many 1500/miles (or ANY probably) once he got on a batter, systematic program (which allowed him to run 12:58/26:49). A guy who is running 12:58/26:49 is more likely a 3:49 miler than a 4:01 miler. EPO and the other drugs they are on have distorted the picture for people, but some guys who ran close to 12:58 like he did ...

Aouita -- 12:58 WR -- 3:46 mile

Mottram -- 12:55 -- 3:48 mile

Moorcroft -- 13:00 WR -- 3:49.34 mile

You haven't eclipsed the worst one yet, but you are quickly becoming the most hated poster due to your penchant for posting things that you think show you have some knowledge the rest of us don't, but instead show that you barely understand the sport.

Tanui closed the last 4 laps in the Rio Olympic 10,000m in 4:03 to take silver behind Farah.

He ran 27:05 that day.

There is no doubt he could break 4:00 without the 21 laps beforehand.

Sub 27 because then I could run professionally. If it was more just a PR to have in your book, e.g. you ran sub 27 once like 5 years ago vs. sub 4 once 5 years ago, that's a little tougher -- the sub 4 mile is a more exciting distance historically and popularly, but sub 27 is obviously a far superior mark. I'd still probably take the sub 27.

ex-runner wrote:

Tanui closed the last 4 laps in the Rio Olympic 10,000m in 4:03 to take silver behind Farah.

He ran 27:05 that day.

There is no doubt he could break 4:00 without the 21 laps beforehand.

Oh yeah not to mention the laps were something like this ignoring the rounding:

63, 62, 62, 56

The 10k. Only because you’ll be able to make a living running if you’re that fast. Sub-4 is something that sub-elites/semi-pros can do these days.

Dingler wrote:

Idiot wrote:

Nobody could possibly run sub 27 without being able to break 4.

A side note, and as neither of them broke 27 your point is still valid, but how crazy is it that Ritz and Hall never broke 4? The equivalent of their 1500 PRs (3:42.99 for Ritz and 3:42.70 for Hall) are also just a bit over. For Ritz this was run his freshman year at CU, and for Hall it was right after HS. By their primes they had obviously moved up to longer events, but how strange is it not to see those names on the US sub-4 list?

It IS strange in that it is so clear that they could have done it. Ritz, to a greater extent, kept running the 3k and 2M at a high level for a long time, and he was 13:44 in HS, then 13:27 the first year in college, and then much later the AR of 12:56. HE could have been well under 3:55.

Hall gave the sub-4 a shot many times while still in HS, and Ritz ran 4:05.9 for 1600m as a junior.

It is not so strange though when you consider some of the people 25-30 yrs earlier who did not do it either.

Salazar was at 7:43 and 13:22 early in college and of course set the ARs of 13:11/27:25/2:08:13, yet I think his best was 3:43/4:02 ?.

Virgin was a 4:05 miler in HS and has told me himself that he felt he should have run 3:55 in college. Of course, he ran 7:48/13:19/27:29 (the last mark being the 2nd fastest in world history). His best was 4:01 and he did many relay carries of 4:00-flat and 4:01 while in college.

Shorter was AR holder for the indoor 2 mile (8:26.2) and was #2 at every distance in America (3M, 5k, 6M, 10k) and for the marathon (2:10:30) but his best was 4:02. Interesting to note that his marathon best was set in 1972 (at Fukuoka) and his 10k best was in 1975, and his 5k best (13:26) was in 1977.

Nenow did not do many miles while in HS or college, but he finished with 7:43/13:18/27:20 AR. I believe his best was 4:02.

Solinsky and Tegenkamp both only ran sub-4 one time outdoors and they were 3:57 and 3:56 respectively. Interestingly they both ran much faster at 1500m and ended up the same one second apart at 3:35 and 3:34 respectively.

Clearly all of these runners could have run sub-4:00 if they had given it just a reasonable shot when they were at there peak.

sub 2:08 mary

sub 27 for 10k

1) its a relatively much much better time.

2) it means you have more options to be highly competitive at many more distances/races 5k-Marathon or beyond, including track, road, xc and trail.

3) Sub 27 is more impressive to the vast majority of people in the world, who do not know what a mile is because they use the metric system (sub 4 mile is only impressive for some of the general public in the US).

4) 10k is an Olympic, world championship distance, and you have probably competed in those.

5) it means you likely enjoy running distances, and get to enjoy the fun and freedom of easily covering/seeing large areas of ground (15-20km or so) at a good clip under your own power.

6) you are very likely a pro runner, or have that option. You have the option of winning more money in road and other open races.

7) if you have not already gone sub 4 for a mile, you likely could.

Unequal equivalents wrote:

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.

OUCHEDAY