Which is most impressive: sub 15 5k, sub 70 half, or sub 230 marathon

jknjnkb wrote:

sub 15 requires the most ability; 230 takes the most work.

I agree. I ran sub 15 in college, sub 70 right out of college, but couldn't put together the training for a good marathon. Having completed two of the three, I respect the third the most.

For me the order of the half and the marathon are switched. I'm at 2:26 for the Marathon which was hard, I did the sub70 while in full training and while I haven't run a 5k in more than a year, I'm not positive I could break the 15mins. My PB on the 5k is 15:36

so for me sub15>sub230

PRs

2:29:19

1:09:43

15:37 - Track

Sub-15 >

Getting Old wrote:

My PRs are ~14:45, ~2:29, and ~1:08. I ran the 1:08 a couple weeks following a 15:20s road 5K. I ran the 2:29 roughly a month after a 15:05ish track 5K. Unfortunately, no long distance races to compare to around the time of my track 5K PR, but I did run a ~51 min 10 miler on the roads a couple months later summer. Therefore I estimate I would have been good for 1:06/1:07 while in 14:45 5K shape.

Your marathon time is way slow by comparison. I was at 15:40, 1:08 and ran 2:26 with a pretty big slowdown over the last 5 miles.

From my own "career", sub 15 is most impressive and requires the most talent. Next is sub 70. Sub 2:30 is by far the weakest of the three.

My PRs

14:45

68

2:19

If you agree with VDOT, then you should be calling Rupp a 2:02 marathoner, and at the very least a 2:03 guy.

VDOT is trash.

Misuse of VDOT? wrote:

la la lo lo wrote:

VDOT tends to overestimate a person's ability for the longer distances. I just ran a 15:36 5K recently and there's no way in hell I could run a 2:30 marathon or a 71:3x half. I have a half coming up and I'm just hoping to break 73.

Is the problem with the VDOT, or is the problem that a vast majority of runners are better prepared for shorter races than longer races?

My explanation is that most runners aren't at racing weight. You can get away with a few extra lbs for 5k but carrying it 26.2 miles is another thing entirely. That's certainly the case for me.

I'll let you know in 6 weeks' time. I'm attempting to run sub-15 this weekend, sub-69 the following, and sub-2:24 in December. I'm 37.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

bofa wrote:

Definitely sub 15 5k, sub 2:30, sub 1:10. A guy on my team has a 16:45 5k and ran a 2:28 marathon.

No way is that the best he could do for 5km

Ridiculous.

16:30, 72:low half, 2:27:high full. It's not particularly ridiculous in my book.

2:30 is not fast. That is the least impressive, it just requires somebody with decent endurance. I'd say 70 2nd, and sub 15 most difficult. Sub 15 requires still having the speed to run sub 5 multiple times in a row, not a skill necessary to run 2:30 at all.

I've run 14:11-1:05:28-2:20:11 and am currently training for 2:18:xx. 14:11 would be way out of my wheelhouse now as I don't need that speed to run a whole lot of 5:17s, and I go 14:40s in recent road 5ks at a really high effort but consistently run 2:20.

I am stuck between sub-70 and sub-15. I would consider those two to be fairly equivalent.

Sub-2:30 is probably easiest of the 3. It might be the most "uncommon" though due to the volume of mileage required. A lot of post collegiates can run sub-70 off of 50-75 mpw. For most people, that won't get you to sub-2:30. Even if you're a stud.

Easiest to hardest if marathon training and can handle the training and not break

230/70/15

Easiest to hardest if you can't get decent miles in or break from mileage

15/70/230

From a performance perspective I think the order is

230/70/15

Sub 70 runners should be able to break 230 reasonably easily, heck, plenty of 71/72 guys do it all the time. Likewise, plenty of 71 guys break 15 (just), not sure about the 72s.

make of this what you want but

in the uk this year

218 brits have broken 15mins

163 have broken 70mins

66 have broken 2:30

wierd wrote:

make of this what you want but

in the uk this year

218 brits have broken 15mins

163 have broken 70mins

66 have broken 2:30

I’m sure you’ll find a similar distribution everywhere else too. That’s just a matter of more people running 5k races than the other two distances

wierd wrote:

make of this what you want but

in the uk this year

218 brits have broken 15mins

163 have broken 70mins

66 have broken 2:30

It's just a numbers thing really. Way more younger people doing 5ks and marathon is the least popular (from a serious runner perspective, maybe not the 5 hour runners) and you get way less chances in a year.

areusure? wrote:

Getting Old wrote:

My PRs are ~14:45, ~2:29, and ~1:08. I ran the 1:08 a couple weeks following a 15:20s road 5K. I ran the 2:29 roughly a month after a 15:05ish track 5K. Unfortunately, no long distance races to compare to around the time of my track 5K PR, but I did run a ~51 min 10 miler on the roads a couple months later summer. Therefore I estimate I would have been good for 1:06/1:07 while in 14:45 5K shape.

Your marathon time is way slow by comparison. I was at 15:40, 1:08 and ran 2:26 with a pretty big slowdown over the last 5 miles.

Agreed. I never managed to run a good marathon. Someone mentioned weight, and I think that I am just built a bit too heavy (6'0" and 160lbs at the time) to be good at distances much above 10 miles. Unfortunately I think I am now too old (early 40's) to improve on that marathon time. I did run 3:08 last year though, which surprised the hell out of me because I wasn't able to break 19 min for 5K in my "tune-up" race a few weeks earlier.

Someone up thread said it best, sub 15 takes the most talent whereas sub 2:30 takes the most work. Personally I think sub 70 is easier than sub 2:30, even if sub 70 is talent wise a better performance.

GBohannon wrote:

I am stuck between sub-70 and sub-15. I would consider those two to be fairly equivalent.

Sub-2:30 is probably easiest of the 3. It might be the most "uncommon" though due to the volume of mileage required. A lot of post collegiates can run sub-70 off of 50-75 mpw. For most people, that won't get you to sub-2:30. Even if you're a stud.

It really depends on whether somebody is strength runner or not. The sub-15 guy with with 60 400 speed is going to be much faster in the marathon than one with 54 speed.

BakerMaker wrote:

wierd wrote:

make of this what you want but

in the uk this year

218 brits have broken 15mins

163 have broken 70mins

66 have broken 2:30

It's just a numbers thing really. Way more younger people doing 5ks and marathon is the least popular (from a serious runner perspective, maybe not the 5 hour runners) and you get way less chances in a year.

the fact you dont get as many marathon chances a year surely makes it harder than the simple age grade/ vdot equations make it appear.

All this VDOT discussion ignores the impact of running surface. Road races are not as fast as track races, so it's a mistake to project one to the other without adjusting.

I'd say a 15:00 track 5k is about the same or maybe 30 seconds faster than a 70 minute half. 2:30 is definitely the least impressive, although plenty of fast guys won't train enough to get there.