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

I've done a sub 15 and sub 2:30, but not a sub 70 half. So my bias would be :

1. sub 70

2. sub 15

3. sub 2:30

Definitely think sub 2:30 goes third.

There were probably 150 runners in Boston this past April with the fitness to break 2:30 but only 22 did it. I would say that 2:30 fitness is easier to obtain than 15 min 5k fitness or 70 min half fitness but to actually do it is harder as there are so few chances and so much room for error.

My opinion (and explanation)

1. 15 min 5k (the 5k is my favorite distance)

2. 2:30 marathon (third favorite Distance)

3. 1:10 half marathon (half of my third favorite distance)

Much respect to people who can run that fast.

jamin wrote:

You don't need much endurance for 5k. A runner who is more of a miler, and doesn't even have enough endurance for a 1:18 half marathon, can break 15:00 for 5k on pure mile training if he gets in a race with a lot of runners going that pace.

Anyone who can run 15 in a 5k can run 1:18 for a half. 1:18 is training pace. I was a primarily a miler who could break 15, and I ran 1:18 when I was 16.

I would agree that some sub 15 guys who are primarily milers could not break 70 (I never did, but I never ran a half again - except in training).

As for the original question, IMO, none of those times are "impressive". Which is harder to achieve depends on the runner. For a young runner sub 15:00 might be easier than sub 70 or sub 2:30. Unless they have no speed. For an older runner, it might be the opposite.

For my perspective, all you need to run 2:30 is half way decent endurance and a lot of training. You need more talent to run sub 70 and sub 15:00. Not a whole lot of talent, but some. You're kind of the equivalent of that guy who gets drafted in baseball, but never makes it out of rookie league (or maybe AAA). 2:30 is more like the guy who good and really motivated on his office softball team.

Then again, I ran in the 70's/80's when 2:30 was not all that impressive.

Crash and Burn wrote:

dude what wrote:

wut

Yeah that 5k PR is “fake” in the sense that there’s zero chance that guy ran 16:45 at an honest effort while being in the same stratosphere as 2:28.

You would be surprised

My friend for life of him can't break 18 for 5k (18:09 I thin for a PR), but he ran a 2:44 marathon. Some people are just built for the longer stuff.

sub-15 > sub 70 > sub 2:30

I know a lot of guys in the 2:28-2:32 marathon range and none of them have broken 70 for the half. 2:30 is probably equal to about 71:00

Sub 15 is hardest

Sub 70 middle

Sub 230 easiest

Hard to argue this ^^.

*However, since ideal training for each distance is required, that’s where you’ll have more execute a sub 15 than a sub 230. Additionally the frequency of racing marathons makes the 230 harder to achieve.

The 2:30 marathon is the most impressive because you have to run 26.2 miles.

(From my perspective of what is achievable for me)

14:59 (4:49 / mile) 3.1 mi - by far the easiest

69:59 (5:20 / mile) 13.1 mi - sounds kind of insane

2:29:59 (5:42 / mile) 26.2 mi - this sounds almost doable with a lot of training

Just hopping on a track and holding 4:49 pace for 12 laps sounds so much more obtainable than the other 2. I haven’t run one while in top shape but I could go sub 4:20 in the mile and 73s per lap sound like nothing.

The marathon also sounds doable if I put in a huge mass of training and tempos and long runs. It’s the half that sounds the hardest for me.

Easiest - 5k

Next Easiest - Marathon

Hardest - Half Marathon

Coming from a mid distance guy.

I never achieved any of the three but got close relatively close in all.

My PRs are 15:25, 71:53, and 2h30:41.

2h29 would be the easiest to achieve by a good margin. The Sub 1h10 and sub 15 would be closer to each other, but the latter being harder.

Personally the 5k barrier. I am a rare case that my PB at 5k was 15:57 while my 10k PB was 31:13 and 1h:07:27 half and my one and only marathon was 2h:28:05 (took a couple of walk breaks in it, found it suicidal, never did it again, the hell with the distance)

jknjnkb wrote:

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

+1 to that

On average, I think I'd be more 'impressed' by a guy that told me he ran 14:59, but I'd have a strong sense of respect for a guy that ran 2:29:59. It also would depend on the person's age and gender for me. A college guy that runs 14:59 would be much less impressive to me than somebody Bernard Lagat's age doing it. Similarly, a guy running those times would be much less impressive to me than a woman running those same times.

yestothis wrote:

[quote]jknjnkb wrote:

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

For the majority of runners, I think I would agree to that as well. As it looks like others have mentioned jack daniels vdot chart is based off a person being a pure marathoner. I am a pretty good example of that. My prs are 1459, 3121, 6812, and 2:22:25. All of those performances are between 69-71 vdot ranges (though I would say my 10k and half are weak). I just broke 15 for the first time this year and just ran a solo marathon in 2:23:50 on Sunday. I was in better shape when i ran the sub 15 5k i

May though.

Sesamoiditis wrote:

There were probably 150 runners in Boston this past April with the fitness to break 2:30 but only 22 did it. I would say that 2:30 fitness is easier to obtain than 15 min 5k fitness or 70 min half fitness but to actually do it is harder as there are so few chances and so much room for error.

That was extremely skewed because of the weather this year (though I think if I had gone out in an even 74 instead of a decaying 72 I would have broke 230). It was my slowest marathon by a few minutes. Look at most years in Boston and it's probably closer to 100 total runners that break 230.

I would agree that sub 15 requires the most talent, but I've seen a fair number of guys do it while in the midst of hard training blocks. I've seen guys out of college do sub 70 with no training which makes me think it's less impressive. But I think sub 2:30 is interesting because while it might be the "easiest" it requires a solid build-up, solid weather, solid fitness, and a settled stomach. You can't just be fit but you have to practice nutrition and hydration. I think it's much harder to use your ability to muscle your way to 2:30, because like the previous poster said, if it's like Boston 2k18, it's not going to happen. A marathon requires fitness + luck, whereas a sub 15 5k just requires fitness. So in terms of impressiveness, it definitely varies, because while a sub 15 is the most impressive athletically, all the guys I know who run sub 15 and also run 100 mile weeks would not have run sub 2:30 in boston (or maybe anywhere).

minde15 wrote:

Sesamoiditis wrote:

There were probably 150 runners in Boston this past April with the fitness to break 2:30 but only 22 did it. I would say that 2:30 fitness is easier to obtain than 15 min 5k fitness or 70 min half fitness but to actually do it is harder as there are so few chances and so much room for error.

That was extremely skewed because of the weather this year (though I think if I had gone out in an even 74 instead of a decaying 72 I would have broke 230). It was my slowest marathon by a few minutes. Look at most years in Boston and it's probably closer to 100 total runners that break 230.

I was in that Boston race among the first 50 finishers. Definitely felt like I could have run about 2:27 under more normal conditions.

Sesamoiditis wrote:

There were probably 150 runners in Boston this past April with the fitness to break 2:30 but only 22 did it. I would say that 2:30 fitness is easier to obtain than 15 min 5k fitness or 70 min half fitness but to actually do it is harder as there are so few chances and so much room for error.

Seems logical.

I feel like people are underestimating a 70 half. I can probably run a 15 flat in top shape in a good day, but a 70 sounds too much. And I consider myself an endurance oriented guy.

I can't offer any input for the marathon but it sounds in line with the 70 half.

Marathons are difficult but I think the fitness is easier to obtain but the performance is harder to bring to fruition:

My PRs are:

14:55 5k

68:02 half

2:31 marathon.

I had a bad marathon and was in much better shape but blew up the last 2 miles. I would of broken 226 if I hadn't had to basically walk the last two miles. I have a lot of respect for people that can run sub 230 now.