Would you consider 3:59.97 a sub 4 mile???

PrZ wrote:

metric system. wrote:

Wouldn't 3:59 flat and below be considered a true sub 4 mile?

Pretty sure that if you break a world record by .03 you’d still be the world record holder. I get that you’re salty that a YouTuber is also really good at running (better than you), but no need to try and discount his performances.

Three points here, one he (Spencer Brown) has never made an NCAA Meet and he is a 5th year Senior, 2nd he got destroyed by a high school runner in his last race, and lastly he ran almost 34 minutes in his last cross country race.How many people great runners do you know that have never made an NCAA Meet? No wait, that get dead last at the NCAA Regionals? The reason he has a lot of haters is because he is a total narcissist. You would think he is a lock to make the Olympic Team, nevermind he can't even make the NCAA's, an event that many make each year and most never go pro. You can take this to the bank, he will NEVER be a pro, but rather just some dude who did some running in school and had a You Tube Channel come 2 years from now. He is a Legend in his own mind.

Oh no, he didn't peak right. It must be the end of the world.

Regardless, he broke four in the mile. Not bad and pretty rare. I wish I had broken four. Or 4:15 for that matter.

I said before he was peaked and he and a few others laughed. After he bombed at regionals I said he was done, but no I heard 100 reasons why he ran bad, but after his last fiasco everyone is saying what I said. Now I am saying that he is just a dude who runs and his name shouldn't be used on here as greatness of any kind until at the very least he can make an NCAA Track Meet, untill then he is a NO BODY! And even then lot's of kids make the NCAA Meet every year, actually most turn out to be No BODYS. What makes this clown special? I hate to bust someone's bubble, but his narcissism is over the top and it is down right sickening.

Are there any real questions? - C. Montgomery Burns

smh

anything under 4:00

yes, 3:59.97 is sub-4

it's like Ryan Hall being a 2:04 guy. take the course/tail wind aside. if you ran 2:04-high you're a 2:04 guy but there are levels to it. 2:04:00 is quite different.

I'm sorry you have so much trouble with math. It's a tough subject.

Dreams Become Reality wrote:

Coworker: Ever run a 4 min mile?

LRC Basement Dweller: Actually in college they race the 1500 which is basically the metric mile. I focused on the 5k and 10k, didn’t train for the 1500 but still ran 4:XX.

Coworker: You ran a 4 min mile, that’s cool. What’s your marathon time? Are you trying out for the Olympics?

LRC Basement Dweller: I’m still focusing on my 5k and 10k times for a few more years before I move up to the marathon.

This is a personal attack. Leave me alone!

Stupidest. Thread. Ever.

I don't see a 4 anywhere, so it is a sub 4!!!

Yeah, probably right but reading your posts makes me think your way dooshier.

....Plus his SUB-4 is faster than you.

Spencer Brown started this post and he should be referred to as Spencer" the Narcissist"Brown. He is a 3xOlympic gold medal winner in his mind.

I had never heard of Spencer Brown until today, but the vitriol against him here makes me want to take his side.

Regardless of whether he's an amazing athlete and/or a jerk, however, I don't see a valid reason to make mathematics collateral damage in the debate.

Spencer Green wrote:

I had never heard of Spencer Brown until today, but the vitriol against him here makes me want to take his side.

Regardless of whether he's an amazing athlete and/or a jerk, however, I don't see a valid reason to make mathematics collateral damage in the debate.

Thanks for your insight Mr Spencer Green aka Spencer Brown. So sad!

metric system. wrote:

Wouldn't 3:59 flat and below be considered a true sub 4 mile?

Didn't major in math, I take it?

The answer is in your own question

The OP raises a valid and important point. Now I need to reassess all those supposed sub-10-second 100 meter runners. It turns out none of them are actually what they claim to be.

Here is an example of a valid conversation in the world of the OP:

Q: What was your goal in today's mile race?

A: My goal was to break 4 minutes.

Q: And what was your time?

A: My time was 3:59.97.

Q: So, you missed your goal?

A: That is correct.; I did not break 4 minutes.

You’reanidiot wrote:

Stupidest. Thread. Ever.

And if you knew how old the original poster was, you would be shaking your head even more!

How many great runners never made NCAA nationals (or were never good enough to)? None! But you're responding to somebody who called him "really good." I think lots of "really good" runners can't make it to nationals. Sub 4 definitely qualifies as "really good."

I checked his IAAF profile and it lists a 3:39 and 1:49. Again, those are what I would call "really good." Nobody I've seen is calling him a "great."

Ok. So dont watch his youtube channel? I've never watched it, works out just fine for me. I dont hate him, or have any other feelings towards this random dude I've never met. The only reason I've ever heard of him is from people starting threads here about how much they dislike his youtube channel.

Definitely not. We need at least 10 seconds of leeway to be confident that it's not just sub 4 because of timing error. I'd say that it's not a true sub 4 unless it starts with 3:4x or lower.