Sub 5 minute Mile or Sub 3 hour Marathon. Which is a better achievement?

shels4ever

robinph wrote: »

For some reason it counts as an Olympic qualification course though.

Why anyone in their right mind would try to get their time on that course is beyond me, just this year the conditions made it a daft fast course to skew the results.

Maybe they would try because of the $ involved
I'm sure the likes of Cragg and co. picked up a nice little packet just to be on the start line

walshb

Guys, I did 4 K last night in 16:45. How's that for an average joe?

RayCun

walshb wrote: »

Guys, I did 4 K last night in 16:45. How's that for an average joe?

Come along to Rathfarnham next weekend and find out

zico10

walshb wrote: »

Guys, I did 4 K last night in 16:45. How's that for an average joe?

Fairly average.

On the OP's question, I think a sub 5 minute mile is a greater achievement. I only ever use metric measurements and I'm not going to change to answer this question. To run 1.6 odd km in under 5 minutes, you need to be holding a pace of 3.07minute/km. To run a sub 3 hour marathon, you need to be running at a pace just under 4.15minute./km Whether you find these paces easy or not, I still think there's no hiding from the fact that one is significantly quicker than the other.
And yes I am well aware that a marathon is over 42km, so there's no need to point it out.

Krusty_Clown

zico10 wrote: »

Fairly average.

On the OP's question, I think a sub 5 minute mile is a greater achievement. I only ever use metric measurements and I'm not going to change to answer this question. To run 1.6 odd km in under 5 minutes, you need to be holding a pace of 3.07km/minute. To run a sub 3 hour marathon, you need to be running at a pace just under 4.15km/minute. Whether you find these paces easy or not, I still think there's no hiding from the fact that one is significantly quicker than the other.
And yes I am well aware that a marathon is over 42km, so there's no need to point it out.

3.07km/minute? Then you could do a mile in around 31 seconds. Now that would be far more impressive than a sub-3 marathon.

Krusty_Clown

walshb wrote: »

Guys, I did 4 K last night in 16:45. How's that for an average joe?

Not bad for an average Joe. Equivalent of about 21:23 for 5k, which would have you finishing somewhere around 200th position in the Rathfarnham 5k (of around 700 runners).

zico10

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

3.07km/minute? Then you could do a mile in around 31 seconds. Now that would be far more impressive than a sub-3 marathon.

The 4.15km/minute is even better.:o

Mellor

zico10 wrote: »

Fairly average.

On the OP's question, I think a sub 5 minute mile is a greater achievement. I only ever use metric measurements and I'm not going to change to answer this question. To run 1.6 odd km in under 5 minutes, you need to be holding a pace of 3.07minute/km. To run a sub 3 hour marathon, you need to be running at a pace just under 4.15minute./km Whether you find these paces easy or not, I still think there's no hiding from the fact that one is significantly quicker than the other.
And yes I am well aware that a marathon is over 42km, so there's no need to point it out.

By that logic, a 15 second 100m is an even greater achievement as it is an average pace of 2m30s. :P
Which is obviously incorrect


I'm not sure what point you are making. Obviously one is a quicker pace. How does that make it greater achievement

Pisco Sour

Mellor wrote: »

By that logic, a 15 second 100m is an even greater achievement as it is an average pace of 2m30s. :P
Which is obviously incorrect


I'm not sure what point you are making. Obviously one is a quicker pace. How does that make it greater achievement

The IAAF scoring tables is the table used by the IAAF to compare performances across events. As it is compliled by the governing body of our sport it can be viewed as fairly reliable. According to the tables the sub 5 minute mile is a better performance.

What's a better achievement depends on the person and whether they are fast twitch or slow twitch. Obviously for somebody with a slower twitch, the sub 5 minute mile would be a better achievement as the sub 3 marathon would come easier to him/her. The opposite would be true for a fast twitch runner.

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/33/41/20110124082825_httppostedfile_IAAF_Scoring_Tables_of_Athletics_2011_23299.pdf

The result of the poll here is probably irrelevant as the majority of posters here run marathons rather than track races so are naturally going to vote for the marathon.

RayCun

04072511 wrote: »

The IAAF scoring tables is the table used by the IAAF to compare performances across events.

So... what is it actually measuring? How rare a 5 minute mile (for example) is in comparison to a 3 hour marathon?

Krusty_Clown

04072511 wrote: »

The IAAF scoring tables is the table used by the IAAF to compare performances across events. As it is compliled by the governing body of our sport it can be viewed as fairly reliable. According to the tables the sub 5 minute mile is a better performance.

Live by the sword, die by the sword:
Based on the IAAF table, the 10km race walk in 1:00:35 is tougher than both of the challenges and is the greatest of these achievements.

If you want to compare apples and oranges, you have to take the peaches too. I don't mean to undermine the 'walk', merely to point out the irrelevance of making comparisons across disciplines.

Pisco Sour

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Live by the sword, die by the sword:
Based on the IAAF table, the 10km race walk in 1:00:35 is tougher than both of the challenges and is the greatest of these achievements.

If you want to compare apples and oranges, you have to take the peaches too. I don't mean to undermine the 'walk', merely to point out the irrelevance of making comparisons across disciplines.

There's a hell of a lot more similarities between the 1500m/Mile and the Marathon than there is between the race walk and the marathon, but since you've brought it up, yes that would be about right. A 60 minute 10km race walk is a bloody good performance.

And if it was irrelevant to make comparisons across disciplines then why are the IAAF (the governing body of the sport) issueing tables then? And why do they have athlete of the year awards and all that? All the many events fall under the one sport called 'Athletics". With the sport having so many different disciplines and distances, comparisons are natural and inevitable.

This thread is an example:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056389104&page=1

Nobody on this thread has been talking about the irrelevance of comparing different performances across disciplines.

TheRoadRunner

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

If you want to compare apples and oranges, you have to take the peaches too. I don't mean to undermine the 'walk', merely to point out the irrelevance of making comparisons across disciplines.

Thank you, thank you thank you. I reckon (nothing to back this up) these tables were first introduced so points could be awarded in multievents such as the decathlon. I think they are irrelevant when comparing 2 events for a specific individual. As has already been stated the "achievement" will depend on the individual, their natural ability and what they like to do in training

thirtyfoot

RayCun wrote: »

So... what is it actually measuring? How rare a 5 minute mile (for example) is in comparison to a 3 hour marathon?

No, benchmarked against the best in the world and constantly evolving. These tables have been around a while and while there are some flaws are the best comparison across disciplines.

TheRoadRunner

04072511 wrote: »

This thread is an example:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056389104&page=1

Nobody on this thread has been talking about the irrelevance of comparing different performances across disciplines.

Just because some people didn't post doesn't mean they think they were irrelevant

Go and enjoy your IAAF tables! I'll set my own bench marks. Don't need some statisticians in the IAAF telling me what is a good performance (for me) and what is not. I don't know how the IAAF come up with these points but you can be guaranteed there will be biases in some events. Again, I've nothing to back this up but if you have something to say the contrary I'll take that on board.

thirtyfoot

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Thank you, thank you thank you. I reckon (nothing to back this up) these tables were first introduced so points could be awarded in multievents such as the decathlon. I think they are irrelevant when comparing 2 events for a specific individual. As has already been stated the "achievement" will depend on the individual, their natural ability and what they like to do in training

These weren't introduced on the multi events, the scoring in multi are different. The Hungarian tables are statistically based and based on years of results and performances. Yes they take elite into account and granted don't take into account whether someone started the sport late or work long hours or have kids or have diabetes or their gran is sick and lives with them or whatever, but when it comes to comparison across events they are the best indicator.

TheRoadRunner

thirtyfoot wrote: »

No, benchmarked against the best in the world and constantly evolving. These tables have been around a while and while there are some flaws are the best comparison across disciplines.

So technically a freak like Bolt has in theory has reduced the number of points awarded to a 9.99 100 metres by lowering the world record significantly? Or is that too simplistic?

RayCun

thirtyfoot wrote: »

No, benchmarked against the best in the world and constantly evolving. These tables have been around a while and while there are some flaws are the best comparison across disciplines.

So, how fast a time/long a throw etc is compared to the world record? Or average performance at world championships? Why is the 110m hurdles record worth 1277 points and the 100m record worth 1356?
I'm not clear on the model here...

zico10

Mellor wrote: »

By that logic, a 15 second 100m is an even greater achievement as it is an average pace of 2m30s. :P
Which is obviously incorrect

I'm not sure it is, but not by the logic you're using. Which if you think is the same as the logic I'm using, then you're only half correct. 3.07/km is not just faster than 4.15/km, it's significantly faster and you have to hold this for significantly longer than 15 seconds.
I don't know enough about sprinting (and I don't think you do either) to comment on the noteworthiness of a 15 second 100m. I have no idea what the average person could do 100m in and I honestly have no idea how difficult it would be to cover the distance in 15 seconds. Maybe it's not the ultimate authority, but the McMillan running calculator, which seems to have the final say in a lot of disputes here ranks them thus; 1st - sub 5 minute mile, 2nd - 15 second 100m, 3rd - sub 3 hour marathon.
I really am surprised by the discrepancies in the results of the poll. Maybe the achievement of going sub 3 is a personal goal for some and for that reason they see it as a greater achievement.
I'd be interested to see how the sub 3 hour marathoners around here voted. And of this bunch it'd also be interesting to see, how many of them have also ran sub 5 minute miles. I'm fairly sure the numbers would drop.
I've never ran a mile race and I probably never will, but I think I'd be a long way off going sub 5 if I did. Properly trained, I'd be 100% certain I'd run run a sub 3 hour marathon. Maybe it's this that's clouding my judgement, but this was my reasoning in voting for the sub 5 minute mile.

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you are making.

The point I am making is that a sub 5 minute mile is a greater achievement than a sub 3 hour marathon. I thought that would have been obvious. The clue is in the thread's title.

Pisco Sour

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

So technically a freak like Bolt has in theory has reduced the number of points awarded to a 9.99 100 metres by lowering the world record significantly? Or is that too simplistic?

No, not all World records have the same score on the tables. Some are stronger than others.

thirtyfoot

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

So technically a freak like Bolt has in theory has reduced the number of points awarded to a 9.99 100 metres by lowering the world record significantly? Or is that too simplistic?

It won't dramatically reduce it but will have an effect. That's why using the IAAF tables to compare Irish Records should use the Hungarian table of the year of the performance to get a fairer indication.

Pisco Sour

zico10 wrote: »

Maybe it's not the ultimate authority, but the McMillan running calculator, which seems to have the final say in a lot of disputes here ranks them thus; 1st - sub 5 minute mile, 2nd - 15 second 100m, 3rd - sub 3 hour marathon.

McMillan really isn't the way to go about comparing performances.

The IAAF tables have a sub 3 hour marathon as equivalent to a 12.77 second 100m, which would be about right. There's no way in hell a 15 second 100m is equivalent to a sub 3 hour marathon.

TheRoadRunner

thirtyfoot wrote: »

It won't dramatically reduce it but will have an effect. That's why using the IAAF tables to compare Irish Records should use the Hungarian table of the year of the performance to get a fairer indication.

man that sounds more complicated. So technically a record set in 1990 might get 1000 points while the same record if scored in 2011 might only get 900 points? (edit that actually makes sense to me)

By the way for me, a sub 5 minute mile would be the harder achievement. Assuming I was coming back from a 3 month lay off I could run the marathon time off slow miles (50 miles a week). For the mile I'd need 50 miles a week with 2 threshold sessions a week

RayCun

04072511 wrote: »

The IAAF tables have a sub 3 hour marathon as equivalent to a 12.77 second 100m, which would be about right.

Why? What is the methodology behind the decision to award those two performances the same points?
When you say that is 'about right', based on what? How hard you think those two times are? For who? How many runners compete in both 100m and marathon at the same age?

I know you don't like the McMillan calculator (and I think you attach more weight to it than most people who use it), but even those who use it would say you can't make a useful prediction for the marathon from a 100m time.

zico10

04072511 wrote: »

McMillan really isn't the way to go about comparing performances.

The IAAF tables have a sub 3 hour marathon as equivalent to a 12.77 second 100m, which would be about right. There's no way in hell a 15 second 100m is equivalent to a sub 3 hour marathon.

Equivalent by what logic? Could the average male runner clock a 12.77 100m? Like I said previously my knowledge of sprinting isn't all that vast, but I think it's far more likely the average male runner could run a sub 3 hour marathon.

Krusty_Clown

zico10 wrote: »

I'd be interested to see how the sub 3 hour marathoners around here voted.

I didn't vote, because of the 'greyness' of the premise of the thread. It's still a good thread/discussion, I just think 'achievement' is a personal thing, and depends on one's proclivity for a specific type of event. Once I've run a sub-5 mile, I'll come back and vote. Until then, I think my current view is that a sub-5 is tougher for me, but I have never tried.

thirtyfoot

From the Hungarian horse's mouth is below. While it doesn't divulge the exact calculation method this is the definite statistical tool for comparing performances. It wasn't always packaged as the IAAF Scoring Table, it was the Hungarian tables. I can remember using these tables when a teenager many moons ago. As I say there are some small flaws but these are the best indicator across events in my opinion.


The Scoring Tables of Athletics are based on exact statistical data and according to the following
principles:
The scores in the tables of different events cover equivalent performances. Therefore, the tables can be used to compare results achieved in different athletic events.
Due to obvious biological differences, it is not proposed to fully compare men's and women's performances. Thus, the system contains scoring tables for men's and women's events respectively.
The tables are progressive, which means that the same improvement of results at higher levels leads to a greater increase in the scores. For example, to improve from 8.30m to 8.60m in the Long Jump is
obviously more difficult than to improve from 6.30m to 6.60m. The degree of progressivity in the
running (walking, hurdling) events is different than in the jumping and in the throwing events due to
biomechanical reasons.
The IAAF Scoring Tables of Athletics can be used for multiple purposes, including:
• To determine the Result Score of a performance for the World Rankings;
• To evaluate the competitions;
• To establish the best athlete award in a specific competition;
• To produce national, club, school and other rankings;
• To use it in championships of clubs, etc.
To make comparisons easier, events are edited as follows:
• Sprints, Hurdles and Relays
• Middle Distances
• Long Distances and Steeplechase
• Road Running
• Race Walking
• Jumping and Throwing events and Decathlon/Heptathlon
Should a performance fall between two results on the tables the lower score shall be considered.
In view of tradition and in effort to keep things simple, the Scoring Tables include only whole number
scores for expressing performances.
Hand times:
• Sprints and Hurdles up to 200m: add 0,24 sec
• 300m, 400m and 400m Hurdles: add 0,14 sec
The tables are being continuously reviewed. When noted, discrepancies shall be removed and, if
necessary, new events shall be added so that the Scoring Tables are always accurate and up to date.
Dr. Bojidar Spiriev
(1932-2010)

Pisco Sour

zico10 wrote: »

Equivalent by what logic? Could the average male runner clock a 12.77 100m? Like I said previously my knowledge of sprinting isn't all that vast, but I think it's far more likely the average male runner could run a sub 3 hour marathon.

A samoan shot putter who was 20 stone plus ran a 100m in 15.66 seconds at the Worlds in Daegu. 15 seconds isn't particularly quick.

I can't give a technical answer to these questions as I didn't compile the tables, but to me those times would look very comparable to each other.

For example, Ailis McSweeney's 100m Irish record is 11.40 seconds. It's not a hugely strong record in the grand scheme of athletics and certainly wouldn't compare to Catherina McKiernan's 2:22:23 for the marathon which was truly world class. McSweeney's record would probably equate to something like 2:35 for the marathon (without looking at the tables). A 11.40 would probably get you as far in 100m at an elite level as a 2:35 would in the marathon. Is it that hard to imagine then that a 12.77 would be close to being in line to a 2:59.59?

thirtyfoot

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

man that sounds more complicated. So technically a record set in 1990 might get 1000 points while the same record if scored in 2011 might only get 900 points? (edit that actually makes sense to me)

Probably but not that dramatic but that is good as it is progressive and constantly evolving.

thirtyfoot

RayCun wrote: »

Why? What is the methodology behind the decision to award those two performances the same points?
.

Years and years of statistical analysis of high level performances in both events.

IAAF Scoring Tables based on hard stats.
A/R/T Scoring Tables (if they existed) based on feeling good about yourself and self-achievement.

robinph

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Live by the sword, die by the sword:
Based on the IAAF table, the 10km race walk in 1:00:35 is tougher than both of the challenges and is the greatest of these achievements.

If you want to compare apples and oranges, you have to take the peaches too. I don't mean to undermine the 'walk', merely to point out the irrelevance of making comparisons across disciplines.

I seem to remember some walker coming in not long after me in a BHAA 10km at the K Club a couple of years ago. Now either he was actually running, the clock was wildly wrong or he took a different route to the rest of us as it was well under the 60minutes I thought.

Pisco Sour

robinph wrote: »

I seem to remember some walker coming in not long after me in a BHAA 10km at the K Club a couple of years ago. Now either he was actually running, the clock was wildly wrong or he took a different route to the rest of us as it was well under the 60minutes I thought.

Well unless it was Rob Heffernan by any chance?

thirtyfoot

On the Walk point. World medalist, Olice Loughnane, walked 44:27 in Spain last week. Thats 1134 points or a 32:28 in a running 10k. Seems about right to me based on her standing and also the fact she was a bit below par.

If someone believes they could get within 15 and half minutes of a world class walker over 10k and being subject to full race walking rules and find it an easy thing to do, fair play to them.

Stark

robinph wrote: »

I seem to remember some walker coming in not long after me in a BHAA 10km at the K Club a couple of years ago. Now either he was actually running, the clock was wildly wrong or he took a different route to the rest of us as it was well under the 60minutes I thought.

Sounds like a runner who might have blown up towards the end? Did he have the distinctive "racewalker" walking style? Even if he was racewalking, I imagine the temptation of breaking into running stride in a race where you didn't actually have to walk would be very difficult to resist. It's a tough stride to sustain.

TheRoadRunner

thirtyfoot wrote: »

If someone believes they could get within 15 and half minutes of a world class walker over 10k and being subject to full race walking rules and find it an easy thing to do, fair play to them.

If somebody could be bothered doing the walking events then doubly fair play to them

Pisco Sour

thirtyfoot wrote: »

On the Walk point. World medalist, Olice Loughnane, walked 44:27 in Spain last week. Thats 1134 points or a 32:28 in a running 10k. Seems about right to me based on her standing and also the fact she was a bit below par.

If someone believes they could get within 15 and half minutes of a world class walker over 10k and being subject to full race walking rules and find it an easy thing to do, fair play to them.

HEAD. NAIL. HIT.

Krusty_Clown

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Years and years of statistical analysis of high level performances in both events.

IAAF Scoring Tables based on hard stats.
A/R/T Scoring Tables (if they existed) based on feeling good about yourself and self-achievement.

But the premise of this thread is: 'which is the better feeling good about yourself self achievement?', rather than 'according to statistical data/analysis, which scores higher in the IAAF tables'. The second question would have been a lot easier to answer, and wouldn't have required 182 points of discussion.

Do the AAI use these tables to determine who travels to the Olympics? Do they determine that you need a score of 1,100+ points to represent Ireland in a specific event? Because if they really were that valuable and useful, you'd imagine they would serve that purpose very nicely. how much more clear-cut could you get than:
A standard = 1,100+
B standard = 1,000+

Pisco Sour

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

If somebody could be bothered doing the walking events then doubly fair play to them

What's that supposed to mean?

RayCun

thirtyfoot wrote: »

From the Hungarian horse's mouth is below. While it doesn't divulge the exact calculation method this is the definite statistical tool for comparing performances. It wasn't always packaged as the IAAF Scoring Table, it was the Hungarian tables. I can remember using these tables when a teenager many moons ago. As I say there are some small flaws but these are the best indicator across events in my opinion.

Thanks, but although that explains how to use the tables, it doesn't really say how the tables were generated.

thirtyfoot wrote: »

A/R/T Scoring Tables (if they existed) based on feeling good about yourself and self-achievement.

We do have scoring tables based on hard stats - there's the 1000 mile thread, the Best of 2011 thread, the VO2 max thread, the Big 8 challenge, the Swim/Cycle/Run challenge thread. They're a fun challenge for those who participate.
I don't think anyone sees those threads as providing an overall ranking of achievement? What is the point in having an overall ranking of the wasters and layabouts that post to Boards A/R/T? The fastest runner on here, whoever that is, is going to be competing with the people he lines up beside at a race. Not me

Krusty_Clown

thirtyfoot wrote: »

If someone believes they could get within 15 and half minutes of a world class walker over 10k and being subject to full race walking rules and find it an easy thing to do, fair play to them.

I wouldn't have believed it, but the IAAF table says I should be good for a lot quicker than that. Who am I to argue with the hard stats?

zico10

RayCun wrote: »

I don't think anyone sees those threads as providing an overall ranking of achievement? What is the point in having an overall ranking of the wasters and layabouts that post to Boards A/R/T?

Is there not a thread somewhere listing people's PB across a range of events? I remember it from the halcyon days of boards, when I was a mere lurker.

RayCun

zico10 wrote: »

Is there not a thread somewhere listing people's PB across a range of events? I remember it from the halcyon days of boards, when I was a mere lurker.

are you thinking of the Best of 2011 thread?

zico10

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

But the premise of this thread is: 'which is the better feeling good about yourself self achievement?', rather than 'according to statistical data/analysis, which scores higher in the IAAF tables'. The second question would have been a lot easier to answer, and wouldn't have required 182 points of discussion.

Yeh, but it never does any harm to know you're not as good as you thought you were.

“No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you.” Homer Simpson

Pisco Sour

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I wouldn't have believed it, but the IAAF table says I should be good for a lot quicker than that. Who am I to argue with the hard stats?

No it doesn't say that. What the IAAF tables says is that a sub 3 marathon performance by a marathon runner would be of the same level as a 60 minute 10km walk by a RACEWALKER. The tables don't suggest what you should be able to do over a completely unrelated event. It simply compares your performance to somebody else's performance in that different event.

The tables are set up to compare performances, as athletics is a sport made up of so many events.

Allyson Felix has run 21.81 secs (I think that's her PB) for 200m. This doesn't mean that she should be good enough to run a 10000m in 30:01.13. It merely states that her 21.81 secs would be an equivalent performance to a 30:01.13 (which is around Radcliffe's PB actually).

thirtyfoot

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

But the premise of this thread is: 'which is the better feeling good about yourself self achievement?', rather than 'according to statistical data/analysis, which scores higher in the IAAF tables'. The second question would have been a lot easier to answer, and wouldn't have required 182 points of discussion.

Only adding comment to the thread as the Scoring Tables were brought up and people seemed to disregard them. My point I suppose is if you want a tool to measure such achievements, don't disregard this one.

But while you are at it, if this is a 'which is the better feeling good about yourself self achievement?' then why bother have the discussion at all and simply leave it as a poll. The original question was which is the best achievement for an average person. Using a trusted statistical tool that is based on (granted) exceptionally talented persons is surely useful in such a discussion. The exceptionally talented person at the mile is probably equal to the exceptionally talented person at the marathon so why can't you filter that down the normal person.

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Do the AAI use these tables to determine who travels to the Olympics? Do they determine that you need a score of 1,100+ points to represent Ireland in a specific event? Because if they really were that valuable and useful, you'd imagine they would serve that purpose very nicely. how much more clear-cut could you get than:
A standard = 1,100+
B standard = 1,000+

No, IAAF set the standard. There would be statistical analysis used to maintain such standards but mainly to control the entrants, ie, ensure there are between 20-30 odd in the track events while the marathon can have more and usually does, hence the softer standard in that events for majors. So, yes, in some ways a derivation of the statistical model used by the Hungarian is applied when calculating Q standards.

oldrunner

May as well join the ranks of the bored

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

But the premise of this thread is: 'which is the better feeling good about yourself self achievement?', rather than 'according to statistical data/analysis, which scores higher in the IAAF tables'.

Well, the original question was

So for the average person with no talent what is the greater achievement, going sub 5 for the mile, or sub 3 for the marathon?

Being a pedant, 'achievement' is defined as "A thing done successfully, typically by effort, courage, or skill" and 'better' as "More excellently or effectively". 'Talent' is "Natural aptitude or skill".

It appears to me that the OP question is not about feeling good (perhaps he can answer for himself) but about the objective measurement.

The IAAF tables are the only real objective measurement. The 2008 tables gave a higher score to the 3 hour marathon, the 2011 tables rank the 5 minute mile higher. So that's definitive then.

Personally, I believe that the 'talent' qualifier makes it more difficult for an average person to break the 5 minute mile barrier. If the person has no natural aptitude for running, they are unlikely to be able to build the speed needed but could build the endurance.

Of course, I'm completely biased.

TheRoadRunner

04072511 wrote: »

What the IAAF tables says is that a sub 3 marathon performance by a marathon runner would be of the same level as a 60 minute 10km walk by a RACEWALKER. The tables don't suggest what you should be able to do over a completely unrelated event. It simply compares your performance to somebody else's performance in that different event.

Here's the hub of the argument. Those tables are devised for world class athletes. Most people (if not all) here are not world class in their event therefore these tables mean nothing to our performances.

Pisco Sour

oldrunner wrote: »

It appears to me that the OP question is not about feeling good (perhaps he can answer for himself) but about the objective measurement.

Yep, I had read a thread on letsrun forums about this very topic and thought it would be an interesting discussion, which is why I posted it here.

thirtyfoot

RayCun wrote: »

Thanks, but although that explains how to use the tables, it doesn't really say how the tables were generated.

True, I can't find them. I did have a simple version before but can't find, will see can I.

RayCun wrote: »

We do have scoring tables based on hard stats - there's the 1000 mile thread, the Best of 2011 thread, the VO2 max thread, the Big 8 challenge, the Swim/Cycle/Run challenge thread. They're a fun challenge for those who participate.
I don't think anyone sees those threads as providing an overall ranking of achievement? What is the point in having an overall ranking of the wasters and layabouts that post to Boards A/R/T? The fastest runner on here, whoever that is, is going to be competing with the people he lines up beside at a race. Not me

Thats all true. I am not asking you to all measure yourselves using Hungarian, did I ask that?. Just saying the Hungarian Tables are good (the best we have) for comparison across events if thats what people want to do, eg, Mile vs Marathon. You don't have to use them. Continue to award fluffy bunnies and silver stars and hugs/kisses if you wish, no worries to me;)

RayCun

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Using a trusted statistical tool that is based on (granted) exceptionally talented persons is surely useful in such a discussion. The exceptionally talented person at the mile is probably equal to the exceptionally talented person at the marathon so why can't you filter that down the normal person.

Participation rates and training impact, off the top of my head.
Suppose Sport A has a very low participation rate for 'normal' people - a relatively small number of people compete, but those who do have been competing (and being trained in that event) since they were kids.
Sport B has a much higher participation rate, and less specific training.

Comparing the international athletes in those sports to normal people will give you very skewed readings.