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

Pisco Sour

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

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.

Then why on earth do the guys who spend no doubt countless hours/days/weeks formulating these tables come up with scores for lesser performances? If what you are saying is correct then why didn't they just stop the points at say a 32 minute 10000m and save themselves, no doubt, lots and lots of hard work and stress?

RayCun

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Continue to award fluffy bunnies and silver stars and hugs/kisses if you wish, no worries to me;)

Don't tempt me to use my amazing mod powers

zico10

RayCun wrote: »

are you thinking of the Best of 2011 thread?

Yes the very thing, hiding out in the events section. Not being currently based in Ireland, it's not a place I regularly visit.
I'm sure it had previous incarnations as the 'Best of 2010/2009/etc.'

RayCun

zico10 wrote: »

Yes the very thing, hiding out in the events section. Not being currently based in Ireland, it's not a place I regularly visit.
I'm sure it had previous incarnations as the 'Best of 2010/2009/etc.'

Yes, for the last couple of years at least. I think only about 30 people have entered results on the thread though.

oldrunner

04072511 wrote: »

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.

Now that it is established that 04072511 wanted to know which was objectively better, then it is clearly the 5 minute mile:

1. The IAAF tables ranks it better (requiring a 2:57:45 marathon for equivalence)
2. McMillan ranks a 5 minute mile and a 2:48:52 marathon as equivalent
3. Relative to world records a 5 minute mile is equivalent to 2:46:38 marathon (its definitely a better achievement to get closer to the world's best)

(and so what if a 60 minute 10k walk or a 12.5 second 100m is better again - no one asked for that comparison)

Krusty_Clown

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.

If the OP wanted a statistical comparison/reference, perhaps he should have just referenced the IAAF tables (with which he is very familiar!), and saved us all a lot of typing.

For what it's worth, I think the IAAF tables are absolutely fine for comparison, and also think that the 5 minute mile is the greater pink fluffy bunny achievement. For what it's worth though, I'd value the opinions of those who have achieved both, rather than one (me!) or none of the aforementioned targets.

ThePiedPiper

I going to throw a spanner in the works in this one and suggest that the average person will never run a sub 5 minute mile or a sub 3 hour marathon. Only somebody who actually a) has a modest amount of genetic athletic talent and b) actually applies this talent at one or other of the disciplines will do it.

From my own point of view, I've ran a sub 3 hour marathon and have ran 5.20 for the mile. However, that 5.20 came at the tail end of an interval session of 3 1/4 miles and one 1/2 mile so I'd say in racing conditions if I ever did do it, I could break the 5 minutes. I may or may not need to put in a training schedule, I don't know. Seeing as I generally base my seasons and training around marathons, I would not see the same sense of achievement in a sub 5 minute mile, I've never entered a race of less than 5k.

A guy I run with has won a few junior national and provincial titles and in training, I've seen him practically strolling around a 5.30 mile as if it was a casual walk. He can probably do a mile in well under 4.30. This same guy will probably never break 3 hours in the marathon as his body can't seem to cope with the increased workload in training for longer distances. So, to him, the sub 3 is probably the more unreachable, if not necessarily the greater achievement. I'd say he places more weight on the medals and times he ran at the shorter stuff.

Another friend of mine looks like he could possibly run sub 3 if he put the work in, but this guy can't break 6 minutes for the mile in training, he just has no natural leg speed. So to him, the sub 5 minute mile is probably out of reach. Sub 3 is his big goal, sub 5 minute mile means nothing to him.

Most of the people on this forum are distance runners, 10k - marathon and as such are more focused on the longer distance stuff. As another poster said, only 3-5% of people break 3 hours in any given marathon. However, there are a huge amount of people running/walking marathons who don't have any particular talent for it. Marathons, half marathons and 10k road races have turned into mass participation events which is fantastic but it does probably falsely indicate that a 2.59 marathoner is somebody who is at the top of their game. I'd imagine in any given mile race on a track, the vast majority of participants would break 5 minutes. The achievement is in the eye of the person who has done it or who seeks it at the end of the day.

robinph

zico10 wrote: »

Yes the very thing, hiding out in the events section. Not being currently based in Ireland, it's not a place I regularly visit.
I'm sure it had previous incarnations as the 'Best of 2010/2009/etc.'

Don't go in there a whole lot myself, but once you've posted in the thread it will then appear in your subscribed threads and you'll probably be able to keep better track of what is going on with it.

zico10

RayCun wrote: »

Yes, for the last couple of years at least. I think only about 30 people have entered results on the thread though.

This is not where I saw my original question ending up, but . . . . .
Does even a casual study of the mile and marathon times not tell you which must be harder to achieve?
I don't want to name names and it's certainly not my intention to belittle anyone's achievements, but of the three people who appear in these two particular tables, two have gone under 3 hours for a marathon and all three are a good bit off the 5 minute mark for a mile.

RayCun

zico10 wrote: »

Does even a casual study of the mile and marathon times not tell you which must be harder to achieve?

No - all it tells you is, the Boards A/R/T posters who have added their times to that thread are more likely to have recorded a sub-3 marathon than a sub-5 mile.