3:07 marathoner vs 26:21 8km runner. Who is the better runner?

it's ok to admit u can't hang at the marathon distance we won't judge you.

The marathoner had finished an 8k

The 8ker…

Greg wrote:

Is it even a question?

Yes, it is. My PRs at those distances are 25:32 and 3:11.

A 26:21 8k is equivalent to a 2:33 marathon

A 3:07 marathon is equivalent to a 32:05 8k

Runningart2004 wrote:

I ran 26:20 in college and 2:32 marathon in my late 20s *shrug*

Alan

Thats about the equivalent

3:07 is possible on 31-32min 8km

A real Greg comparison

lol@ everybody trolling Greg. i guess he deserves it for asking a stupid question.

stupid question, op.

next

I'll assume it is the same runner. The runner was adequately trained for an 8K, but severely undertrained for the 'thon.

high school xc coach wrote:

lol@ everybody trolling Greg. i guess he deserves it for asking a stupid question.

stupid question, op.

next

lol. 3:07 is like 32 min 8k.

freeideaforgreg wrote:

I'll assume it is the same runner. The runner was adequately trained for an 8K, but severely undertrained for the 'thon.

It’s not the same runner.

Greg started a different, pointless thread to make fun of people who run over 3 hours for the marathon, saying they “shouldn’t be proud” of their performance.

Many people, understandably, took issue with this argument as its based on a subjective premise and is steeped in dumb gatekeeping of running culture.

Greg’s defense was that he could’ve run faster despite having never trained for or attempted a marathon and the thread turned against him.

Now Greg’s started a different thread with a different premise to save face.

Sad stuff.

8k wrote:

A 26:21 8k is equivalent to a 2:33 marathon

A 3:07 marathon is equivalent to a 32:05 8k

These are not true statements. They are not equivalent. The suggestion is merely that with proper distance specific training, the other time is possible. There is no promise that the 8k person ever builds the endurance to run the marathon. Alternatively, there is no promise that the marathon person ever has the speed to run the shorter race as fast as the tables suggest is possible.

Better at the marathon? The 3:07 runner.

Better at the 8k? The 26:xx runner.

Not sure I consider 3hr+ marathoner even a runner....

Whiskers wrote:

8k wrote:

A 26:21 8k is equivalent to a 2:33 marathon

A 3:07 marathon is equivalent to a 32:05 8k

These are not true statements. They are not equivalent. The suggestion is merely that with proper distance specific training, the other time is possible. There is no promise that the 8k person ever builds the endurance to run the marathon. Alternatively, there is no promise that the marathon person ever has the speed to run the shorter race as fast as the tables suggest is possible.

Correct but Greg disagrees. He thinks he can use the equivalency tables to prove he could run well under 3 and that actually doing it is unnecessary. And no amount of logic will convince him otherwise.

The runner that doesn’t feel a need to compare his journey to another runners Journey is the better runner in my mind. People are sometimes way better at shorter or longer distances depending on how they run. I know runners that toast me in the Marathon times but I have a way better half marathon time then them personally. Maybe the 3:07:00 runner time is from West Virginia Marathon which is hilly af that time compared to someone’s Revel downhill marathon time of sub 3 is probably better comparing the factors. Why don’t you go Sub 3 at West Virginia Marathon Greg?

burritogator wrote:

freeideaforgreg wrote:

I'll assume it is the same runner. The runner was adequately trained for an 8K, but severely undertrained for the 'thon.

It’s not the same runner.

Greg started a different, pointless thread to make fun of people who run over 3 hours for the marathon, saying they “shouldn’t be proud” of their performance.

Many people, understandably, took issue with this argument as its based on a subjective premise and is steeped in dumb gatekeeping of running culture.

Greg’s defense was that he could’ve run faster despite having never trained for or attempted a marathon and the thread turned against him.

Now Greg’s started a different thread with a different premise to save face.

Sad stuff.

It's not sad, it's fun. There are many > 3 hour marathoners with thin skin. This site is fun, don't take everything so seriously.

World athletics is the governing body of the sport, and this is how they view things:

This is how world athletics views my PRs as well as a 3 hour and 3:07 marathon

Event Performance Points

Men (Outdoor) 1500m 4:20.00 635

Men (Outdoor) 5000m 16:22.67 581

Men (Outdoor) Marathon (Road) 2:48:04.16 581

Men (Outdoor) Marathon (Road) 3:00:00.00 439

Men (Outdoor) 10miles (Road) 57:58.00 581

Men (Outdoor) Marathon (Road) 3:07:00.00 366

Is the 3:07 guy also a jacked You Tuber..?

This can't be a serious question. When I was 37 I ran a 2:54 marathon and a 29:10 5 miler.

Greg wrote:

World athletics is the governing body of the sport, and this is how they view things:

This is how world athletics views my PRs as well as a 3 hour and 3:07 marathon

Event Performance Points

Men (Outdoor) 1500m 4:20.00 635

Men (Outdoor) 5000m 16:22.67 581

Men (Outdoor) Marathon (Road) 2:48:04.16 581

Men (Outdoor) Marathon (Road) 3:00:00.00 439

Men (Outdoor) 10miles (Road) 57:58.00 581

Men (Outdoor) Marathon (Road) 3:07:00.00 366

The thing is, Greg, you are nothing special as a runner, just as the 3:07 marathoner is nothing special. I don't really get what you are trying to prove.

Who is better inconsequential. Just the same as nobody cares whether a 23 minute 5k runner is better than a 6 minute miler. or even 18 minutes vs 5.

Anyway you slice it, we are talking about runners who are several levels away from being important.