In the Dutch language we don't have these problem. ou culd just say I ran a 68-er half.
In the Dutch language we don't have these problem. ou culd just say I ran a 68-er half.
truth in reporting wrote:
Either go with "sub-69" or "68:59". Saying "68" sounds like 68-flat or close to it, like 68:05 or something. That would be misleading.
Does not answer the question
Out of 68 or 69 its 68
I usually say my half PR is 1:07 high rather than 1:07:53. When it comes to the marathon though I don't bother with the seconds or saying high or low. Obviously the longer the distance the less the seconds matter.
A 14:56 guy is obviously not a 14 minute guy, but is a 2:10:40 marathoner a 2:10 guy? I say sure.
Nice Run, but not many people know the difference between a 65min half and 90min half. Say what makes you feel better.
I really hot girl I know ran a X:XX:59. SHE ran an XX. YOU ran 69.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Does not answer the question
Out of 68 or 69 its 68
If I'm being forced into 68 or 69 (which I'm not, OP is free to state things another way if he chooses), I would disagree and say 69.
Say 68. If anyone cares enough to ask about the seconds, knows enough to ask about the seconds, or knows that you actually ran 68:59 and not 68:00 - then they will ask more about your race or just call you out. At that point you can then have a discussion in person with the individual. If the individual is faster than you: you can consider taking their opinion on the matter or stating your time 100% accurately when talking to them. If the individual is slower than you: you are better than them and it doesn't matter if they think you should say 68:59. Say 68. It's fast enough to say 68 and you earned it.
Not so fast! wrote:
3:59 is a 4 minute mile and 12:59 is a 13 minute 5,000m. At what point is it acceptable to round down a PR to the minute? 1:08:45? 1:08:30? Is it puffery to say I broke 69 minutes? Or should I just call it 69 minutes and let it be?
I have two friends who have run 4:00.XX for the mile. I call them 4 minute milers or say they ran 4 flat. Had they broken 4 I would call them sub 4 minute milers. Had they ran 4:01.XX I would call them 4:01 milers.
If we are going to have 60 seconds worth of half marathon times qualify for being called a 68 minute half marathon doesn't it make the most sense for it to be times from 68:00 to 68:59?
You ran a 68 minute half marathon.
Not so fast! wrote:
At what point is it acceptable to round down a PR to the minute?
Unless you're competing with a friend or against your PR, 70 minutes for the half. If someone runs a 1:35 half, that's all we say. But if someone goes under 70, we phrase it with the seconds. 65:37 etc. New rule.
rekrunner wrote:
It depends on the message you wish to send. Do you wish to be precise, or misleadingly vague.
With numbers it's easy to measure correctness.
Saying 68 has an absolute error of 59 seconds.
Saying 69 has an absolute error of 1 second.
If you want your statements to be precise, you chose a way to express your time in a way that minimizes errors:
1:08:59
sub-69
broke 69
If you want to impress others more than you deserve, you can relax the precision. Often this is done by truncating the seconds:
I ran 68.
But why stop at the minute?
I ran 1 hour.
I ran 0 days.
I ran 0 years.
By extension, we can say Johnny Hayes ran a 2 hour marathon in London in 1908.
This. I'm super excited to be the world first 1 minute 800 guy.
ladies and gentlemen wrote:
Sounds like you ran 66 based on most people I know.
POD
george oscar bluth wrote:
Talking about athletics times carry an implication of 3 significant digits.
I.e.
9.92 100m
45.3 400m
1:47 800m
13:2x 5000m
1:08 half (you)
etc.
Good rule. Works very well.
Excellent post as always by g.o. bluth. (Also, how did you know my PRs?)
Is it puffery to say I broke 69 minutes? Or should I just call it 69 minutes and let it be?
Yes
In most situations I'd say "I broke 69 minutes," or "I finished in under 69 minutes." And, by "most situations," I mean talking with non-competitive runners, most of whom will be impressed with anyone who even finished the race. 69 minutes will, in all likelihood, sound as impressive to them as 61 minutes or 78 minutes or some other random amount of time less than two hours. There's no need to even minimally overstate the amount of time.
If you're talking to more experienced runners, then you can still say "I broke 69 minutes" or "I finished in under 69 minutes." You could also say "I ran 68 high." And you could just tell them your actual time down to the second, because they'd probably be curious.
And, depending on how ambitious you are, you could just say, "I'm about four minutes away from qualifying for the trials."
Why would you want to say 68 when you could say you finished in 69?
Awesome accomplishment most importantly.
To the runner folk who ask, I'd say sub 69.
To the non-runners, I'd say one hour and nine minutes (as they clearly wouldn't understand the difference, much less be able to interpret a half marathon distance with only saying it in minutes).
george oscar bluth wrote:
Talking about athletics times carry an implication of 3 significant digits.
I.e.
9.92 100m
45.3 400m
1:47 800m
13:2x 5000m
1:08 half (you)
etc.
Mind blown, you win.
68. The unspoken rule is that you can truncate for the half and up. If it makes you uncomfortable call it a high-68
Ask Roger Bannister.
3:59
Just way you finished. People will be impressed anyway that you managed to finish a half marathon. If they still ask about your time, just say the time limit was 3 hours so they can figure it out themselves.