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

*who is

I know plenty of 1:58 - 2:03 800/4:05 - 4:15 1500 guys who ran marathons after moving from mid-distance to longer distance running after college who struggled with running under 3 in the marathon (in some cases, struggled getting under 3:30). The training it took was not trivial. Not everyone can handle regular 20 mile long runs without getting injured.

26:20 over 8k is obviously a stronger time by scoring tables, but dismissing or saying someone shouldn't be proud of a 3 flat marathon is asinine. Both are strong times for any recreational runner.

Anecdotal, but I am not even training for the marathon right now (10K training right now) and I ran 2:44 at altitude and doubt I could manage 27:00 for 8K at the moment. I ran 16:39 recently.

I think the 8k time is considerably, unequivocally better.

birdbeard wrote:

Anecdotal, but I am not even training for the marathon right now (10K training right now) and I ran 2:44 at altitude and doubt I could manage 27:00 for 8K at the moment. I ran 16:39 recently.

I think the 8k time is considerably, unequivocally better.

The difference is that you’ve actually covered multiple distances including the marathon whereas Greg has not.

And you managed to talk about your times without looking down on others — going so far as to create a brand new thread to shame someone else for the crime of sharing their PR and saying they’re proud of it.

You win 🥇. Greg goes home devastated!

Equivalency tables don't mean a who lot to real life examples. I couldn't get within 15 minutes or mare of my equivalent marathon based on a 3000m time. I steadily declined after 3000m - decent 5k, not terrible 10k, moderately OK 10 miles, poor half-marathon, and slower marathon (2:47.30 virtually perfectly even paced, so not much room for upside).

birdbeard wrote:

I think the 8k time is considerably, unequivocally better.

/thread

Greg wrote:

birdbeard wrote:

I think the 8k time is considerably, unequivocally better.

/thread

Greg, only you can prove him right!

26 minute 8k runner is very definitely dedicated. While it's not a great time, not even sub-elite, one cannot just get up from his couch and run that. This is probably a student who's on a cross country team or a quite advanced hobbyjogger in his late 30s who is passionate enough to do 70-80+ mp with hard workouts.

It's hard to say anything definite about 3:07 marathoner. A reasonably fit male can run a time like this on very little training. A woman who starts running at 40 with no sports background can have this as a pinnacle achievement after years of hard work.

The question doesn't say 'faster', it says 'better'. Is it 'better' to have a lot of talent or a lot of dedication? Is it 'better' to start running at HS and keep doing it for a decade or two or maybe it's a greater achievement to throw a couple of fairly decent training cycles when you have to juggle kids and jobs and everything?

For what it's worth, neither of them is going to make the olympic team and they can run easy runs and long runs together, so I'd say they're peers.

Greg wrote:

Is it even a question?

Of course it's a question. It's phrased interrogatively and has a question mark at the end.

The real question you should have asked is, "is this a fvcking stupid question?"

Answer- yes.

Go back to plonking some clumsy arpeggios, Greg.

The 26 minute 5 mile runner is better. That's almost 5:00 minutes per mile.

I'm hoping to go sub 3 in the marathon soon and my fastest 5 miles is about 30 minutes. I am nowhere near doing 26 minutes for 5 miles.

I'm another vote for the 3:07 guy. I ran a 3:07 after my senior year of high school (actually it was the day before graduation). In the fall I was on a D2 cross country team and the 26+ guys for 8K couldn't do that. They got to that level mostly off their natural ability and didn't train much. In our training camp in August we ran a half on the last day and they all finished with their tongues hanging out and some distance behind me.

Both times are terrible but I bet a lot of 307 marathoners can't even run 1 mile at that 8K pace.

At the end of the day who cares. The elites at a local club often run 14:20s for the 5k and 23 minutes for 5 miles but none of them are making a living from the sport. Comparison is the thief of joy and all that...

WinnytheBish wrote:

Both times are terrible but I bet a lot of 307 marathoners can't even run 1 mile at that 8K pace.

26:xx 8K is not terrible. Just because you could or can race 8K a few minutes faster does not make 26:xx 8K terrible. Terrible is not being able to walk one mile faster than 30 minutes. If one cannot walk a mile faster than 30 minutes, one has serious health issues. Right now as I type, there is a college XC coach attempting to reassure an 800m runner of the merits of college XC. Some

400/800 young college student-athlete who never ran XC may read your post stating 26:xx 8K is terrible. If you are much faster than 26:xx 8K, great, just state that.

try 2:29 and 25:35 and get back to me

So what qualifies as "very little" training and "reasonably fit"?

That's obviously a ridiculous assertion, but let's do a hypothetical.

Let's take a "run of the mill", early thirties former D1 runner who could run a 4:15 mile at his peak.

He's kept himself "reasonably fit" and trim by watching what he eats and running 20 mpw.

You really believe he can just jump into a marathon with "a little" training and run a 3:07?

Based upon what you stated, basically "anybody" could do it, so for a former "runner" it should be a piece

of cake. A "reasonably fit" person, whatever that means, would be very lucky to complete a marathon with just

"a little" training in under 4 hours, much less run a 3:07.

Lance Armstrong was only able to manage a 2:59 in his first marathon, and I'd say he was "reasonably fit" at the time.

Same year of college, I ran a 26:38 XC race for 8k and a 2:48:36 marathon.

I don't understand the point of this argument. Haven't I written that while for some 3:07 marathon can be a piece of cake, for others it may be very difficult and even unreachable? Exact percentage of people who would run that on talent/athletic background vs those who have to train hard is not clear, that's why the vague definitions and that's what contrasts it to 26 min 8K (guaranteed hard training regardless of talent, talent would only decide if that's 'current best' or 'lifetime best') which was the idea of that message.

But if you're really interested in my opinion about that former miler, here goes. Please mind that I'm not a distance coach. I find it highly improbable that a former 4:15 runner 30-35 yo who keeps running 20 mpw and eating well would have any problem to run that kind of time. I'd say with a couple months of structured training at 40-60 mpw he would aim at a much lower time and will either hit his goal or bonk; but while bonking it's still likely to be under 3:10 considering the first half went under 80-ish: plenty of time in the bank.

Greg wrote:

Is it even a question?

No.

The 8 k runner is better.