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

Another giver of +1 wrote:

Greg wrote:

Is it even a question?

No.

The 8 k runner is better.

Okay.

The 8k was 20 years ago, and the marathon was last year.

Who is the better runner?

A while back, when I ran around around 26:20 for 8k cross, I could literrally jog a 3:07 marathon as a training run.

Assuming that "better" means "faster", the only way to determine which of two runners is "better" is to have them race the same distance, ideally in the same event.

Since the 8k guy has never run a marathon the question cannot be answered.

If "better" means more complete or more experienced or any number of other possible attributes then the 3:07 marathoner wins.

That's my college XC 8K (26:29) and age 51 marathon (3:06:48). College me would have blown the doors off older me at any distance, every day of the week.

Try this for size. I saw someone on strava do 20 miles at 5:11. He's going to run the marathon in 2:15 or less.

Irrelevant because "college you" no longer exists.

Greg exists. He wants us to say he "is" a better runner than a guy who can run a 3:07 marathon. We don't know if he is because he won't run the distance.

What does it matter if both runners are enjoying themselves and focusing on the distances they like? Nobody is a full time runner.

The 26 minute 8k runner has sub-1:14/2:35 potential. They have the wheels to be faster at the longer stuff. A 3:07 marathon is also pretty dang solid. Nobody should feel bad about it.

I checked a running calculator and it said that 26:21 8k is equal to 2:34:21 marathon, and that a 3:07:00 marathon is equal to 31:55 8k.

26:21 for 8k is a good time that, I think, requires a degree of talent to hit. A 3:07 should be within the grasp of any decently healthy male who trains properly. So, I think a mediocre runner could train their way to 3:07 but could not train their way to 26:21.

Cavorty wrote:

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).

Just as I said in the other thread, my equivalency times put me around 2:18 to 2:22 for a marathon. Should I start saying I’m a trials qualifier?

(Spoiler alert, I’m not EVEN CLOSE to being in 2:20 shape. More likely 2:50-3:00)

Of course that is true -- in theory. So what?

My marathon PR "equated" to a 5K time of 17:30. I never broke 18:30.

But at least I tried!

Comparing theoretical times is not a fair or reliable way to determine who is "better". The only way to determine who is "better" -- i.e. faster -- is to put both runners on the same course at the same time and have them get after it.

NERunner0353 wrote:

What does it matter if both runners are enjoying themselves and focusing on the distances they like? Nobody is a full time runner.

The 26 minute 8k runner has sub-1:14/2:35 potential. They have the wheels to be faster at the longer stuff. A 3:07 marathon is also pretty dang solid. Nobody should feel bad about it.

I ran a 25:30 5 miles (near enough 8k) and the only way I could have done a marathon in 2:35 was on a bicycle. You can't just pull out a time at one distance and extrapolate to another nearly 5x as far. Very few people are equally good across that range of distance, and the better you are at one specific distance, the more you are a physiological fit for that distance, and less likely to be equal across the whole range.

Neither, as both are unworthy to bother thinking about.

n9 wrote:

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.

This is a false statement. What defines "reasonably fit?" Or "very little training?"

Take a look around at your next 'thon.........a lot of "reasonably fit" guys trained 50+ mpw and will not break 3:07 in that race.

Cavorty wrote:

NERunner0353 wrote:

What does it matter if both runners are enjoying themselves and focusing on the distances they like? Nobody is a full time runner.

The 26 minute 8k runner has sub-1:14/2:35 potential. They have the wheels to be faster at the longer stuff. A 3:07 marathon is also pretty dang solid. Nobody should feel bad about it.

I ran a 25:30 5 miles (near enough 8k) and the only way I could have done a marathon in 2:35 was on a bicycle. You can't just pull out a time at one distance and extrapolate to another nearly 5x as far. Very few people are equally good across that range of distance, and the better you are at one specific distance, the more you are a physiological fit for that distance, and less likely to be equal across the whole range.

Erm, ok, friend. Sorry you never ran to your potential at the marathon.

Just saying that a 26 minute 8k runner has the capability to run well under 3:07. Maybe they run 2:38 instead of 2:34. Maybe they run 2:32. Point is that it's a stronger stand alone mark than a 3:07 full. Larger point is that it doesn't matter one bit to me & that I would respect a runner with either pb.

My college 8k pr on a flat dry xc course was 26:12, and my first ever marathon was 3:06. I trained my ass off for the 8k, I phoned in the marathon training after already taking several years away from serious training. The 8k mark beats the marathon, easily.

I'm slightly younger and slightly slower than you, but basically the same here.

Dad4JCZ wrote:

That's my college XC 8K (26:29) and age 51 marathon (3:06:48). College me would have blown the doors off older me at any distance, every day of the week.

westie boy wrote:

[quote]n9 wrote:

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.

Incorrect

26 min 8k is way better. A 3:07 marathon is jog pace. You could stop and eat McDonald’s halfway through and still run 3:07. A 26min 8k takes training.