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

Ok real world example I know a guy that qualified for the US Marathon Olympic Trials with a awesom half marathon time . He started the Olympic marathon in 2020 staying second for 16-17 miles. This guy has not ever run a marathon but Fizzled out and still yet has not completed the marathon distance. Respect the distance Greg.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, come on LRC and start multiple dippy threads in a desperate ploy for approval and acceptance of their unfounded beliefs and self worth. Unless you actually undertake the process and DO THE DAMN THING it all just rings hollow.

I did run that time for 8k.

Show us the results, put up a link.

You're stoned, right?

A guy that can run 5:20s for 5 miles cant avg over 7:00 for 26?

If you think that's right, you need to check what kind of training you're doing on the regular

Here is how you go from 26:20 to 3:07.

I didn’t even run 26:20 in college, my best XC time was 26:40 while running 80 miles a week. I ran about 3 times a week for 30-60 minutes for a couple of years after graduation and this girl I was seeing said she’s training for a marathon and that I should sign up.

I signed up, got my mileage up to 50 mpw for about a month with my longest long run at 18 miles before I got hurt. I ran twice in the last month, started the race, injury flared up at halfway and I hobbled across the line in 3:07. (1:27 first half and was on 2:55 pace until 6 miles to go)

Greg wrote:

Is it even a question?

A 3:07 marathon is easy. A 26:17 8km actually requires fitness.

Exactly. Pretty much everything in your life can be terrible and you can still be at 3:07

I would much rather have so good self esteem that I didnt need to brag about my times on this forum, than to run either of those times.

Whatever is troubling you, you should work on that, because as you have shown, no matter how good your amateur times become, you still need that validation from us losers at letsrun. And that is pretty sad.

greg, i support you. these clowns wouldnt be caught dead defending a 3:07 marathon if it wasn't at your expense

#TeamGreg

snowdays wrote:

greg, i support you. these clowns wouldnt be caught dead defending a 3:07 marathon if it wasn't at your expense

#TeamGreg

thanks man

frustrated 3:07 guy wrote:

snowdays wrote:

greg, i support you. these clowns wouldnt be caught dead defending a 3:07 marathon if it wasn't at your expense

#TeamGreg

thanks man

lol Did Greg forget he was posting on his Alt?

RunRaider wrote:

frustrated 3:07 guy wrote:

thanks man

lol Did Greg forget he was posting on his Alt?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is exactly the stuff I’m here for, bring out the popcorn

jackamo wrote:

You're stoned, right?

A guy that can run 5:20s for 5 miles cant avg over 7:00 for 26?

If you think that's right, you need to check what kind of training you're doing on the regular

Nobody seriously thinks the 3:07 is more impressive. If the 26 min 8k runner can run 7 minute pace comfortably for 16-20 miles, then yeah, they could probably run a sub 3 without too much effort. But just because 7 minute pace is easy for a 26 min 8k runner, that doesn't mean they can just hold that pace for 3 hours with potentially no problems. Will they take gels/nutrition? Will their muscles and glycogen stores hold up?

Again, I am sure any decently talented runner could do 30-40 mpw, and break 3. But without long (Over 2 hour) runs, you can't no for certain how your body will mechanically handle 3 hours of non-stop running. If that same runner manages 75-85 mpw, suddenly sub 2:40 becomes more of a possibility.

Possible, absolutely, but comfortable, unlikely.

Two summers ago, I was in 19 minute 5k shape based on workouts (19:20 at worst) running 35mpw.

That probably "placed" me at 3:15 marathon ability.

I did a trail marathon (mostly downhill with no climbs) on a whim that same summer, and ran 3:47. I treated it as a very long run (almost my weekly mileage lmao) and kept a steady pace. I lost about 5 minutes with bathroom stops (another issue that may getcha if you aren't prepared) and while I didn't need to, I walked for a few minutes near the end because I was very sore, especially in my hips, and even my upper body was hurting. I later ended up with a very persistent IT band injury.

YMMV, but 3 hours of running is still 3 hours.

To answer the question, based on talent/potential, obviously the 26:21 runner. But I think many would be surprised out how uncomfortable running 3 hours without the prep would be.

Mustang wrote:

RunRaider wrote:

lol Did Greg forget he was posting on his Alt?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is exactly the stuff I’m here for, bring out the popcorn

Great self own, Chuck.

Greg,

Stop finding ways to put down people who actually ran a marathon. You haven't, so you don't get to judge them.

No, you are not better than a person who ran a 3:07 marathon. Go do that and then get back to me.

Flagpole,

Stop finding ways to put down people who have not been vaccinated. You have, so you don't get to judge them.

No, you are not better than a person who has not been vaccinated. Mind your own business and don't get back to me.

Barfff wrote:

Flagpole,

Stop finding ways to put down people who have not been vaccinated. You have, so you don't get to judge them.

No, you are not better than a person who has not been vaccinated. Mind your own business and don't get back to me.

1) Yes, I DO get to judge them, and judge them I will...HARSHLY judge them, but it is all deserved.

2) I am infinitely better than a person who has decided not to get vaccinated...yes, INFINITELY.

3) I'll get back to you whenever I please...as I just did.