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

Barfff wrote:

Mustang wrote:

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

Great self own, Chuck.

I’m still laughing!

Isn’t Greg the dude who gets all pissy when posters interact with him under a different handle than their original one?

Damn Greg, how did you manage to stay alive all by yourself until your 40s?

8 k runner for sure. 3:07 marathoner is a lot slower.

Pretty sure the 26:21 8K is a goodly notch better. 3:07 sounds like a 26:45 equivalent.

Why are we discussing slow runners wrote:

Who cares? They're both slow.

m.

Boooo. Those times are around my PBs.

Most 26min 8k runners would be able to run a sub3 marathon. Most 3+hr marathoners would struggle running a 26min 8k.

5424 wrote:

Most 26min 8k runners would be able to run a sub3 marathon. Most 3+hr marathoners would struggle running a 26min 8k.

But most 26 min 8k runners will never run one marathon ever, just like Greg.

westie boy wrote:

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.

I would re-iterate what I said to another reply, the wording is intentionally vague as I do not want to make a guess about the percentage of people who can run X time not going over Y miles per week. I know that this is a significant percentage because I'm in it. I used to enter every local race for fun and run like 6 marathons in 3 months under 3:15 training on 35-40 mpw with rather hectic structure, never going over 45. I also used to be obese and sedentary in my 20, and I definitely am not exceptionally talented as I still haven't broken 230 despite working much harder for 3 years. So I'm quite certain that plenty of people with athletic background and / or innate talent can reach that 307 even easier.

Yeah some people train a lot and still can't get that time. That's exactly the point: you can't say anything definite about the dedication of a runner based on this kind of result. Some train for years and still sit on the edge of Boston qualification cutoff while others smash it by 15 minutes after just taking up running for 4-5 months.

I'm sure a lot of people who are good thonners would be around 2:30 shape with that 8k time. Now just imagine if you were 4 seconds faster. It would be cool to say you have a 26:17 pb. Your 8k pb would be the same time as the 10,000m WR. You could say you are literally exactly 80% Bekele.

The 26:21 8k guy is much better of a runner and it's not even close. Not only is he better over shorter distances, but he could likely break 3 in the marathon without much of a struggle.

bugattiaron wrote:

The 26:21 8k guy is much better of a runner and it's not even close. Not only is he better over shorter distances, but he could likely break 3 in the marathon without much of a struggle.

But the truth is, that it never happened. The 26:21 8k guy retired from running in 2004 and is sitting on his couch since then.

The 3:07 guy ran 3:07 in 2004 and was able to manage a sub 3:55 in 2016 at the age of 52. Nothing to write home about of course, but he actually did it.

Dearest Wife,

It has been five days since the battle commenced. Consumed by ego and driven by pride, our antagonist has never ceased in his volleys. He chases windmills of past glories while we look on in horror.

I know not how long he can keep up the assault. Nary a soul is left upon the battlefield, but still the new threads come. Yet, I am hopeful that soon our nightmare will be at an end.

I have heard tell of the trauma that besets the former athletes, but have yet to see it with my own eyes. As the sun went down last night, I walked out to the field and there was our cursed Greg, still muttering “if you convert my 8K PR into a 10 mile PR into a marathon PR, then I’m clearly a better runner than this complete stranger online.”

I have never seen such a sight and hope never to again.

Your beloved,

burritogator

Really weirdly I have real data from my diary.. few years ago my last race pre-marathon was an 8k (well 5-mile, but close enough) in EXACTLY 26:21 and I and ran the marathon 3 weeks later in 2:37, same shoes and same fitness. With new shoes, the drop-off for the marathon is probably reduced by a few min so would expect about 2:34 or 2:33 off the same fitness profile.

Flagpole wrote:

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

Only god can judge.

I’m ashamed to be named Greg. Why you gotta drag us through the mud?

Moran alert wrote:

Greg wrote:

Is it even a question?

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

How are you so slow at the marathon? my PRs are 25:55 and 2:36.

I was 27:07 in college for the 8k. My marathon PR is 2:55. So I'm more impressed by the 26:xx 8ker.

haha YOYO wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

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

Only god can judge.

INCORRECT!

The 3:07 guy wrote:

bugattiaron wrote:

The 26:21 8k guy is much better of a runner and it's not even close. Not only is he better over shorter distances, but he could likely break 3 in the marathon without much of a struggle.

But the truth is, that it never happened. The 26:21 8k guy retired from running in 2004 and is sitting on his couch since then.

The 3:07 guy ran 3:07 in 2004 and was able to manage a sub 3:55 in 2016 at the age of 52. Nothing to write home about of course, but he actually did it.

Good for them. But that doesn't make you a better runner. That just means you stuck with running a lot longer than the other guy. A 26:21 8k guy should usually be in good enough shape to run sub-3 in the marathon rather easily. When i ran my official 8k PR of 25:58 (a 97 second improvement over my previous mark), my long runs were suggesting that I was in shape to run a marathon in 2:45 rather comfortably.

bugattiaron wrote:

Good for them. But that doesn't make you a better runner. That just means you stuck with running a lot longer than the other guy. A 26:21 8k guy should usually be in good enough shape to run sub-3 in the marathon rather easily. When i ran my official 8k PR of 25:58 (a 97 second improvement over my previous mark), my long runs were suggesting that I was in shape to run a marathon in 2:45 rather comfortably.

But did bugattiaron ran a comfortable 2:45 marathon?