Leanermeaner wrote:
Pete, are these simple percentages of the WR for that gender and age?
If so, I think they could be highly misleading. It's apparently much easier to run any given percentage of a WR at shorter distances. When I say "easier" I mean that at shorter distances(e.g. 400m compared to 5K), more people achieve those high percentages, the world records have improved much less proportionally in the past century, and the training required for an individual to achieve them is apparently much less.
So I suspect that running at 80% of WR pace for a 10K is more impressive than running 80% of WR for a mile.
Does this make sense?
No, just because an event requires more training doesn;t mean it should get a handicap for those who aren't willing to put in the training. It is true that the distance world records have advanced more in the past decades and centuries, but that doesn't mean you should compare yourself to how things were in 1885. It just means the competition has gotten better in the distance races, because they are much better trained then they were back then. Just because you work 40 hours a week doesn't mean you get some pat on the back for running a 40 minute 10k.
BESIDES:
5000m
WR=12:37 (2nd best 12:39)
1000th best time ever=13:10
1.0433 times slower (Or 1.041 using 2nd best time)
100m
WR=9.58 (2nd best 9.69)
1000th best time ever=~10.055
1.0496 times slower (Or 1.0377 using 2nd best time)
Marathon
WR=2:03:59 (2nd best 2:04:26)
1000th best time ever=2:09:37
1.0453 times slower (Or 1.0416 using 2nd best time)
As you can see, the 1000th best time for all 3 events is about the same amount slower, 4%).