3:59 is a 4 minute mile and 12:59 is a 13 minute 5,000m. At what point is it acceptable to round down a PR to the minute? 1:08:45? 1:08:30? Is it puffery to say I broke 69 minutes? Or should I just call it 69 minutes and let it be?
3:59 is a 4 minute mile and 12:59 is a 13 minute 5,000m. At what point is it acceptable to round down a PR to the minute? 1:08:45? 1:08:30? Is it puffery to say I broke 69 minutes? Or should I just call it 69 minutes and let it be?
69
68.
You ran very well, in either case--congratulations. Many of us wish we could run a half that fast.
Find one person who ran 3:59 & doesn't say they broke 4.
You ran 68 minutes, say 68 minutes. If someone is a running stickler, say you ran 68'high.
Just say what it is. You broke 69 minutes. If someone really cares, tell them the exact time. But saying that you broke 69 minutes is short, simple, and doesn't make you seem like a pompous jerk.
Sounds like you ran 66 based on most people I know.
I think a lot of people are missing the point of your analogy.
A 3:59 miler did't run '3:something' or even '3:50'. He ran '3:59' or he 'broke 4'.
I think this breaks down beyond the 1500/mile to answer the question. I have no problem with a 5k runner calling themselves a '14 minute guy' with a 14:56 PR.
You ran 1:08. Nice job.
Either go with "sub-69" or "68:59". Saying "68" sounds like 68-flat or close to it, like 68:05 or something. That would be misleading.
Facts of Running Times wrote:
I think a lot of people are missing the point of your analogy.
A 3:59 miler did't run '3:something' or even '3:50'. He ran '3:59' or he 'broke 4'.
I think this breaks down beyond the 1500/mile to answer the question. I have no problem with a 5k runner calling themselves a '14 minute guy' with a 14:56 PR.
You ran 1:08. Nice job.
Lol, I completely agreed with your first 3 sentences, and then you went off in a crazy direction for the second half of your post. No 14:56 runner should ever call himself a "14 minute guy" because it implies close to 14 flat.
Sub-15, 14:50's, 14-high are all accurate.
a 3:59 miler did run 3something you nimwit
dennis kimetto just ran 2:02 for the marathon, so it's just as fair to say you ran 68.
Talking about athletics times carry an implication of 3 significant digits.
I.e.
9.92 100m
45.3 400m
1:47 800m
13:2x 5000m
1:08 half (you)
etc.
The clock was off by 5 seconds. you actually ran 1:08:54
You ran 1:08:59.
yes, but most people on LR don't understand this.
Sub 69 minute half-marathoner
Not so fast! wrote:
3:59 is a 4 minute mile and 12:59 is a 13 minute 5,000m. At what point is it acceptable to round down a PR to the minute? 1:08:45? 1:08:30? Is it puffery to say I broke 69 minutes? Or should I just call it 69 minutes and let it be?
3:59 is a SUB 4 minute mile.
1:08.59 is a SUB 1:09. Key word is SUB.
sub 1:09
I believe the LRC rules should be amended to be something on the order of; state the seconds starting at 2:05 and group the times using the wording high, mid and low for sub 2:10 athletes. 2:07:47 runner Ritzenhein was a 2:07 high kind of guy and Jerry Lawson's 2:09:35 was a 2:09 mid performance.
2:11:22 and 2:11:56 are both sub 2:12 performances.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=6048359&thread=6048045#6048359#ixzz3FRCJykyg
It depends on the message you wish to send. Do you wish to be precise, or misleadingly vague.
With numbers it's easy to measure correctness.
Saying 68 has an absolute error of 59 seconds.
Saying 69 has an absolute error of 1 second.
If you want your statements to be precise, you chose a way to express your time in a way that minimizes errors:
1:08:59
sub-69
broke 69
If you want to impress others more than you deserve, you can relax the precision. Often this is done by truncating the seconds:
I ran 68.
But why stop at the minute?
I ran 1 hour.
I ran 0 days.
I ran 0 years.
By extension, we can say Johnny Hayes ran a 2 hour marathon in London in 1908.