Say the serious runner guy in your office is talking about his half marathon at the water cooler -- what time would he have to report for you to think it was an impressive finish? Discuss.
Say the serious runner guy in your office is talking about his half marathon at the water cooler -- what time would he have to report for you to think it was an impressive finish? Discuss.
I use the 3 hr marathon as a guide, so 1:30 1:40
At what age? For open, anything under 1:20 would get you top 10 among non elites in most races.
Probably in the 1:10-1:19 range.
My answer to this seems to be relative to my own performances, and has changed as I have improved. Several years ago, I was very impressed with the guy that broke 1:30. (I was 1:47 at the time)
Then, when I broke 1:30, the guys sub 1:20 were impressive.
Then, it was sub 1:15.
Now that I'm in the 1:14 range, it's probably the guys that are 1:09 or faster.
Of course, this is mostly for guys in their 20s & 30s. Adjust accordingly for older and female runners.
What age? That's a good question. Let's say for the sake of discussion this guy is in his early-30s and isn't a 25-year-old former collegiate runner who can stil just get off the couch and crush it.
This is too hard a question. Everything is all relative. Are we talking serious as in ex-college/competitive runner? Or serious as in someone who took up the sport later in file but tries hard to improve? Assuming the later, there is a scale:
Anything under 2 hours, he at least runs and isn't a fun runner.
1:30 - 1:40, a bit more training, probably some quality.
1:20 - 1:20, more miles and even more quality, probably works hard, might be limited by natural ability.
To me, anything sub 1:20 for a half is very impressive, but I suspect to most people on here, they are talking 1:10-ish range to be impressed and could probably jog a 1:20 half.
Again. Relative. It's like that massive "Since when was a sub three marathon something to brag about" thread - depends totally on context.
2013 wrote:
My answer to this seems to be relative to my own performances, and has changed as I have improved. Several years ago, I was very impressed with the guy that broke 1:30. (I was 1:47 at the time)
Then, when I broke 1:30, the guys sub 1:20 were impressive.
Then, it was sub 1:15.
Now that I'm in the 1:14 range, it's probably the guys that are 1:09 or faster.
Yeah, this is what I was trying to say. You always look at the people finishing above you, not below, and use that as your benchmark.
My debut was 1:11 and I was called slow.
Open: sub 1:20
40+ sub 1:25
50+ sub 1:35
women open: sub 1:30
40+ 1:35/1:40*
50+ 1:50
*depends if that woman has kids. 1:35 would be without kids, 1:40 for those with kids, since they obviously slowed down and had a few years of slowed training.
Sarah Palin's PR is 1:46 run at 40 something and after several kids. For a woman of her age, that's impressive to me.
So anyway, your goal should be to be faster than Sarah Palin.
however fast diddy ran the city (all i know is it wasn't as fast as oprah)
For Males: Under 1:20 is good enough to know that you can go for a decent 10miler with guy after work and not worry about pace.
People who are saying under 1:10 are talking about an extremely small percentage of half marathon runners (granted that more than a few NCAA guys could do this in principle but never race the distance).
sub 1 hr 10 min for a guy is decent for a non-elite.
I would have to believe the time is 1:20 or better. I am now 62 and in my mid thirties ran 1:23 and did not even place in the top 3 in my age group in a local half. And there were no elite or sub elites in the race.
In the country's most competitive half, the Brooklyn Half, out of 15,000 runners, this is what you get:
1:10 place 13
1:15 place 46
1:20 place 126
1:25 place 311
1:30 place 684
Based on this list, I would say sub 1:20. Everything over 1:25 and it's a sh|t show - iPods, fuel belts, compression socks.
NYCRunner wrote:
In the country's most competitive half, the Brooklyn Half, out of 15,000 runners, this is what you get:
1:10 place 13
1:15 place 46
1:20 place 126
1:25 place 311
1:30 place 684
Based on this list, I would say sub 1:20. Everything over 1:25 and it's a sh|t show - iPods, fuel belts, compression socks.
cool.
there need to be more races advertised as (the most competitive)
bangalangadanga wrote:
there need to be more races advertised as (the most competitive)
"most competitive" were my own words. Show my any other race in the country where more than 100 runners end up sub 1:20 and I may change my mind.
world's most competitive half!
10th place: 1:03:53
25th place: 1:04:20
50th place: 1:04:45
100th place: 1:05:28
200th place: 1:06:43
300th place: 1:08:09
400th place: 1:09:48
500th place: 1:12:59
http://japanrunningnews.blogspot.com/2008/11/deeper-and-deeper-goes-greatest-half.html
bangalangadanga wrote:
http://japanrunningnews.blogspot.com/2008/11/deeper-and-deeper-goes-greatest-half.html
I said country, not world.