Would you rather date a girl who OK looking and has 14:42 PR, or a girl who was a 9 with a 27:00 PR

Anyone who doesn't say the "9" is an idiot. The "9" is better for almost every reason I can think of.

faster girl uglier, probably looks emaciated and sickly skinny, probably weird and overly obsessed with running so is lacking well rounded, likely neurotic and to top it all off faster than me so emasculating.

jesus why would you pick the 14:42?

pics?

9

The only woman in the country who has ever run 14:42 is Molly Huddle, she's sorta cute but I think she's married. Believe it ir not, 27 min is a respectable 5k time for female hobby joggers, = they usually average around 12 min a mile.

Isn't the hypothetical 14:42 girl already happily married?

beggars can't be choosers

.God doesn't exist. wrote:

Believe it ir not, 27 min is a respectable 5k time for female hobby joggers, = they usually average around 12 min a mile.

12 mins a mile? Walking or what? I can walk a mile in 12 minutes.

I would NEVER date a girl who could run faster than me. Seriously.

Some guys wouldn't mind it. It would drive me nuts.

I would NOT date the girl who was a 9 with a 27:00 PR. From my past experiences, she has Borderline Personality Disorder. The really hot ones usually do.

Now, that being said. I would have a one night stand with the BPD girl (using a condom) and not letting her know where I live or have my actual phone number.

Dating the OK looking girl with a 5K PR is the better idea and is MY choice. I could take her home to mom...we could run together...I would probably become faster having a training partner...and at the end of the day...having a girl that is great and nice is more important than hot. Trust ME!

legit? wrote:

faster girl uglier, probably looks emaciated and sickly skinny, probably weird and overly obsessed with running so is lacking well rounded, likely neurotic and to top it all off faster than me so emasculating.

Like 95% of the people on Letsrun.

/joke

jamesbond8 wrote:

I would NOT date the girl who was a 9 with a 27:00 PR. From my past experiences, she has Borderline Personality Disorder. The really hot ones usually do.

Now, that being said. I would have a one night stand with the BPD girl (using a condom) and not letting her know where I live or have my actual phone number.

Dating the OK looking girl with a 5K PR is the better idea and is MY choice. I could take her home to mom...we could run together...I would probably become faster having a training partner...and at the end of the day...having a girl that is great and nice is more important than hot. Trust ME!

Although I disagree, you made me think of an interesting question: which girl is likely to have more personality disorders, the "9" or the 14:43? Many here would say the latter.

legit? wrote:

Anyone who doesn't say the "9" is an idiot. The "9" is better for almost every reason I can think of.

faster girl uglier, probably looks emaciated and sickly skinny, probably weird and overly obsessed with running so is lacking well rounded, likely neurotic and to top it all off faster than me so emasculating.

jesus why would you pick the 14:42?

That may be true for many who can run 14:42 but have you ever heard of Genzebe Dibaba?

You're just asking if really hot girls or really high achieving girls are crazier??? If she is BOTH, there is no way shes not crazy.

I'll take the smarter one.

IDK 27 minute 5k for a 9 year old is pretty good

Need more information. Really, it comes down to what kind of person she is. No matter how hot (or fast) she is, somewhere there's a man who's sick of her shit.

.God doesn't exist. wrote:

The only woman in the country who has ever run 14:42 is Molly Huddle, she's sorta cute but I think she's married. Believe it ir not, 27 min is a respectable 5k time for female hobby joggers, = they usually average around 12 min a mile.

Depending on what u mean by a "nine". 14:42 is far rarer than 9. And let's be honest, most girls are pretty ugly without makeup, so put some makeup on 14:42 girl and she's good to go (Molly huddle type character). Thr rating system is so subjective anyway. We'd have to have something concrete. There are definitely runners who are fugly , and then there are supermodels that dumb kids rate highly but actually are also fugly but for being suitable for pro photographers purposes (swimsuit and Victoria's Secret, etc.). Too much dang relativity.

f-uck running, who cares?

Half of the female population is above average looking. That is a fact.

.God doesn't exist. wrote:

And let's be honest, most girls are pretty ugly without makeup