Been arguing with a friend and want your thoughts: for a 35-year-old (semi-serious runner) male, what is a "respectable" time for 5k?? He says anything under 18 minutes, but I think something closer to 16:30...
So what would you say is a "respectable" time??
A 35 y.o. male running a 5k in 17:59 receives an age-graded score of 73.29%.
Same male, same distance in 16:30 receives an age-graded score of 79.88%.
To receive a score of 100%, our runner would need to kick to a 13:11.
Let me guess.... His PR is 17:59 and yours is 16:29.
predictable wrote:
Let me guess.... His PR is 17:59 and yours is 16:29.
That may indeed by an (extremely) accurate summary of the situation.
The answer depends on whether or not you were an above average runner in high school...
predictable wrote:
Let me guess.... His PR is 17:59 and yours is 16:29.
Lol, but that's it. Respectable to me is someone who can beat me or at least poses a legitimate threat to beat me. Probably others view it similarly.
14:30s 5K is barely respectable for runners here. Females included.
400K a year salary
SATs of 2275
otherwise your a looser (sic)
Do your best, that is all Jesus asks of you.
Bring Back the 880 wrote:
The answer depends on whether or not you were an above average runner in high school...
I never did running of any sort until I was 25 - so I can assume I would have definitely been below average...
pdidddy wrote:
Been arguing with a friend and want your thoughts: for a 35-year-old (semi-serious runner) male, what is a "respectable" time for 5k?? He says anything under 18 minutes, but I think something closer to 16:30...
So what would you say is a "respectable" time??
You can't claim you are a runner at age 35 unless you break 14 minutes. To be respectable at that age you need to be sub 13:30. Anything slower than that is just a hobby jogger plodding along at a turtle's pace.
You are honest, but you know that doesn't reflect well on you. So you are really trying to convince your friend that he is not a respectable runner, but that you are.Seriously?
pdidddy wrote:
predictable wrote:Let me guess.... His PR is 17:59 and yours is 16:29.
That may indeed by an (extremely) accurate summary of the situation.
Conundrum wrote:
You are honest, but you know that doesn't reflect well on you. So you are really trying to convince your friend that he is not a respectable runner, but that you are.
Seriously?
pdidddy wrote:That may indeed by an (extremely) accurate summary of the situation.
I think "respectable" is any serious effort at training and whatever the resulting time may be. Any guess at my PR (and what I'm running now at 45)?
yeah I'd be inclined to agree with him. 16:30 is good enough to win many local races which is better than merely respectable to me.
I am 34 and used to be semi-serious.
With all due respect, why are you asking this question here?