It's good. Could even get ya laid by someone slower.
It's good. Could even get ya laid by someone slower.
An hour behind a really good time is not good.
Perspective is everything.
My progression has been 3:29, 3:23, 3:15, 3:09, 3:05, 3:04
When I first started running at age 30 in 2016, 3:08 sounded impossible and very impressive. Now I’m shooting for sub-3 and 3:08 seems mediocre. Taking a step back, 3:08 is only ~20 seconds per mile slower than my “dream” time of 2:59...so maybe it’s not that mediocre. Taking a further step back, 20s per mile on a marathon is a lot.
To answer the question, I have no idea, and all my non-running friends and coworkers could really care less about marathon times, to them it’s impressive that I’ve finished a marathon to begin with lol.
Depends how old you are. Being < 50% slower than the WR when you're > 50 is VERY impressive at any distance. Circa 80% on age grading calculators so National class.
you're wrote:
your amazing wrote:
your definitely in the top 1% of fittest people in the world. Most people can not run a 5k without stopping.
My definitely in the top 1% is what?
your annoying.
drtoneill wrote:
Depends how old you are. Being < 50% slower than the WR when you're > 50 is VERY impressive at any distance. Circa 80% on age grading calculators so National class.
It takes a good bit faster than that. 2:54:20 at age 50 is 80% on the age graded calculator.
I recently ran 2:59 at age 46 and I'm not even close to national class, 75.2%. It would take a 2:48:18 for me to reach national class. 10+ minutes in a marathon (especially at my age) is a LONG way to go.
drtoneill wrote:
Depends how old you are. Being < 50% slower than the WR when you're > 50 is VERY impressive at any distance. Circa 80% on age grading calculators so National class.
No -- 3:08 is not even 74%, a long way from National class, at age 51. 80% is well under 3:00.
Had the same debate about the five minute mile. To seasoned runners, it's not impressive. But if you look at the whole of the population that runs, this includes all age groups, genders, recreational, weekend road runners etc, it's probably in the upper percentile.
Rastus wrote:
Had the same debate about the five minute mile. To seasoned runners, it's not impressive. But if you look at the whole of the population that runs, this includes all age groups, genders, recreational, weekend road runners etc, it's probably in the upper percentile.
Five minute mile is "better" than a 3:08 marathon. I ran a 3:04 marathon at 195 pounds, age 38, on 40 miles per week, but best mile I could wrangle was a 5:26.
I think it takes more natural talent to get to 5 flat than it does 3 flat in a marathon. Don't get me wrong, if I had specifically trained for a 5 minute mile I could have done it, but to do harder, faster intervals to get there would probably get me injured.
Oh Please wrote:
Rastus wrote:
Had the same debate about the five minute mile. To seasoned runners, it's not impressive. But if you look at the whole of the population that runs, this includes all age groups, genders, recreational, weekend road runners etc, it's probably in the upper percentile.
Five minute mile is "better" than a 3:08 marathon. I ran a 3:04 marathon at 195 pounds, age 38, on 40 miles per week, but best mile I could wrangle was a 5:26.
I think it takes more natural talent to get to 5 flat than it does 3 flat in a marathon. Don't get me wrong, if I had specifically trained for a 5 minute mile I could have done it, but to do harder, faster intervals to get there would probably get me injured.
Not comparing it to a marathon. Only saying it's a similar debate on how you rank against the entire world.
Rastus wrote:
Oh Please wrote:
Five minute mile is "better" than a 3:08 marathon. I ran a 3:04 marathon at 195 pounds, age 38, on 40 miles per week, but best mile I could wrangle was a 5:26.
I think it takes more natural talent to get to 5 flat than it does 3 flat in a marathon. Don't get me wrong, if I had specifically trained for a 5 minute mile I could have done it, but to do harder, faster intervals to get there would probably get me injured.
Not comparing it to a marathon. Only saying it's a similar debate on how you rank against the entire world.
running world
Allen1959 wrote:
Coach Jeff ROC wrote:I agree.
Hey, Coach, it's all relative, isn't it.
3:07:26 for me, at age 58. I was happy with that, but at age 23 certainly not. Yet there are many 20-somethings for whom that would be a tremendous achievement. And others for whom it would be an easy training run.
yeah-it would be solid at my age-close to 50, but any male under 40 with a racing background should be able to break 3 with a bit of mileage...
Who can beat this. I ran 2:58 in my first ever marathon, at 32, on 40mpw and with a 5k PB of 19:30. I only have one pair of shoes (Reebok floatride energy) and used them for over 1000 miles.
28052021 wrote:
Who can beat this. I ran 2:58 in my first ever marathon, at 32, on 40mpw and with a 5k PB of 19:30. I only have one pair of shoes (Reebok floatride energy) and used them for over 1000 miles.
Purdy calculates 19:30 5k at 3:13:42.6.
28052021 wrote:
Who can beat this. I ran 2:58 in my first ever marathon, at 32, on 40mpw and with a 5k PB of 19:30. I only have one pair of shoes (Reebok floatride energy) and used them for over 1000 miles.
I’m guessing this is before GPS watches when a lot of the races were short because your times don’t match up. Thanks for info about the shoes that was very helpful so neat you had the same shoes for a year surprised a person like yourself would pony up the race fees based on your shoe budget
I did say 'circa' and I was referring to 50% slower so that's 3:02 ish not 3:08. Not 80% I agree though FWIW. My point was it depends how old you are.