Probably like a sub 20 5k or 21:30ish for a woman.
Y’all are merciless. Jeez!
I won a road 8k race with 500something entrants by over a minute with a time of 27 high a year ago, and that’s not even scratching what most of you consider good. Let’s step into the real world letsrun!
Probably like a sub 20 5k or 21:30ish for a woman.
Y’all are merciless. Jeez!
I won a road 8k race with 500something entrants by over a minute with a time of 27 high a year ago, and that’s not even scratching what most of you consider good. Let’s step into the real world letsrun!
Well, distance running itself is merciless. Plenty of men work hard, putting in lots of daily training over the years, and are still way slower than the high school girl's 5k record of 15:34.
And yet, as a community, we are expected to think a man is fast for running 16:00. Distance running is unique in this way. I'd rather have a more supportive community than not, though.
I really admire runners who can run that fast. It takes either talent with low-mileage, or an individual who can put up big miles to run the above times.
I really admire runners who can run that fast. It takes either talent with low-mileage, or an individual who can put up big miles to run the above times.
For me good is a mindset: someone who is realistic about their limitations yet also strives for the next step.
I have a lot more respect for a 16:00 5ker who shoots for 15:50 his next race than a 14:45 guy who cries like a b*tch because dew point was one degree higher than anticipated.
I really admire runners who can run that fast. It takes either talent with low-mileage, or an individual who can put up big miles to run the above times.
Those last 3 are way easier than the first 2.
Yeah, I can rather easily hit the latter 3 (some by a lot), but I cannot hit the first 2.
What I think of with a "good" runner is someone who has a good relationship of times across all distances. That shows me that a person has put a lot of time into their running and perhaps come close to achieving their genetic potential. Or at least their potential at that training load. And age would matter too, of course.
But really, when I see a runner who's 5k and marathon times are equal on the calculators, that is good. It is surprising how few people can hit that. Most just don't put in enough years of training.
At 30 years old and working 65 hours a week I consider myself running 16:xx 5k as better than when I was in college running 14:xx 5k and all I did was study and party at age 22. I think that being a "good runner" is relative.
Yeah, I can rather easily hit the latter 3 (some by a lot), but I cannot hit the first 2.
What I think of with a "good" runner is someone who has a good relationship of times across all distances. That shows me that a person has put a lot of time into their running and perhaps come close to achieving their genetic potential. Or at least their potential at that training load. And age would matter too, of course.
But really, when I see a runner who's 5k and marathon times are equal on the calculators, that is good. It is surprising how few people can hit that. Most just don't put in enough years of training.
Sub 5 and Sub 17 can be hit by a good/very decent HS XC Runner.
I believe that hitting the final 3 times (Sub-3, Sub-1:25, Sub-38) cannot be faked by a low-mileage speedster. I know a lot of younger guys who jumped into the marathon only running about 40mpw and would hit the wall hard and run something like 3:05-3:10. Get them to 50-60mpw and it's a breeze. The marathon is a completely different beast.
I would stay that sub-6:00 pace (sub 37) is more appropriate for a "good" 10K.
Ultimately, when I see someone run 18:59 5K, 39:59 10K, 3:19 marathon (especially if they are older than 35 or 40) I do take notice.
Let's be honest....those are unfathomable times for most people and I'm being very serious here. This board has no clue how unfit and slow most people are and are simply unable to run that fast even if they trained properly. They will simply quit due to the commitment or just get injured. In fact, I got a weird look from friends this week when I said a run a few 10 mile runs per week.
Yeah, I can rather easily hit the latter 3 (some by a lot), but I cannot hit the first 2.
What I think of with a "good" runner is someone who has a good relationship of times across all distances. That shows me that a person has put a lot of time into their running and perhaps come close to achieving their genetic potential. Or at least their potential at that training load. And age would matter too, of course.
But really, when I see a runner who's 5k and marathon times are equal on the calculators, that is good. It is surprising how few people can hit that. Most just don't put in enough years of training.
Sub 5 and Sub 17 can be hit by a good/very decent HS XC Runner.
I believe that hitting the final 3 times (Sub-3, Sub-1:25, Sub-38) cannot be faked by a low-mileage speedster. I know a lot of younger guys who jumped into the marathon only running about 40mpw and would hit the wall hard and run something like 3:05-3:10. Get them to 50-60mpw and it's a breeze. The marathon is a completely different beast.
I would stay that sub-6:00 pace (sub 37) is more appropriate for a "good" 10K.
Ultimately, when I see someone run 18:59 5K, 39:59 10K, 3:19 marathon (especially if they are older than 35 or 40) I do take notice.
Let's be honest....those are unfathomable times for most people and I'm being very serious here. This board has no clue how unfit and slow most people are and are simply unable to run that fast even if they trained properly. They will simply quit due to the commitment or just get injured. In fact, I got a weird look from friends this week when I said a run a few 10 mile runs per week.
You bring up an interesting point though - the running world from a TRAINING standpoint is weird to most people. If you had told those same friends you did a marathon last year, they wouldn't think that's crazy. But people just have 0 concept of what it takes to be a runner.
The times you mentioned are "good" relative to the general public because running 5-something miles repetitively is crazy to them, but not so good relative to serious runners who do it every single day (and are fairly young).
I really admire runners who can run that fast. It takes either talent with low-mileage, or an individual who can put up big miles to run the above times.
I would agree with these, however, a sub-17 5k is a far better performance than a sub-38 10k.
I'd probably say sub-18 for the 5k. You're probably close to winning your local parkrun with this, and I'm guessing you either train a bit or you have a little bit of talent.
Yeah, I can rather easily hit the latter 3 (some by a lot), but I cannot hit the first 2.
What I think of with a "good" runner is someone who has a good relationship of times across all distances. That shows me that a person has put a lot of time into their running and perhaps come close to achieving their genetic potential. Or at least their potential at that training load. And age would matter too, of course.
But really, when I see a runner who's 5k and marathon times are equal on the calculators, that is good. It is surprising how few people can hit that. Most just don't put in enough years of training.
So just about all elite runners aren't "good runners" by your logic.
Elites tend to specialise, and becoming the best in the world means training for the specific demands of your event.
Now you'll be able to cherry pick some athletes with good range, but most are far better in their pet event than in all others.
Not sub 20 5K. I've seen a lot of parkrunners fluke that and then be abysmal at the 10K. So I would say
Sub 19 5K (on an official course, not parkrun)
Sub 38 10K
Sub 1:24 Half (below 6:26 pace basically)
Sub 3 marathon
If you can run a sub 38 10k, then it goes without saying that you can break 19 for 5k. Come up with a series of times that make sense.
For example, by your logic someone who runs 18:59 for 5k is a good runner, but someone who runs 38:01 for 10k isn't. Despite the fact that the latter performance is far superior.
Yeah, I can rather easily hit the latter 3 (some by a lot), but I cannot hit the first 2.
What I think of with a "good" runner is someone who has a good relationship of times across all distances. That shows me that a person has put a lot of time into their running and perhaps come close to achieving their genetic potential. Or at least their potential at that training load. And age would matter too, of course.
But really, when I see a runner who's 5k and marathon times are equal on the calculators, that is good. It is surprising how few people can hit that. Most just don't put in enough years of training.
So just about all elite runners aren't "good runners" by your logic.
Elites tend to specialise, and becoming the best in the world means training for the specific demands of your event.
Now you'll be able to cherry pick some athletes with good range, but most are far better in their pet event than in all others.
I believe you're the cherry picker here. It should be assumed that anyone running an elite time in an event is a good runner.
Do you seriously think I'd say that Michael Johnson and Jeremy Wariner were not good runners because they could not convert their 400 times to their mile or 5000 times? You should get out of the Wind Tunnel a bit more often.
At what point do you consider someone "good" or "fast" for their chosen race distance? Top 50 at NCAA XC? Winning your local age group? Qualifying for nationals?
Now that I'm 63:
It depends what you mean by "good".
When I was younger and married with two small children and a job and coaching, I could only devote so much time to my running- usually mornings before school and 40-50 mpw.
I was a mid 16's 5k, sub 4:50 miler (at 49) and close to 2:00 in the 800.
SOME people thought I was good.
I'm 63- how fast do I have to be to be good?
I did some research and if I can break 2:25 in the 800, I'd be decent. If I break 2:20, I'd be good.
Once, I ran a 2:22 800, uphill, at the end of an 8 mile run at about 6:30 per mile.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.