Mtn Dew wrote:
So 32 minutes for 5k is definitely fast.
I'm almost fast!!!
Mtn Dew wrote:
So 32 minutes for 5k is definitely fast.
I'm almost fast!!!
Doprah wrote:
Mtn Dew wrote:So 32 minutes for 5k is definitely fast.
I'm almost fast!!!
I can only dream of running a 32 minute 5K... maybe someday.
Peter Lemonjello wrote:
666 wrote:My most impressive times were 14:48/30:49 on the track and I wouldn't say it's fast 'cause I got spanked on a weekly basis back in college.
Classic LetsRun premise - state obviously fast times that you've run and then self-deprecatingly say thay are not fast for the purpose of stating your fast times.
HAHAH - very true.
So by this logic all the guys who ran 1:03+ at the NYC 1/2 aren't 'fast' b/c they got spanked by Geb?
666 wrote:
Why bull? I know a couple of high 3:4x guys from college who'd say the same exact thing.
My most impressive times were 14:48/30:49 on the track and I wouldn't say it's fast 'cause I got spanked on a weekly basis back in college.
Simple... wrote:
2 Question for you (referring to male athletes <40yrs old):
Would you say an OT qualifier is fast?
What is a fast marathon?
I think that it's silly to suggest that there is some objective threshold for a fast marathon. For me, personally, a 2:21:59 marathon doesn't sound fast. In large part, that's probably because it would have been a very slow marathon for me during my peak marathoning years. When I was a teenager, though, a 2:21:59 marathon would have sounded extremely fast.
I don't have any particular standard for a fast marathon. It depends on the context. For example, I think it's fair to describe the times in the recent world championships as being slow, because -- by world-class standards -- they were, in fact, slow. That isn't meant to demean the accomplishments of the runners who participated in that race. And it obviously isn't meant to suggest that the times were slow by the standards of the average runner.
When a runner gets a lot of media attention, I do think that it is fair to compare that runner with others who may get less attention. If, for example, a female marathoner gets a lot of national attention, despite having never broken 2:40, I think it's fair to say that she's rather slow for someone who gets so much attention. When Josh Cox made the cover of Runner's World back in 1999, when he was just a 2:19+ marathoner, I remember thinking that he was awfully slow for someone getting so much attention. Of course, I understood very well why he was getting so much attention -- he was better-looking than the rest of us who were that fast, and he was a lot faster than the usual models on the cover of Runner's World. So was he fast, or was he slow? It just depends on your particular universe of discourse.
Nobody is fast who runs the marathon or they wouldn't be running the marathon!
Mtn Dew wrote:
So 32 minutes for 5k is definitely fast. So is 2:45 for a marathon.
You want to rephrase that?
This discussion reminds me of George Carlin's bit about how everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everyone who drives faster is a maniac. I think it has something to do with human nature. I wonder what Carlin would say about runners?
Peter Lemonjello wrote:
666 wrote:My most impressive times were 14:48/30:49 on the track and I wouldn't say it's fast 'cause I got spanked on a weekly basis back in college.
Classic LetsRun premise - state obviously fast times that you've run and then self-deprecatingly say thay are not fast for the purpose of stating your fast times.
No one here would think those are fast times. Perhaps 666 is grounded and understands where he finds in the whole scheme of things and you are not?
Broken link wrote:
No one here would think those are fast times. Perhaps 666 is grounded and understands where he finds in the whole scheme of things and you are not?
Where he FITS in the whole scheme of things ...
The Penguin Effect wrote:
Why do you think Boston had to move it's start from 12:00 noon to 9:00AM? To give the fatass cahrity cases a chance to finish before sundown.
That's interesting. The race director didn't mention that reason.
http://www.boston.com/sports/specials/marathon/articles/2007/04/12/earlier_starts_time_has_come/marathon=slowwwww wrote:
Nobody is fast who runs the marathon or they wouldn't be running the marathon!
Try telling that to Haile G.
"We speak so stupidly about pride--and Christianity has even made us feel that it is sinful! The point is: he who demands and obtains great things from himself must feel very remote from those who do not--this remoteness is interpreted by others as "a high opinion of himself;" but he knows it (the remoteness) only as ceaseless labor, war, victory, by day and night: of all this, the others know nothing."
F. Nietzsche
Broken link wrote:
No one here would think those are fast times.?
Actually all but the 4 or 5 people here who have actually (in the real world now) run such times would think they are fast. They simply would not admit it because they want to seem more "hard core".
Perhaps your inability to do so reveals some deeper insecurity on your part.
Diet Coke wrote:
Mtn Dew wrote:So 32 minutes for 5k is definitely fast. So is 2:45 for a marathon.
You want to rephrase that?
10k I mean.
fast is relative to the venue. A local HS guy stomping a mile field by 20 seconds in a 4:20 is fast. But a college guy dragging up the end of the field in 4:19 is not fast. A frosh running 3:45 and making NCAA finals is fast, yet some guy not qualifying out of the first rounds in the WC with a 3:44 is not fast. It IS fast, but not relative to the venue, and that is what i think people say when they say "he is slow".
As for slower than your own times, I am never impressed with myself, if I run a PB i am pleased, but it doesnt impress me like even a slightly faster runner does.
The Penguin Effect wrote:
Why do you think Boston had to move it's start from 12:00 noon to 9:00AM? To give the fatass cahrity cases a chance to finish before sundown.
seen it firsthand wrote:
That's interesting. The race director didn't mention that reason.
http://www.boston.com/sports/specials/marathon/articles/2007/04/12/earlier_starts_time_has_come/
Comne on, like the guy can come out and say the slowass charity cases running 8 hours are forcing us to move up the time. He'd be sued for discrimination by that Fat Acceptance organization and lose about 10-15,000 runners (the fatasses who are offended by his comments). Funny, the reasons that were given in that article were never a problem for 100 years. But right around the time the fatasses took over Boston by their sheer volume (and mass) the time needs to be moved up. Coincidence? I think not.
I hear you. You're probably right he wouldn't say it even if it was the reason. It is true that it was hot for a few years in a row recently, though. And I know it seems like more, there are only about 1200 charity spots. So I'm not sure if they're the reason that the average time has gone down. The actual qualifying times have gotten slower --- it was 2:50 for open men in the 70s --- although they've been fixed for a while now. And nowadays a lot of the qualifiers seem to be happy just running Boston, so they don't really race it. So maybe it's actually the qualifiers that are slowing things down?
the truth is, is that about 75% of letsrun posters are douchebags who decide that anything thats not a worldbeater is considered "unelite." and when a thread like this pops up all the people that said what was "unelite" suddenly decide to say, "oh, a 32 minute 10k is good!"
that's the answer folks
Also, there are some interesting marathon statistics out there. For example, there were a grand total of 612 finishes in the US under 2:30, and less than 8000 under 3:00 in 2006. If you read only this board you would think 2:30 was common and 3:00 was for people who could barely walk. I actually would have thought there were a lot more of both of those.
Also, I think that aside from the insult-flinging, it's generally a good thing that people think that "slower than me" is slow. It's a sign that you're still challenging yourself, and racing people who can beat you. If the guy with the 14:48 5k showed up at local 5k road races and ran anywhere close to that he'd probably think he was pretty fast because he'd be well on his warmdown before the 2nd place guy came in.