2:47 marathon=serious runner or rec runner?

Jiminy Cricket wrote:

even if ran

"run"

Very respectable for a sub-masters male is sub-2:30. Period. If you're a serious male sub-masters runner with middling talent and can't even keep up with the tail end of national class women then you can't be serious. Take that crap back to Runners World, chump.

Jiminy Cricket wrote:

Sub 2:30 is borderline elite

Sub 2:20 is elite

2:47 is probably better that 98% of all marathoners. Some get there through hard work. Others get there through genetics. Others it is a combination.

2:20 is not elite nor is 2:30 boderline elite. There are American women who run that fast. It is over 14 minutes off the world's best. That's over 30 seconds per mile.

I did 2:41 in Twin Cities last year and most of the last ten miles by myself. Most people would consider me a serious runner. The people a half hour in front of me probably wouldn't. It's a matter of perspective.

So I guess we can figure out who the Concrete Runner is now, eh?

Only 1 guy ran 2:41...

Not so many with 1:49:xx @30k, either.

Whoa CR, you did the first 10k at 2:26 pace? You've got some stones, I'll give you that. But you could probably run a good 6 minutes faster if you'd pace yourself a little better.

2:47= about 300th finisher at NYCM08 (top 7/10ths of a percent)

0.007%

vote serious

i'd say you have to run sub 11 100m or sub 50 400m so be considered a serious runner.

everything else is jogging

AGE. IT DEPENDS ON YOUR AGE. IF YOU ARE IN YOUR 40'S THAT'S NOT BAD. IF YOU ARE A FEMALE, THAT'S PRETTY DAMN GOOD. IF YOU ARE A MALE IN HIS 20'S OR 30'S, AND UNDER 160 LBS. THAT IS NOT SO GREAT, AND MAYBE YOU ARE A JOGGER.

There are a lot fewer serious runners at NYCM now than there were 20 or so years ago. What place would 2:47 have net you in 1988? What time did you need to run to get 300th?

I'm an optimist and generally pay for it in the last few miles of a marathon. One of these days I'll do it, but I'm not getting any younger.

2:47 can not even be considered close to developmental on the men's side, and it's the bottom end of the Q level for women. 6:22 is long run pace for serious runners. Come on, people. There is a difference between taking yourself and your training seriously and running legit times.

Equivalent performances would be somewhere around 5 min mile/17 min 5k/35 mid's 10k. That is recreational, my friends.

There is not a binary relationship between serious and recreational. If you aren't getting paid, you are a recreational runner. You may make huge sacrifices and put in a ton of time and effort, but you are still engaging in a recreational pursuit. So you are recreational and serious.

Moving on. Anyone who thinks that "serious" should have something to do with how fast you are just wants validation for the time, effort, and sacrifices they have put in to reach a certain time. You run for yourself! If you run for the respect and adoration of others, you are bound to end up unhappy. Who cares if anyone else thinks you are fast enough to be serious?

So if you take it seriously, you are serious. If it's not your full-time or part-time job, you are recreational. Are we clear?

Mr. P...

Have you considered some pacing or coaching advice?

I wouldn't recommend running a 10km 8 days before a Marathon. i.e. May 3th 2009

If you are capable of a 1:14 half (10/05/08) than you could easily run sub 2:40 (actually closer to 2:36), but you have to start with miles closer to six minute pace and not do something as unwise as a 5:40 pace.

http://www.race360.com/marathon/races/detail.asp?eventid=12879

If the argument is "I used to be able to run that fast", than you are older but not wiser.

As to the OP question...anyone and everyone that has run sub 3 considers them serious. If some joker comes along and runs 2:47, don't believe them when they tell you "I was just kidding when I ran that!"

Recreational are the gallowalkers and Penguin waddlers of 4, 5 and 6 hours

Great points! Why even start a clock, just let everyone decide where an overall level of excellence should be for themselves. While we're at it, let's eliminate that pesky grade point system in schools, since it's bound to leave people unhappy. Same with scoring points in the NFL and NBA and scoring runs in MLB, we don't want anyone to ever possibly feel bad.

This if a fucking SPORT, you goddamned flabby hacks! If you don't like being measured in competitive terms (either by placement or with a clock) then don't bother ever racing. Easy enough.

hobbyjogging boom wrote:

There are a lot fewer serious runners at NYCM now than there were 20 or so years ago. What place would 2:47 have net you in 1988? What time did you need to run to get 300th?

1998:

2:46:04=300th Place

2:47:02=324th Place

Sorry...Those are the 1988 results.

What prizes do they give out for 300th-324th? Would that even correspond to a top 10 in any of the open male age groups?