I know it's not science. I just compared the scores for each time.
I know it's not science. I just compared the scores for each time.
for males @ sea level
sub 24-off the couch and trying hard
sub 22-fun runner trying to get back in shape
sub 20-fun runner in decent shape
sub 19-fun runner top form
sub 18-good HS runner (able to win small local turkey trots)
sub 17-better HS runner
sub 16-great HS runner/ok college runner (D1)
sub 15-good college runner (D1)
sub 14-great college runner(D1)
sub 13:30 pro runner
sub 13:25 national caliber runner
sub 13:00 world class runner
sub 12:50 historical great
sub 12:40 track all time royalty
Wow that conversion seems really soft!! I'm pretty sure I'm working a lot harder to run 18:xx then random female running 25:xx. 7 minutes in a 5k??
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
5k hmmmmmm wrote:My breakdown
As far as guys not doing this for a living/scholarship I say:
Sub 22-Working on your fitness..congrats but keep going
Sub 20- Nice time, could talk training with this person, obviously takes running somewhat seriously
Sub 19- Into the 18's I say well done. Took a bit of commitment.
Sub 18-Respect. Decent 5k time. Would feel this runner takes running seriously and has either invested a lot or is very eager to improve
Sub 17-Into the 16's and Id say your legit. Serious runner...know the score, work hard.
Sub 16-Ballin. Anybody with a 15 in front of their PR is pretty awesome in my book
Sub 15-Superstar
I did the nerd work on my own. According to the IAAF conversion charts:
sub 22:00 Male = sub 31:18 Female
sub 20:00 Male = sub 27:35 Female
sub 19:00 Male = sub 25:44 Female
sub 18:00 Male = sub 23:53 Female
sub 17:00 Male = sub 22:01 Female
sub 16:00 Male = sub 20:10 Female
sub 15:00 Male = sub 18:19 Female
This would currently put me at "serious/legit." I'll take it, but do you really think a 16:xx male performance is the same as 20:xx-21:xx female performance? I kind of feel like the female conversion here is a little on the soft side, but maybe I have high standards. I guess this did say for NON-scholarship/pro runners, but still..
It all depends on age. I was a sub-16 runner. But, now at age 51 I'm working to break 19. I still consider myself a decent runner based on age.
TX, I was curious too, but honestly - respectable 5K time is what female ran faster than me and beyond that, in my age category. The number depends on the competition. And if you're good enough to be placing first, start looking at the next younger age group or what males to race against.
Male:
Under 40:
sub 17
Over 40:
sub 18
Female:
sub 20
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
I know it's not science. I just compared the scores for each time.
It's not that it isn't science - the authors don't intend them to be used for comparison. And for good reason - the conversions wouldn't even be close. Just for one example, at Footlocker last year, Verzbicas, one of the best XC runners in American high school history, was the only boy under 15, in 14:59, while 18:19 was good for 25th on the girls side.
IAAF tables seem more useful for elite performances (if that) so even a 15:00 5k doesn't really rate. It doesn't take much thought to see that a female running 10 minute miles isn't near the same league as a man running at 7 minute pace.
5k hmmmmmm wrote:
Whats a respectable 5k time to you?
A second or two faster than mine.
Those IAAF scales are way skewed.
Male (open 18 to 39)
21:45 (7:00 pace) - good fitness pacer
18:40 (6:00 pace) - solid citizen racer
17:00 (5:28 pace) - racer!
15:30 (5:00 pace) - fast racer
14:40 (4:43 pace) - elite (not at national or top collegiate level, but elite)
Female (open 18 to 39)
23:30 good fitness pacer
21:30 solid citizen racer
20:00 racer
18:30 fast racer
17:00 elite (not at national or top collegiate level, but elite)
Crackhead.
I'd say that the ladies' numbers should be about 3 minutes slower than the men's. (So sub-16 men more or less equals sub-19 women.) For men, I'd say that:
sub-22 is decent/not embarassing
sub-20 is pretty good (esp. if you're not on a HS team)
sub-18 is very good
sub-17 gets respect in almost any running conversation
sub-16 is a stud. At this point, if you didn't run in college, you could have.
Those of us around the sport at high levels have a skewed view of the talent pool. But in the rest of the world, nobody's ever met a sub-15 guy.
To me, a HS Runner under 18 garners respect. Under 16 and I consider you top quality runner.
For girls, under 22 seems to be pretty decent to me and under 20 is very strong runners. Top runners at the HS State Level.
For the 20ish/30ish category:
Devoted runners:
sub 16:00/18:30 m/f
Runners who seriously train:
sub 15:00/17:30 m/f
If you never skip days or lower mileage unless you're (A) Injured or (B) Sick, you count as a "devoted" runner. It takes real dedication, sacrifice, and structured training to drop that extra minute.
You have to be a little careful comparing mens vs. womens times because the difference isn't linear, but more exponential. One reason for this is because the top women have "straighter" bodies (i.e. more like men) which give them an advantage over the other women. The men have no such advantage.
I would say for a female that anything around 26 minutes shows some commitment to training (how many females these days could even run a low 8 minute mile?).
I think under 20 for a female is a very good time and definitely shows commitment and hard work.
Outside of college programs (where a runner would be assumed to be someone who works full time and has other commitments) I would consider a man under 17:30 and a woman under 21 to be "good" local type runners. I would consider both men and women under 25 to be respectable - running the whole way and having put some effort into being race ready.
But the older I get, the more I have respect for other factors. I have a friend who ran a 38 minute 5K last year - but two years ago, she was 100 lbs overweight and couldn't run for even 5 minutes. I'm thrilled that she can run a 5K now. So mostly I find it respectable for people to keep getting better. I think it means more for her to have gotten healthy for than for me to sit on my as$ all year eating junk and then go out and run faster than her just on natural ability.
THIS-->
some crazy runner guy wrote:
for males @ sea level
sub 24-off the couch and trying hard
sub 22-fun runner trying to get back in shape
sub 20-fun runner in decent shape
sub 19-fun runner top form
sub 18-good HS runner (able to win small local turkey trots)
sub 17-better HS runner
sub 16-great HS runner/ok college runner (D1)
sub 15-good college runner (D1)
sub 14-great college runner(D1)
sub 13:30 pro runner
sub 13:25 national caliber runner
sub 13:00 world class runner
sub 12:50 historical great
sub 12:40 track all time royalty
yetanotherchick wrote:
...
But the older I get, the more I have respect for other factors. I have a friend who ran a 38 minute 5K last year - but two years ago, she was 100 lbs overweight and couldn't run for even 5 minutes. I'm thrilled that she can run a 5K now. So mostly I find it respectable for people to keep getting better. I think it means more for her to have gotten healthy for than for me to sit on my as$ all year eating junk and then go out and run faster than her just on natural ability.
The skies the limit. I lost 110 pounds over the year 2008, and have now ran 18:40 for 5k and 39:20 for 10k. If I could lose another 30 pounds to get to 150, I'd be significantly faster. RIght now I still can't really run more than 35 mpw at peak because I can't take the pounding.
This is for men.
25+ I assume you recently started running or are old.
25-22 Not respectable.
22-20 minutes Not bad (as in a thing you might say to a person running this time)
20-18 kind of bad
18-16:30 my respect for this depends. If they're a college runner this is not respectable. If the person didn't run in college it's very good. Respectable; this person is at least somewhat suited for running and is training.
16:30-15:50 pretty good
15:50-15:30 good
<15:30 local god
15 and under - legit runner
I'm not under 15 before you accuse me of calling myself legit.