Probably about 80%+ age graded time. In my experience, most "serious" recreational runners end up in the age graded 68-80%. Those who do better than that have an impressive level of commitment or talent.
Probably about 80%+ age graded time. In my experience, most "serious" recreational runners end up in the age graded 68-80%. Those who do better than that have an impressive level of commitment or talent.
y u trying pick fight with me?
be happy.
To impress me....
Marathon - Sub-3.
Half - Sub-1:20
10K - Sub-35
5K - Sub-17
Mile - Sub-5
800m - Sub-2 (the hardest to achieve out of all of them)
anton chigurh wrote:
Probably about 80%+ age graded time.
80% age grade is much harder for women than for men.
To make it fair you should say 80% for men, 75% for women.
sub 69
Cinci runner wrote:
My debut was 1:11 and I was called slow.
eeyup. Exactly. This was a long time ago, early 80s, but I ran 1:11:05 in my debut and happened to place in my age group. I had no idea, there were some national class runners in the race. A 'friend' picked up my award and dropped it off with a neighbor. The word was this friend "was not impressed." (his SO had run 3:10 or so for a high women's finish).
Later that week I told a prof about my race. And he snorted that was nothing special because one of his colleagues (mid-late 40s at the time) had run 2:44 in the marathon.
Good times, no doubt but geez, why take a hit for a 1:11 debut?
NYCRunner wrote:
In the country's most competitive half, the Brooklyn Half, out of 15,000 runners, this is what you get:
1:10 place 13
1:15 place 46
1:20 place 126
1:25 place 311
1:30 place 684
Based on this list, I would say sub 1:20. Everything over 1:25 and it's a sh|t show - iPods, fuel belts, compression socks.
I think for the NYC half last year the 25th place guy was 63:20ish, that is certainly the most competative half in the world.
NYCRunner wrote:
In the country's most competitive half, the Brooklyn Half, out of 15,000 runners, this is what you get:
1:10 place 13
1:15 place 46
1:20 place 126
1:25 place 311
1:30 place 684
Based on this list, I would say sub 1:20. Everything over 1:25 and it's a sh|t show - iPods, fuel belts, compression socks.
i see youve never run in philly
NYCRunner wrote:
In the country's most competitive half, the Brooklyn Half, out of 15,000 runners, this is what you get:
1:10 place 13
1:15 place 46
1:20 place 126
1:25 place 311
1:30 place 684
Based on this list, I would say sub 1:20. Everything over 1:25 and it's a sh|t show - iPods, fuel belts, compression socks.
"most competitive" were my own words. Show my any other race in the country where more than 100 runners end up sub 1:20 and I may change my mind.
I agree with most of your points. Not trying to argue, but FYI, there are definitely a few other comparable halfs throughout the country. I've seen a few that are more competitive to get top 100 than Indy, but can't remember which ones off hand.
Indy Mini Marathon (2011 results)
1:10 place 25
1:15 place 61 (100th was 1:17:53)
1:20 place 135
1:25 place 286
1:30 place 563
http://onlineraceresults.com/race/view_race.php?race_id=18500&relist_record_type=result&lower_bound=500&upper_bound=600&use_previous_sql=1&group_by=default#racetopPhilly man, much more competitive.
bangalangadanga wrote:
world's most competitive half!
10th place: 1:03:53
25th place: 1:04:20
50th place: 1:04:45
100th place: 1:05:28
200th place: 1:06:43
300th place: 1:08:09
400th place: 1:09:48
500th place: 1:12:59
http://japanrunningnews.blogspot.com/2008/11/deeper-and-deeper-goes-greatest-half.html
THAT IS INSANE! My best was 1:14 which wouldn't have even cracked the top 500 here!!! Holy CARP.
reiyy wrote:
I think for the NYC half last year the 25th place guy was 63:20ish, that is certainly the most competative half in the world.
Not quite. World Half Champs aside, 25th place in Marugame this year was 1:02:09.
http://gold.jaic.org/kagawa/2012/KMIHM/REL001.HTMNew Bedford Half had 2700 racers in 2012 and 137 were sub 1:20. There are no top national elites in this race. Someone suggested 1:25 was impressive for a master. In the 2012 New Bedford 1/2, 1:25 would have placed you 48th in M40-49, which isn't that impressive. But you'd make the top 20 (19th) in M50-59!
middle professor wrote:
In the 2012 New Bedford 1/2, 1:25 would have placed you 48th in M40-49, which isn't that impressive. But you'd make the top 20 (19th) in M50-59!
I bet 1:25 would have placed you better than 48th in every other age group, male and female. Male 40-49 is always the deepest.
orbitboy wrote:
middle professor wrote:In the 2012 New Bedford 1/2, 1:25 would have placed you 48th in M40-49, which isn't that impressive. But you'd make the top 20 (19th) in M50-59!
I bet 1:25 would have placed you better than 48th in every other age group, male and female. Male 40-49 is always the deepest.
Actually no. I meant to post the link. Check it out. It's a deep race, if you're not elite
http://www.coolrunning.com/results/12/ma/Mar18_NewBed_set1.shtmlWhere you are living and the athletes around would have been the biggest factors for me.
Let's say I was a 1:10 guy. Now, let's examine the responses from people who run 1:30- 1:40 (Good runners that help races stay afloat) in different areas.
Cornfields of Indiana - "Holy crap! Are you training for the Olympics?!"
Boulder, CO - "*Blank Stare*"
Then I say, "But it was at sea-level."
They say, "Ya, everyone runs faster down there."
And then they wander off to cry to their coach, that they have to pay to put up with them, that the new kid in town trains by himself instead of doing random workouts with no supporting structure.
God, I love that.
Some of you guys are nuts. Those of you claiming that 1:11 is slow or only sub 1:10 is impressive....Stop exaggerating. We are talking about office chatter. Most corporate guys are slower, even if they consider themselves avid runners. In an office setting, where career is the primary focus rather than running, I would say sub 1:25 is pretty good. That's about 6:30 pace.
BR wrote:
To impress me....
Marathon - Sub-3.
Half - Sub-1:20
10K - Sub-35
5K - Sub-17
Mile - Sub-5
800m - Sub-2 (the hardest to achieve out of all of them)
Kind of unbalanced. E.g., it is much harder to go sub-35 than sub-17. Should the 10K # not be sub-37 or at least sub-36? The mile time you listed is clearly the most achievable. I could do those before I could do any of the others (and I never achieved sub-35). For me, the sub-2 was the second one accomplished, but that's just me as my strength was in the relatively shorter stuff.
2012xxx wrote:
Marathon - Sub-3.
Half - Sub-1:20
10K - Sub-35
5K - Sub-17
Mile - Sub-5
800m - Sub-2 (the hardest to achieve out of all of them)
Kind of unbalanced. E.g., it is much harder to go sub-35 than sub-17. Should the 10K # not be sub-37 or at least sub-36? The mile time you listed is clearly the most achievable. I could do those before I could do any of the others (and I never achieved sub-35). For me, the sub-2 was the second one accomplished, but that's just me as my strength was in the relatively shorter stuff.
I think his point is to have reasonable "round" numbers. Everyone knows that sub 3 is much, much easier than sub 1:20.
NYCRunner wrote:In the country's most competitive half, the Brooklyn Half, out of 15,000 runners, this is what you get:1:10 place 131:15 place 461:20 place 1261:25 place 3111:30 place 684--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Indy Mini Marathon (2011 results)1:10 place 251:15 place 61 (100th was 1:17:53)1:20 place 1351:25 place 2861:30 place 563--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beepboop wrote:
Philly man, much more competitive.
http://running.competitor.com/cgiresults?eId=4
1:10 place 36
1:15 place 77 (100th was 1:16:44)
1:20 place 160
1:25 place 294
1:30 place 480
Maybe at the front end but not overall.