48 wrote:
Depends on whether or not the person trained for a marathon.
Not really. The time alone should tell you enough about their combination of training running/athletic background before training.
48 wrote:
Depends on whether or not the person trained for a marathon.
Not really. The time alone should tell you enough about their combination of training running/athletic background before training.
A. Solid
It takes either a good amount of talent or a consistent level of training to run that time. For a normal person with a non competitive running background, it's definitely worth a "good job".
its about the same as a 1:30 half for an annoying middle aged chick who takes herself way too seriously.
Hardloper wrote:
48 wrote:Depends on whether or not the person trained for a marathon.
Not really. The time alone should tell you enough about their combination of training running/athletic background before training.
Not really. At 44 I ran a 3:10 on a whim with ZERO training. Then I trained at about 50-60 miles per week for the next 6 months, and ran 2:43. As a 44 year old, I was running as fast as I could both times, but one involved no training, and the other involved training. So the time alone is just a number without further information, in my opinion.
48 wrote:
Not really. At 44 I ran a 3:10 on a whim with ZERO training...
Let's just stop right here. This is false and you know it. Try again.
Well, to be completely forthright, I signed up for the marathon 3 weeks before the date, and ran 30-45 minutes a day for 2 1/2 weeks, woke up puking with the flu on a Wednesday the week of the race, didn't eat for 2 days, but then ran anyway because I had shelled out the money. It absolutely sucked. I wouldn't recommend it, but it is true.
duderz wrote:
48 wrote:Not really. At 44 I ran a 3:10 on a whim with ZERO training...
Let's just stop right here. This is false and you know it. Try again.
It took much longer than I expected to get one of these posts, but you knew one was coming.
3 hours would be solid. 3:20 would be between A & B.
Give 5 minutes handicap for the age. Nothing more.
i think it's A and D. it's definitely an above average time but still slow. i liken it to weight
I ran 3:18 at 54 and thought it was just OK, but I've never been as fast as everyone else on this site.
Little more info.
5'9" 150 lb
45-50 mpw
10 plus marathons
Disputed wrote:
Little more info.
5'9" 150 lb
45-50 mpw
10 plus marathons
still want the times for a few shorter distances, but given this info I'd call 3:20 solid but with room for improvement.
That improvement would probably come from losing a few pounds and making a few changes to training [although there's no way to say what those changes might be without knowing more about current training + other recent race times.]
A 3:20 marathon is a very good performance. According to Marathon Guide (http://www.marathonguide.com/features/Articles/2010RecapOverview.cfm), a 3:30 marathon is about the 12th percentile for men and 8th percentile overall. Generally speaking, if this guy shows up to a marathon, he's beating about 90% of the field. I don't see how anyone can call that average. I'm sure he's at an even higher percentile for his age.
We're conditioned to closely examine the top .01% of our sport without the proper perspective on how good "average" performances really are.
Honestly, when I'm 44 my kids will be 14, 10, and 8. I'll have been running for 30 years, and I hope to have the time and energy to run a 3:20.
The world record for 44yo is 2:15:24 which is 1.0952 * world record (2:03:38). Analogously 3:20 corresponds to a non-aged graded time of 3:02:37.
Is 3:02:37 a "solid" performance? I'd say definitely no. It's nothing but a hobby jogger performance.
tstock wrote:
D. Slow
When trained correctly any 44yo could be running sub 2:20
Yes. And, when trained correctly, any 44yo could make the NFL.
Letsrun's own Einstein wrote:
Is 3:02:37 a "solid" performance? I'd say definitely no. It's nothing but a hobby jogger performance.
It can be both a solid performance and a hobbyjogger performance.
Letsrun's own Einstein wrote:
The world record for 44yo is 2:15:24 which is 1.0952 * world record (2:03:38). Analogously 3:20 corresponds to a non-aged graded time of 3:02:37.
Is 3:02:37 a "solid" performance? I'd say definitely no. It's nothing but a hobby jogger performance.
So what are your cutoffs for "hobby jogger" performances?
How about a 2:30? That's not winning you any scratch from road races, qualifying you for any national competitions, or resulting in sponsorship. A 2:30 marathoner is just as competitive with the pros as a 3:00 marathoner, i.e., not even on the pros' radar.
But if you ask runners (specifically not Letsrun trolls) a 2:30 performance is out of this world. And a 3:00 (or 3:20 for the 44 year old) is pretty damn good.
Hardloper wrote:
It can be both a solid performance and a hobbyjogger performance.
Cultural relativism at its worst.
4 hours is generally seen as a respectable finish.
One you get above 3 hours, gender doesn't matter all that much since body type becomes important (think the guy built like a football player has any advantage over the thin runner chick?)
320 solid? Most would say it is pretty darn fast. It is for an average runner. For a serious amateur runner it is an embarrassing time though
PRs of subject
1:26 1/2
38 high 10k
18:30 5k