What time's do you consider to be elite?

You don't understand how letsrun is played. The more ridiculous your standards, the cooler you are. Hence the 8 million "every healthy man should be able to run a 4:30 mile" threads.

Isn't letsrun fun? Gotta love these threads. Next up will be some yokel claiming that Canova said anything slower than 13:02 pace for 5K is warm up pace for Kenyans.

Men's

3:45 - 1500

sub 14 - 5K

sub 29 - 10K

sub 1:05 HM

sub 2:16 marathon (which means the US only has a dozen or so elite male runners)

Women's

4:20 - 1500

sub 15:30 5K (and seriously not many women running sub 15:50 or so)

1:15 half marathon

2:40 marathon

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

YEAH BUDDY wrote:

Saying a "time that sets a world record and wins" is redundant. Your use of "and/or" was excessively superfluent. Do not waste our time like that again. You have been formally warned.

Fun fact: In both the long jump and triple jump it is possible to set a WR and lose to someone who did not set a WR.

That is fun but neither of those are measured with time.

The only true ELITE distance is the MILE. To truly be ELITE you must break 3:47.00

There is only one American who has done this.

Well a good fart can last 5 to 10 seconds. 10 to 20 seconds you are talking sub-elite Anything above that is elite

Ghost of Jasari wrote:

Mile- sub 3:47

5000 12:50

10000 sub 26:40

Marathon sub 2:06

So you do realize that there were no elite Milers, 5000 runners, or 10000m runners last year ... right?

16 men in the history of the 5k were elite. 8 guys in the Mile. Maybe you are joking, since I never understand why someone trolls I don't usually get it?

used to be good wrote:

high school: Times are indicative of CA state champs qualifying marks

1:53

4:15

9:10

college: NCAA Qualifying

1:50

4:03 mile

13:50

29:30

pro/ post college: US Champs qualifying

1:46

3:55 mile

13:20

28:00

1:05 HM

2:15 Mar

I would define an elite distance runner as being in the top 10% of your given field/ group.

Looking up results in CA last year. The last place guy was 10:07 (obviously a bad day) but the 26th place guy was 9:26.55.

He ran 4:25/9:38 in the middle of the season. Then ran 4:26/9:43 in the CIF Prelims. Improved to 4:17/9:34 in the Sectional and then improved to 4:19/9:26 in the finals. I assume that the 1600 was second.

9:10 would have placed you 15th and you only needed to run 9:34 to qualify for State.

It does look like you need to run 4:15-20 to qualify in the 1600.

But I don't think just qualifying for your State Meet makes one an elite. Also, 9:10 would not put you in the top-10% of 3200m runners either in CA or in the nation, 9:10 or faster would be solidly top-1%.

Similarly, nobody needs to run 13:20/28:00 to qualify for a National Champs meet. You can look up the standards, but it is very rare that the winning times are faster than that.

It looks like standards are not up for 2015's meet, and the standards are a little higher than I would have guessed (or seen in the past) but they are ... 13:32/28:30.

newname wrote:

So you do realize that there were no elite Milers, 5000 runners, or 10000m runners last year ... right?

16 men in the history of the 5k were elite. 8 guys in the Mile. Maybe you are joking, since I never understand why someone trolls I don't usually get it?

Or maybe he just doesn't think there are many elite guys last year. Off the top of my head, he is certainly correct about the 10k. How many people even ran within 1 MINIUTE of the world record? There were no elite 10k guys last year except for maybe Rupp.

Are there really only 8 people in history that run faster than 3:47/3:30? That can't be right. That time is a bit fast, but it is a reasonable opinion. 10 years ago, people were running 3:30 or faster regularly. No, not so much.

You seem to be under the impression that elites HAVE to exist each year. They don't.

4 people ran under 27:17. 10 under 27:30.

So Paul Tanui, Karoki and Sambu were not elite? This is a genuine question. If you have an objective definition of "elite" then that is OK. It just generally means "the best". I have a different idea about it, and the accepted definition is different.

When you say "maybe Rupp" you give it away. He placed in EVERY WC Final since 2007.

2007 10,000 m, 11th

2009 10,000 m, 8th

2011 10,000 m, 7th

2013 10,000 m, 4th

And do you see what he did there? Better every time. He also ranked number 1 in the world this year. So he was THE BEST 10k runner in the world this year. He also became the 15th fastest in World History. But if you feel that that was not enough for you, I get it.

Olympic finals

2008 10,000 m, 13th

2012 10,000 m, 2nd

Now I get it that he did not place 2nd in the Olympics THIS YEAR, but if you place 2nd in the LAST Olympics and then became 15th fastest performer ever in history (13 of whom have retired completely or retired from the 10k - and one has died) then you are still Elite.

He was 2nd in the last Olympics, 4th in the last WC, and ranked Number 1 in the world in 2014. So at worst he is top-4 in any of the last 3 years. You can keep plying your subjective idea of the word, but the rest of the world knows that is the definition of the word.

RE: the Mile. It is easy (for me) to look this up so I won't argue with you. EIGHT people in world history. But I understand that you can't think that is "elite" ... Rupp at 15th all-time wasn't ELITE for you, so it follows.

If you are struggling, here you go:

I did not (and the other clown did not) say anything about a 3:30 1500, but there have been only 10 people under 3:29.00. There appears (by my count) to be 26 under 3:30.00.

I'll help you again:

It appears that you (and the other clown) have confused the terms "elite" and all-time great.

Under 3:47, 12:50 or 26:40 makes you an all-time great.

Anyone who's qualified for a US Championship or Olympic Trials is "elite" in my mind. Anyone else who's close but hasn't qualified is a sub-elite.

Fot me an elite time is usually in the early evening but not always.

It's possible to win something without setting a world record. But you already knew that. Sorry for wasting your time.

Example = Any race that doesn't end in a WR.

It's also possible to set a WR and not win. Track has heats. One could set a WR in a heat, great, then you lose the finals. But you already knew that too. Man you're smrt!

Elite time wrote:

Fot me an elite time is usually in the early evening but not always.

Wait, is an "elite time" when everyone prefers to poop?

Another "hobby jogger" bashing thread. What a surprise.

Sure, the elite run fast--very fast. They are in the prime of their lives and should be running fast. Age and gender must always be considered.

My times for elite males are:

13:30

29:00

1:05

2:15

Here are the correct elite times. Any other times are just opinions.

13:30

29:00

1:05

2:18

Okay...I accept your modification.

Coming from an elite wrote:

Anyone who's qualified for a US Championship or Olympic Trials is "elite" in my mind. Anyone else who's close but hasn't qualified is a sub-elite.

Qualifying for a US Championship or Olympic Trials is just "sub-elite." Being "elite" is actually making the Olympic or World Championship team. (Except for the World Championship marathon team, for which most top runners do not try to qualify.)

Everyone else is a hobby jogger.

So if you qualify for the men's o.m.t., you're an elite runner? If you run 2:20, how are you making any money or a living off of being elite at something, in this case running? I don't see working in a shoe store as an elite perk.I'd love to be able to run 2:15, but to me, that's not elite at all as the top US guys would be about 1 mile ahead of me at the finish line. This is not a troll, I simply don't agree with your thinking. Hanson's has guys who run right around 2:15. How are they elite? They get housing and other perks, but it's not like they have a yearly contract and are making $65,000 a year plus benefits. So then, what they get is a chance to "get there" and have a few things taken care of along the way to make it easier. Sorry, I don't see that as elite.

Coming from an elite wrote:

Anyone who's qualified for a US Championship or Olympic Trials is "elite" in my mind. Anyone else who's close but hasn't qualified is a sub-elite.

I tend to think more 2:15 than 2:18 for an elite male runner, but am not upset if one thinks 2:18 a better measure. Vail recently ran New York in 2:15:08. Is he not elite?

!@#$% wrote:

It's possible to win something without setting a world record. But you already knew that. Sorry for wasting your time.

Example = Any race that doesn't end in a WR.

I would argue that in fact most people know this, not just you and me. However, I did not take issue with the "or" part of "and/or." Please stop wasting time. This is your second warning.

It's also possible to set a WR and not win. Track has heats. One could set a WR in a heat, great, then you lose the finals. But you already knew that too. Man you're smrt!

The heat was still a race that was won in a WR time. I won't give you a third warning because I can appreciate your craftiness. However, you do have two formal warnings and are one warning away from formal disciplinary action.