Finally someone speaking the truth
Finally someone speaking the truth
The Amazing Chef wrote:
johnny bean wrote:
graduated with a 15:23 and couldn't even nail a scholarship.
I laughed out loud. You either a) have a terrible GPA b) ran that on a crazy short course
If you run a 15:23 on a legit course, you will get a scholarship
Few coaches at respectable programs will give scholarships based solely on an XC time. Besides that, a 15:23 caliber performance will get fewer scholarships than you might think. Very few at power 5 schools, anyway. Probably a good amount of mid-majors, but some kids don’t even consider those schools for one reason or another.
It's fast, it's very fast.
SUB17 for 5K can be in the top 5% for all of the runners, and if you can sub run sub35 for 10K, you almost in the rank of top 1-3%. However, you must know that the people who compete with you in the track and field can almost run the 5k for SUB19, then you are below average runners who can not stand on the podium.
so the sample is different, if you compare to the amateurs runner, you are definitely the "pro runner" for them, but if you go to an international race or elite race, you can hardly stand out.
As a 16 year old high school senior I ran 17:05 at the provincial championships (similar to a state championship) in Alberta, Canada.That was good for 3rd place in the province. First was 16:38. Second 16:55. Both of those guys were 9:20-9:30 2 miler types and would run at D1 schools in the NCAA.
I would say anything under 19 minutes in high school is respectable. It shows you can run 3 miles at 6 minute pace. (ish)
Sub 17 is getting quite good and anything under 16 is elite.
Note that at the provincial championships in Alberta, runners compete in categories of junior (grade 10's and young grade 11's), intermediate (grade 11's and young grade 12's like myself) and senior (grade 12's and sometimes intermediates who want to test themselves against seniors).
The juniors run 4km, intermediates 5km and seniors 6km.
Each race had about 120 runners.
I would guess that had all of the categories been combined in one race, I may have placed anywhere from 6th to 15th.
I was competitive in the province but not quite there at the top.
sub-17 is great, as is sub-16, 15, 14, 13. You're running faster than most & you're putting in some work to hit that time.
I think the courses and geography of the state make a difference too, you’ll see the flat areas of the US having sub 15 times for the win but around me there’s a lot of 16s and high 15s because the courses are pretty tough. You gotta contextualize the performances
You should be proud and thankful for a sub-17 5K. My goodness, most people could not conceive of that kind of fitness, not to mention the health and vitality that must go with it. Godspeed sir!
kindstephen wrote:
It's fast, it's very fast.
SUB17 for 5K can be in the top 5% for all of the runners, and if you can sub run sub35 for 10K, you almost in the rank of top 1-3%.
It's not fast, and while the percentages are probably not too far off you are forgetting the fact that most people don't optimize their running performance AND got no intention to do so.
Serious runners, like talented ones, or ones who do it professionally laugh about a sub 17 5k. It is all about relation, we can't just look at just the time but at the circumstances.
A sub 17 from a talented HS freshman who did maybe 20 mpw to get there? Not impressive.
A sub 17 from a father of 3 kids, working a 40 hour job, going to the gym few times a week, playing tennis with buddies and still managing to get in 50 mpw to run sub 17? Yes, that's impressive.
A sub 17 from a 50+ old runner? VERY impressive.
A sub 17 from a female at any age? Again, VERY impressive.
A sub 17 from a random male college kid doing an easy major, not having to work a job because his parents fully fund him? Not impressive.
kadoo wrote:
What the heck wrote:
I've seen some threads on here where people call 16:30-17 min 5ks mediocre. That's considered pretty fast in my state, and I run in the 16:30s myself. These people are stupid. Sub 17 is pretty quick....don't you all agree?
Sub 17 is mediocre. It will land you in the back of the slowest heat at Gina Relays at Hillsdale, which is a heat of almost entirely red shirt division 2 walk on runners. So basically it's garbage.
Sure, you can run high 16s and win loads of local races that don't have prizes, but if there anything more than a pint glass on the line you're going to get beat by a minute or more. You're a group run hero to all the 50 year olds that are happy to "just complete" whatever they signed up for in the fall, but you are a scrub when you go to any race with more than a thousand people.
Signed, a dude who runs mid 16s.
What if you are in your 50s or 60s?
The best HS guys run 14:30. So if a guy gets beaten by 2.5 minutes by the best, that's close to 20%. That can't be considered good.
If you are a woman, it’s really really good.
If you are a high school male, it’s pretty good.
If you are a college male, it’s average.
If you are an 80 yr old male, it’s WR worthy.
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
kindstephen wrote:
It's fast, it's very fast.
SUB17 for 5K can be in the top 5% for all of the runners, and if you can sub run sub35 for 10K, you almost in the rank of top 1-3%.
It's not fast, and while the percentages are probably not too far off you are forgetting the fact that most people don't optimize their running performance AND got no intention to do so.
Serious runners, like talented ones, or ones who do it professionally laugh about a sub 17 5k. It is all about relation, we can't just look at just the time but at the circumstances.
A sub 17 from a father of 3 kids, working a 40 hour job, going to the gym few times a week, playing tennis with buddies and still managing to get in 50 mpw to run sub 17? Yes, that's impressive.
A sub 17 from a 50+ old runner? VERY impressive.
A sub 17 from a female at any age? Again, VERY impressive.
A sub 17 from a random male college kid doing an easy major, not having to work a job because his parents fully fund him? Not impressive.
Idiota. A sub 17 from a talented HS freshman who did maybe 20 mpw to get there? SHOWS POTENTIAL
Go back under the rock you crawled out from.
Yes, sub 17 is excellent for a male and other-worldly for a female, but assuming you are talking about a male running 16:5X for a 5k then I would say the corresponding measure of fitness would be around 19:30-20:15 for a woman. Less than 1% of all road-racers hit these time standards in local races.
Being capable of a 16;30-17:00 5k indicates the same level of conditioning as a professional male soccer player or a professional boxer (60+ VO2 max). There are most likely either zero or less than 5 professional female soccer players worldwide who can achieve this time right now and those who could do it would be the ones who have experience with competitive running on top of their sport. However, in international level male soccer - a sub 17:00 timing would be pretty standard if not a requirement for the faster mid-fielders.
The only standard this time is not “good” by are elite endurance specialist times and yes, D1 running especially on full-ride is technically elite running (the lowest tier of elite running but elite nonetheless). You want to be around 15:30 or less for paid D1 running.
Standards for runners ages 15-39.
+2 minutes if aged between 40 and 59
+4 minutes if aged 60+
Male
Under 21:00 is good
Under 17:30 is excellent
Under 14:00 is elite
Female
Under 25:00 is good
Under 20:30 is excellent
Under 16:00 minutes is elite
(Note that getting under 22:00 F and 18:00 M is where genetics start to play a role).
I have no idea about HS running in your state and what times can land scholarships, but here's a take from a point of amateur runner in his 30s.
If you're a recreational runner sub-17 is pretty fast. If you pick and choose your opponents or just get lucky, you can come 1st in a parkrun or win local road 5Ks. You'll be ahead of most of the field, finishing in top 1% in every race regardless of distance.
If you're in a running club, there are bound to be guys faster than you. They will likely be faster by at least a minute, quite possibly two, so compared to them you'll be no better than all those joggers dreaming to break 20.
So yeah, for a competitive runner sub-17 is surely mediocre.
18:40 (6:00 pace) is somewhat OK. 19 mins and slower is mediocre.
It would just about place in the top 25 at parkrun