Slowest guy you know who takes running seriously?

Stoppit Smith wrote:

Strange that your name is "me here, you where?"

you're regarding his efforts, and maybe he's a type A jerk, but clearly has passion.

I'm curious. When he's here at the finish line, you're where????

May this old Turkey Trot gag never die. One of my favorite long term running jokes on this running website.

Slowbro wrote:

By "running seriously", I mean 4+ years of consistent training, averaging 40+MPW in base phase for at least two seasons.

The slowest person I know who matches that description is a friend whose 1500 PR is 4:47. That's his best event, as his 800 (2:22) and 5K (low 19s) times are even worse.

Me. I never could break 4:30

People that think they are "slow" because they could never break 4:30 are annoying or showing false modesty. I ran 4:40 in hs and I was the third fastest kid in a school of like 1200. I ran 10:05 in the 3200, and I was around 40th best in the state when combining all classes. Are these great? No, but it's not "slow" when compared to the average. At my best, I was a 1:14 half marathon runner. I would finish in the top 1 percent of races with that time. Great? No, but definitely not "slow" like some posters try to claim. People even claiming these 22 minute 5k runners are slow seem to never have run road races. That is a time that is going to place pretty high at most races in today's day and age in America.

Mo Trafeh

fdasfasdf wrote:

People that think they are "slow" because they could never break 4:30 are annoying or showing false modesty. I ran 4:40 in hs and I was the third fastest kid in a school of like 1200. I ran 10:05 in the 3200, and I was around 40th best in the state when combining all classes. Are these great? No, but it's not "slow" when compared to the average. At my best, I was a 1:14 half marathon runner. I would finish in the top 1 percent of races with that time. Great? No, but definitely not "slow" like some posters try to claim. People even claiming these 22 minute 5k runners are slow seem to never have run road races. That is a time that is going to place pretty high at most races in today's day and age in America.

Considering that I was really taking running seriously at the time. It sucked getting 2nd to last place at state my jr year. Then getting 4th at region my senior year of hs. This 4:30 trend carried into my only college track season and was very fustrating. Couple that with knowing someone who did the same training as you qualifies for footlocker the following season or having teammates who can be out for months and only cross train and still run 4:15. THAT is why I say that. Not trying to be the annoying 4:30 bragger guy. I genuinely feel that I should have been much faster according to other PR's and training.

Some of the people here crack me up. At tennis courts all around the country there are people who are serious about Tennis and play every day. They practice a lot. I've got friends who do this. None of these people have ANY chance of even doing well at even a small local tournament. Yet no one mocks them or says they are wasting their time.

What is it about some of the runners here who feel the need to mock runners who would still finish in the top 5% of a road race?

You are only wasting your time if you don't enjoy what you do overall.

I dont know many people that are running seriously, so probably me. I'm 25, and have been running since freshmen year of HS. My PRS are 2:20 800, 4:48 1500, 10:12 3k, 16:48 5k, 36:32 10k, and 1:22:09 half marathon.

Most of the time I've run 55-60 mpw. Recently I've been doing 70+ mpw and have seen some improvement after a long period of stagnation at 55-60 mpw.

Canada Girl wrote:

va runnr wrote:

he acts as if running defines his life but is just flat out bad when you look at how much training he does for it

Your mentality baffles me. So the guy trains a lot and "acts as if running defines his life". Is he a hack for still running even though his times are supposedly embarrassing for how much he trains? How is he worse than the guys who are a little more competitive but have no chance of sniffing money? Aren't they all just doing it for their own reasons?

I was simply answering the original question. not meant as mockery but as the example of the slowest person I know who is training seriously with competitive aspirations. Others list people who will run with a local running club and are trying to break 20 in the 5k and while I know people like that I thought id offer up someone who makes running the #1 priority in his life.

By all means he should keep training, he seems to enjoy it, at least I think he enjoys the aspect of getting better

Slowbro wrote:

By "running seriously", I mean 4+ years of consistent training, averaging 40+MPW in base phase for at least two seasons.

The slowest person I know who matches that description is a friend whose 1500 PR is 4:47. That's his best event, as his 800 (2:22) and 5K (low 19s) times are even worse.

I run 70 kmw. Done it for 7+ years. 30 years ago my 5k best was a bit below 19 min. Was faster at 800, around 2:15.

seattle dude wrote:

Some of the people here crack me up. At tennis courts all around the country there are people who are serious about Tennis and play every day. They practice a lot. I've got friends who do this. None of these people have ANY chance of even doing well at even a small local tournament. Yet no one mocks them or says they are wasting their time.

What is it about some of the runners here who feel the need to mock runners who would still finish in the top 5% of a road race?

You are only wasting your time if you don't enjoy what you do overall.

Does tennis have a big empirical training scene. Running attracts this attitude because you're comparing times between people running regulated differences in a sport where training physiology has studied done to death. It's easy to get in the mindset of what people "should" be able to do. It's hard to judge someone's tennis performance unless they're very good or awful since the result is relative to an opponent.

good and bad runners are only good and bad relative to opponents.

I really think we should all focus on more useful hobbies instead of doing something active. You guys are correct, running to get better at it is a complete waste of time.

fdasfasdf wrote:

People even claiming these 22 minute 5k runners are slow seem to never have run road races. That is a time that is going to place pretty high at most races in today's day and age in America.

22 minutes is awfully slow for a college-age male who trains seriously, and I can't imagine that anyone with that little talent would continue to train hard for years.

The only reason why 22:00 would place you in the top 10% of most road races is because of demographics (women, elderly men, elementary school kids, etc.) and because most people doing those races don't train seriously. A woman in her 40s who does a couch to 5K program and ends up with a 22:00 probably has more talent than a 20 year old guy who runs a 17:00 after years of high mileage.

I can understand a 17-18 minute guy running 40+MPW. But a 22:00 college-age guy running 40+MPW for years? That's just sad, dumb, and a total waste of time.

I knew a guy running 3000+ miles a year in his 20s/30s who couldn't typically break 19 in a 5k and only broke 2:57 in a marathon when he got in a point-to-point race with a huge tailwind. Was kind of sad.

I know a guy who takes running way to seriously and is very structured in his training and runs consistentely 55+ MPW but can barely break 18:30 in the 5k and shows up to local races in Next %. It's pretty sad to watch because he acts like he is an elite.

Justin B

Why is it a waste of time to train to run a 22 min 5K and not a 17 min 5K? Unless you just like $15 gift cards and paper 3rd place age group medals, the two times get exactly the same satisfaction and benefits, assuming both are trainning the same levels.

In golf I understand the frustration of slow golfers, but in running, you can just run around them.

Perhaps they just enjoy it. What's the difference if you run 19 mins or 15 mins 5km

ukathleticscoach wrote:

What's the difference if you run 19 mins or 15 mins 5km

15 minutes wins a lot more races than 19 minutes.