So just about all elite runners aren't "good runners" by your logic.
Elites tend to specialise, and becoming the best in the world means training for the specific demands of your event.
Now you'll be able to cherry pick some athletes with good range, but most are far better in their pet event than in all others.
I believe you're the cherry picker here. It should be assumed that anyone running an elite time in an event is a good runner.
Do you seriously think I'd say that Michael Johnson and Jeremy Wariner were not good runners because they could not convert their 400 times to their mile or 5000 times? You should get out of the Wind Tunnel a bit more often.
Well, based on your previously mentioned criteria, both Johnson and Wariner would fall into the category of "not a good runner".
Not sub 20 5K. I've seen a lot of parkrunners fluke that and then be abysmal at the 10K. So I would say
Sub 19 5K (on an official course, not parkrun)
5K on an official course should be faster than 5K on parkrun. You have to swerve around dog walkers, kids running around, etc., and the course can be uneven with holes or grass/path in some areas that slows you down. The only thing that can make parkrun faster than official 5K race is if that parkrun course is short. Official 5K courses are well marked and clean from obstructions, usually pretty flat too.
Tbh I could get behind this. Personally I am unsure how to feel about runners in the 3:46-4:00, 14:00-15:00 kind of range (or the equivalent). Clearly they're not chumps, and it takes quite a bit of work to get into that range (I should know, I ran 3:49 and 14:26). However, nobody in that range could ever sniff a pro meet, and I also firmly believe almost anybody could get down to sub-4:00/15:00 if they trained "like an Ingebrigtsen" (i.e. from a young age with the sole purpose of maximizing their talent). Perhaps classifying the above group as "elite" and runners in the 3:46-4:00/14:00-15:00 range as "good". Tho tbh you might need to break up the elites into "pros" and "sub-elites" with a cutoff around 3:37/13:20 for pro-level times (given we have guys like Colby Alexander and Jon Davis running 3:33 unsigned, it might be even tougher than that nowadays).
I can definitely get behind this. It's arbitrary, but this thread was meant to produce interesting opinions. Our standards as runners who follow the sport are obviously vastly different from the general public. To the latter, if you run a 5:30 mile, you're fast.
Kind of interesting. That's one way running is unique as a discipline. The gap between what we and the general public think is "good" is massive, and there are very clear numbers available, so you can easily see the chasm that exists between pros and non-pros, unlike other disciplines.
I don't think it is totally unique to running other than the fact that we have specific times to which we can tie performance.
But it also applies to other sports... Ryan Leaf, for instance is considered one of the worst QBs in NFL history... but Ryan Leaf was also an NCAA All American and came in third in the Heisman trophy voting... So by that metric he was a "great" QB...
One of the things I find ironic about running is that in a local market... The guy who runs 15 min 5K's and wins all the off brand local races is a more well known celebrity in his market than any elite American runner unless the elite guy is an Olympic medalist.
Random people who take up running as an adult quite often break 18 minutes for 5k so for people who actually train a decent amount (as opposed to comparing yourself to the entire field at your local parkrun, many of whom don't do other running) breaking 18 isn't what I'd call "good". It's kind of what I'd call "par". Sub-17 is good I'd say.
If we're specifically talking about for club runners and people who start young, sub-16 is still good. You're a good club runner at that point. Definitely in the minority.
i ran a 2:00 800m my sophomore year of highschool, which equates to 761 points and a 15:16 5k. those two marks are miles apart (literally) and any runner going 15:16 is probably capable of 4:1xx, 1:5xx, etc. too much emphasis on short distances per tryingtobefast
Random people who take up running as an adult quite often break 18 minutes for 5k so for people who actually train a decent amount breaking 18 isn't what I'd call "good". It's kind of what I'd call "par". Sub-17 is good I'd say.
Sadly, I agree. I'm in the high 19s. It's good for me, but mediocre in the big picture. And God is my witness, I worked hard for that time. I know I can get to sub 19 with better training and more sacrifices, but sub 18 or 17 is just not in the cards for me I think...
I usually finish 1st in the 35-39 age category at parkrun and I'm currently running a mediocre high 17 to 18 flat. If I were running 17:00 I'd say it's good and enough to finish 1st at most parkruns.
Random people who take up running as an adult quite often break 18 minutes for 5k so for people who actually train a decent amount breaking 18 isn't what I'd call "good". It's kind of what I'd call "par". Sub-17 is good I'd say.
Sadly, I agree. I'm in the high 19s. It's good for me, but mediocre in the big picture. And God is my witness, I worked hard for that time. I know I can get to sub 19 with better training and more sacrifices, but sub 18 or 17 is just not in the cards for me I think...
Just because you pale in comparison to world class runners, doesn’t mean that you are not good. It’s about how you compare to the average runner. A 20 minute 5K is more than good.
The Internet is not real. Even on this site, you have a lot of make believe pro runners and in reality most of them don’t even run. I know the average times for every distance. For the 5K it’s about 27 minutes for men and 30 minutes for women.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.