What's a good marathon time for the general population?

I know people who moved to a place like Boulder who run relatively fast (say, sub 2:45 marathon) but they are humble about it, they know they are often mid packers in the competitive local races, whereas the guy in insert random local town/city USA who is even a sub3 marathoner feels like a superstar top5 serious local runner for his area, he is one of fastest at the local running store there and guy may assume name in the paper just for qualifying for the Boston Marathon.
bottom line: train hard, be humble, have fun

This ^^

I like the way you talk about a male running a 2:36 marathon and a female running a 2:38 (not to say on a difficult course too) as if they are the same thing.

So for you "good" means "the best in the world"? That's stupid.

For men

Sub 4: Good if you’re just getting into running. Shows you have good general fitness

Sub 3:30: Almost a “serious” runner. Training probably needs more structure in regards to workouts or you need higher mileage.

Sub 3: Boston Marathon qualifier. Respectable runner on the local scene. You’re considered a “serious” runner who is dedicated to the sport.

Sub 2:45: Most likely someone who trains very hard and smart without much talent or someone with a bunch of talent not training hard.

Sub 2:30: Competitive at the regional level. Likely will get comped entries at quality races.

Sub 2:20: Sub-Elite. National class.

Sub 2:13: Pro

Every runner is male and under age 40. Typical LRC assumption. ;)

Ok, but I don't understand this comment:

"Any times under 2:45-most runners cannot connect with what it would be to be able to run this fast for that long."

Also, I can remember a time when very few ran over 4 hours and they managed to have marathons back then so I don't agree that there would be no race. There will always be a race, just maybe not put on by some greedy organization.

I ran the Maine Marathon in the fall and the female winner (young, not exactly sure of her age... definitely no older than 25) ran 2:39 in her debut marathon. So your list may be incomplete.

Anything sub 4 is pretty solid for the average “runner”.

BQ means you put in some serious effort.

Sub 3 is pretty rare outside of LRC. I only personally know 2 or 3 other people that have run faster than me in a marathon, but I don’t really hang out with other runners. I train solo, don’t stick around for medals or post race parties, just do the race and go shower.

I’m probably barely 50 percentile on this board, but faster than any of my coworkers anywhere I’ve worked. It’s all relative. I’d love to run 2:35, but at 44 with 2 kids and a demanding job I think that ship sailed 7-8 years ago.

Want me to write a post for each age group?

Although this seems to be a 'relative' question, the median times have gone slower over the years because people now only want to 'complete' a marathon. When I ran my first one in 1977, the cut off was 4hrs, and the qualifying time for a particular Ultra after that was 3:45. I was just 'generally fit' and active as most of us were back then, and though never ran more than 7km, I ran 3:30, closer to the back than the front though.

About 10 0r 15 yrs ago I read a comment by Dan Empfield of slowtwitch where he said, 'any healthy male should be able to run 38min for 10km whilst young enough...up to probably aged 40' and I don't think he is far off. By 'healthy' that includes not being overweight, and not sitting on your arse all day. However, people don't fit that demographic anymore, yet somehow believe that they too should be able to run- sorry, complete- a marathon. No other sport actually allows that.

Was working at an event recently and the last marathoner came in after 8hrs !!...good grief, that is 5km/hr you don't even walk to the bus stop that slowly. The more latitude an event gives, the slower they go.

Anyway, if people actually 'ran it' like it meant something, trained for it like they should, then 6min/km (4:12 finish) wouldn't be too much to ask from a healthy individual.

To add more context to previous post, before I ran that first marathon at 3:30, I had never made the school track team no matter how hard I tried, way better athletes than me at school, who played other sports 'more seriously'. I ran sub 3 within 6 months too. I found a sport where I could hide my lack of talent. When I ran sub 2:45, and mentioned it to onme of the other runners at a training run, he gave me a 'so what' comment, which I took as motivation and a reality check. That bloke became a sports writer, and I always wondered what he thought about the 5hr/6hr runners later on.

And talking about people at Med School, a couple of our Uni runners were in med school, two were sub 2:30 (uni 'Blue') one of whom was married already.

It’s amazing she is able to run that well while in med school (I’m assuming she ran collegiately), but no way does she have a job on top of going to med school unless it’s like a 4hr/week campus job. Classes are 8hrs per day your first two years and after that you’re working at the hospital for even longer stretches of time.

The average time for men is 4:13 and for women 4:42 so anything faster than that is better than average.

Crazy that we got 3 pages out of a thread and only one guy is clowning on Greg’s imagined 3:08.

Lotta great posts here though. For the average person, if you can get up and run a marathon you’re already killing it — times be darned.

2:35 is way above average. Sure, you're not making any national teams, but you're probably at the very top-end in most fun runs/low level road races.

When I was younger (before GPS was universally used), we used to say our average pace on an easy day was 5:00/km.

So, I've always thought that was a good standard running pace. That works out to be roughly a 3:30 marathon (3:30:58 if you're being a stickler).

You can probably cut out all of the sedentary people(as there's a ton of them and they'd skew the scale), the elderly and the disabled. But a for a healthy, young-ish person, a 3:30 marathon seems average. Maybe 3:45 for women.

Yes, I’m sure there are other women who are running fast but just not in big marathons that make those national top time lists.

I remember reading about the Maine Marathon winner last year in NE Runner. That woman is talented and clearly made for the marathon. I don’t even think she broke 18 min for a 5k in college (or barely, I don’t know they made a big deal about how she went from 18+ min 5k to sub 2:40 debut marathon in one year).

And to those saying having a job while running at a high level while in med school is impossible, she was a tutor, so it very well could have only been a couple hours a week (not exactly sure). Some people thrive off extremely busy schedules, but I didn’t mean to offend anyone! Again, I have no idea how hard it is, so I understand those who are skeptical.

Everything is a question of perspective. I've lived with guys who ran 2:05 so 2:35 in comparison is pedestrian. Now that I'm back running with 'normal' people, sub 3:15 seems really good and most ordinary people (especially those who don't run but understand sports) are impressed by it. Whether you run sub 2:15 or 3:30 most normal folks won't know the difference in talent/training/lifestyle, only (serious) runners. In the end, you set your own standards and you do it for you, not to impress someone else, unless you're a narcissist.

Those who are willing to engage in a marathon race and finish it (no matter the time they achieve) possess a stamina and a level of fittness way above the average Joe.

Furthermore in massive marathon races without criteria of eligibility and time barriers the average time of finishers (who are much much fitter than the average Joe) is around 04:15:00.

People who are capable of running times below 03:00:00 are talented, well trained with knowledge about everything I mentioned above.

When a 02:45:00 marathon guy asks what is the average time they don' really seek an answer but just attention.