Is a 2:39 marathon sub elite

Any time from 2:30-3:59 nobody really gives a fuuck. Non runners will think you're a god equally at all those times. Competitive runners think you're 'cute'.

Break 2:30 and people will take you seriously. However being sub 4 makes you a youtube guru eligible as well.

Above 4 and no runner would take you seriously. This is the category for that office co-worker who apparently also "runs" but runs like 20 miles a month and you almost talked running once but then realized they're proud of their time and being an a-hole have nothing good to say.

Of course not. Those sub-3s are thread worthy. But the OP is a young(ish) man who should be able to run sub-3 without requiring a major lifestyle change or expecting everyone at his office to care. It isn't "news" when a fit runner breaks three in the 'thon, right?

I think you are onto something but I would put it this way:

Serious runners are aware of everyone who is faster than they are.

Our colleagues and co-workers are impressed by anyone who can finish a marathon in the 3-hour range (or under). [Assuming they care at all.]

There isn't much in-between because 99% of the people I know don't really know the difference between a "good" marathon vs. a "very good" marathon and an "elite" marathon result. My PR and the WR are both in "the two-hour range" so co-workers think I am very, very serious about running. They don't realize how bad I actually am...

It's certainly below elite level. But sub-elite is simply a euphemism, everything that's not elite is by definition sub-elite. The reality is that it's an age grouper hobby runner performance.

Does Leo Young use Nandrolone?

Before or after the shoes?

The phrase probably has different definitions depending on the country.

In Australia, and possibly also in the UK, "sub-elite" means that you are in the tier just below making national teams.

You are competitive at national level, perhaps even winning road races, but you aren't top 3 at nationals and you certainly aren't hitting the World Champs Standard (the old one - the new ones are tough now, even for elites).

However, in the US, with a much larger population, and with many more runners fighting for those 3 spots on a team - it is quite possible to be an "elite" in the US, and never make a team. Therefore, the definition of "sub-elite" would have to shift as well.

In terms of time, sub-elites generally fall somewhere in here:

5k - 13:30 - 14:20

10k - 28:20 - 30:00

HM: 62:30 - 66:00

Mara: 2:13 - 2:20

The above are male times of course.

I'm somewhat (perhaps even strongly) inclined to agree with Sally Vix on this. I don't recall seeing the term "sub-elite" as a description of some intermediate, upper-middle, or lower-upper status until it started showing up on this site to refer to runners who were not deemed elite by the purported and highly subjective standards of various posters, but were apparently also recognized as something other than irremediably awful or unserious by those same posters. In fact, from the quick google searches that I've done, the term (as used in this sense) is still found overwhelmingly in the context of running, and more specifically among those who post on this site or those who would have been influenced by posters on this site. The few earlier examples I've seen have generally been in the context of broader socioeconomic or political hierarchies, where the term has been used to refer to individuals who have, for example, rather elite educations or comfortable occupations but lack the power, influence, or wealth to be considered members of an elite social class. In competitive running, it has generally struck me as (at least in its earliest usages) a rather offensive neologism for less than elite (although perhaps fairly good or even elite by the standards of some), particularly because the prefix "sub-" has its etymological origins in the Latin morpheme for "under" or "beneath."

At the same time, however, I recognize that, at least in modern English, the prefix "sub-" is also used to mean "close to" or "just below." Common examples would be "subtropical" (which, although perhaps imprecise in scope, clearly does not describe the climate of the South Pole) and subcutaneous (which refers to an area under the surface of the skin, but generally not more than about 25 mm from the surface).

So there are arguments for each side of the debate, but the view of Sally Vix is perfectly reasonable, and has nothing to do with being "clever" or so lacking in human interaction as to be unable to grasp distinctions between "literal" and metaphoric or hyperbolic usage.

I don't disagree with the 2:20 being sub-elite but I also wouldn't consider Columbus a "local" marathon just as I wouldn't say NYC is "local" to a guy from Queens. It's local in proximity but you'll see international runners there in Columbus.

Local is what I'd say the Athens Ohio Marathon is.

If you run 2:39 you could probably go out to a nightclub and get the DJ to announce your time. I would wear a tshirt with 2:39 on the top and 26.2 at the button in big letters. Then I would have a picture of Bekele in the middle. You can get it custom made online. You will likely be the fastest person in the club of hundreds, maybe thousands if it is a big venue. Every girl in the club will be after you. It is statistically unlikely that another guy in the club has run a faster time then you or will ever.

If female or over 50yrs male

It's simple maths:

Anyone slower than my PB is a sub-elite hack.

Anyone faster than my PB is doping.

Female at local/small regional race, definitely sub-elite...probably even elite. You're just another nobody at a major though.

35 women had qualifying times faster for the last Olympic trials. Pretty impressive to be in that company.

If you're a dude, no. Not even close. You're 15-20 minutes from sub-elite.

Finally somebody with his head above his shoulder and no ego puts this in the right perspective. Very good.

For a female, yes. Male , no .... binary (who knows/who cares)

Maybe in the 1960's or 1970's. but when you are 30 minutes off a 2:09 runner (you are almost 10 kilometers back when the 2:09 guy crosses the finish line) by no means that is sub-elite. A good amateur runner, yeah. Leave the ego behind, train your rear off to break 2:30 then...you are sub-elite.

I ran a 29:05 10,000m but could only manage a 2:23 marathon. The marathon is a different animal in itself. I have known runners that could maybe run a 4:15 mile but could run a 2:10 marathon and then there are runners like me who in my prime could run a 4:00 mile but could not break 2:20 in a marathon!

Sub elite = 2hours + your age