What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?

No way. I am over 50 and run 1;30 half's usually finish together with the kids /junior runners .Definitely still hobby jogger times, easy for anybody who makes an effort to train and put a little work in.

Nah, EVERYONE slower than elites is "sub-elite." There is no lower end to "sub-elite." That's why it's not a real designation any more than "age grouper" or "hobbyracer" or "hobbyjogger" or "fitness jogger." People who call themselves that are simply basing it on how they feel. In this case, they feel they're superior to other classes except "elite" and at the same time feel self-conscious about dubbing themselves "elite." It's odd and frankly a bit sad.

If the money you got was enough to live for that year, then yes.

A hobbyjogger is anyone slower than me. A sub-elite is anyone faster, even though they're probably doping.

Having run both--I can say a 26 minute 8 K is much more difficult than a 3:07 marathon--probably closer to 2:38 to 2:40 if you look at conversion tables.

190 MPW is crazy high mileage even for an elite world class runner. I hear people ran 200 MPW plus even but they generally don't have long careers.

Probably anyone that can run at their countries olympic trials

There is a thing between a hobby jogger and sub elite. Its just called a runner.

<14:10 sub elite

<20 just your everyday runner - nothing more or less

>20 hobby jogger

Sub elite means only a major breakthrough away from making the olympic trials.

It's subjective but...Elite is anything faster than you. Sub elite to hobby jogger is anything slower than you.

Taking gender and age (Ed Whitlocks) as variables:

Age-grade at 90 to 100% = sub-elite to elite

Age-grade at 80 to 89 = typically a serious runner, and/or one with some talent (Boston qualifier type)

Age-grade at 70 to 79 = typically a regular runner with modest talent

Age-grade below 70 = typically someone who runs for fun

I’m a female Boston qualifier (twice, in only my first two marathons) and I typically run around 70-75% age grading… so I think your assessment isn’t correct.

The sport is a punchline when its participants don’t have a defined definition of professional or elite. Imagine some obese coed slow pitch softball dude considering himself a “sub elite” baseball player.

If you need to categorize yourself as an athlete, then you are not anywhere near elite.

Was hoping to get some masters input here--it's a different world. And I agree, a Boston qualifier is more like 68-70% for most age group, maybe down to 65%. And note, a 90% age grade might not be appropriate for sub-elite. A 90% will place you in the top 2 to 5% at national championship road races (where they do rank the runners), club xc is stiffer but still more like 5-10% (counting for the fact that most xc courses are slower than a road course). And a 90% age grade will place you in the top 6 at most any world championship event, at least in the 1500 and up (through marathon majors). So 90% is kind of elite, maybe world class (as the rankings indicate).

Sub elite would be 85-90%.

Very good (competitive/serious runner) 80-85%

70-80% - BQ type

<70% fun runner (including some BQ runners)

Bravo. Brilliant and very funny post as was this one:

This may be true for masters but 90% age-graded for someone in their early-mid 20s would be like a 4:07-4:10 mile, not really elite and definitely not world class. A cutoff somewhere around 93-95% makes more sense.

It takes less than 70% age grade to qualify for Boston.

What I take from your post is that “typically a regular runner with modest talent” can BQ if they are chasing female standards. Granted, I believe you could say the same for men.

Various other threads on LR and Reddit have calculated how the qualifying standards for Boston are SLIGHTLY easier to obtain for women vs. men. I don’t think this is unfair at all, there is very good reason for his phenomena (ie, less females chasing competitive marks vs. men, having to train/race through periods, training calendars turned upside down due to pregnancy, etc.). I agree that Arete’s ranges might not be spot on, and I agree with blasted master’s ranges much more.

The fact that the “fastest” standard at Boston for men is over 2min per mile slower than the winner some years (with the winner usually being in the same age group as the sub3 qualifying group), we need stop calling plain BQs competitive. Just because you got into Boston doesn’t mean you’re any sort of competitive. I’m not calling you slow and I’m not calling you untalented and I’m not saying you don’t care about your performance. But just hitting a BQ says very little about…anything. It proves you have enough money and time to stay in Boston for a weekend and pay the entry fee, and it means you ran for 2-3 hours on the weekend instead of watching college football all winter. If you are a runner and it’s not just because you are overweight, a BQ is more than attainable.

Aka, if you can qualify for Boston, you’re elite.

So if a middle schooler runs 4:11 for the mile, they are a hobby jogger?

I guess that would beg the question: Can you run an elite performance but not be an elite athlete yourself?