1983 2;46:58 was 666place
great year in general
1983 2;46:58 was 666place
great year in general
John Smallberries wrote:
"I would say 2:47 is recreational, but exceptional. Sub 2:40 is about where the men separate from the boys. Sub 2:35 is local elite. Sub 2:30 regional elite. Sub 2:22 elite for a white guy in the US. Sub 2:15 international elite for an American."
I'm sure you can quibble about a minute here or there, but I can agree with all of those. From a practical matter, sub-2:30 gets you a comped entry into most 2nd tier marathons US marathons (not boston, NY, or Chicago), over 2:30 probably not.
Men Event Standard
100m 10.35 *
200m 20.88 *
400m 46.50 *
800m 1:48.45 *
1,500m 3:45.00**
Mile 4:00.00**
5,000m 13:52.00**
10,000m 29:01.00**
20 km Race Walk 1:36:00**
110m hurdles 13.90*
400m hurdles 50.75*
3,000m Steeplechase 8:45.50**
High Jump 2.16 (7-1)
Pole Vault 5.50 (18-½)
Long Jump 7.75 (25-5¼)
Triple Jump 15.44 (50-8)
Shot Put 18.59 (61-0)
Discus Throw 58.80 (192-11)
Hammer Throw 65.00 (213-3)
Javelin Throw 70.50 (231-3)
Decathlon 7550
Women Event A Standard B Standard
100m 11.42 * 11.48 *
200m 23.25 * 23.40 *
400m 52.50 * 52.60 *
800m 2:05.00 * 2:05.50 *
1,500m 4:16.00 ** 4:17.50 **
Mile 4:36.50 ** 4:38.00 **
5,000m 15:50.00 ** 15:55.0 **
10,000m 33:45.00 ** 33:55.00 **
20 km Race Walk 1:48.00 ** 1:50.00 **
100m Hurdles 13.20 * 13.25 *
400m Hurdles 57.75 * 57.95 *
3000m Steeplechase 10:12.00 ** 10:17.00 **
High Jump 1.83 1.81
Pole Vault 4.25 4.20
Long Jump 6.40 6.30
Triple Jump 13.20 13.00
Shot Put 16.25 16.00
Discus Throw 55.00 54.50
Hammer Throw 62.50 61.00
Javelin Throw 49.00 47.00
Heptathlon 5500 5400
First, lets acknowledge that a good college guy (25ish 8k) could do minimal marathon training and coast to 2:47. So he might be a damn good runner, but not a "serious marathoner".
By general population standards, a guy who runs 2:47 is indeed a "serious marathoner". He probably (hopefully) runs 75-90 mpw and does some uptemp stuff. He "trains". Seriously, if you follow the Pfitzinger plan, you are pretty serious. Note, the time isn't elite, national class, or world class. So what? That wasn't the question.
But for most of the world, you are a serious marathoner. You probably train hard and you certainly run the fastest time at your workplace.
Of course, some people are faster than that. But the average recreational runner would have to get SERIOUS to run 2:47.
stipe wrote:
Seriously, if you follow the Pfitzinger plan, you are pretty serious.
You just killed every shred of credibility you may have ever had with that statement.
check yourself, it's now 2.46,00 or 6,19.88/mi
Hobbyjogging 101 wrote:
2:47 is the threshold just to get into the OT marathon for women. All RW style pluralism and platitudes aside, if you're a sub-masters male who can't even do that then you can't be much good at distance running.
JOHN PIGGOT IS THE CONCRETE RUNNER!!!!
How so? Pfitz's plans are nothing to sneeze at.
70mi/wk 4 weeks out...
Mon Rest or Cross Training
Tue 9 mi w/5x600m@5k,90sec rec
Wed 15mi
Thu 7mi
Fri 6mi
Sat 8k-15k race
Sun 18mi
I consider that, relatively serious.
70 miles/week might be "serious" for 5k or 10k, but not for a marathon. That's almost the bare minimum for anyone who wants to improve. 6 runs/week definitely isn't "serious."
Of course, I'd advise that person to run more milege (more towards 85-100) and take the day off maybe every other week. Still, 68 miles in 6 days is solid training. Let's assume this person has a 50hr/wk job and a family. I'd consider that serious. If it is a single person working 40hr/wk or less and running is the focus, then it is certainly not that serious.
The people on this board are a very specific self-selected sample. 2:47 is not unusual.
In the real world, 2:47 puts you better than 99% of marathon finishers.
In context: 2-3% of golfers shoot par. 1.7% (2%?) of marathon finishers run <3:00.
Most people would call a scratch golfer a VERY GOOD GOLFER.
Among serious golfers, serious amateurs, serious masters, those trying to get ranked, etc. par doesn't mean much, and a VERY bad day is par.
How do you improve at running? Time...time spent running is directly proportional to improvement. A 3Xyr old has less time than a 2Xyr old, even thought they might have similar talents. So performances decline as (distance) runners age more often than not because of less time spent running, not a decline in athletic ability.
For what its worth - i'm 43, ran 2:35 in '07, and have run 2:4x 4-5 times.
The second running boom has seen a big drop in the median finishing time for marathons. There are a LOT of slow runners are coming into the event, pushing down the % who can run <3:00 from what it was years ago. The raw number of people who can run <3:00 is way down from a couple decades ago, too.
If dozens of women who "work 50 hours per week and have a family" can run 2:47 or better, like they did to qualify for the last OT, then any guy in that position should be able to, too, unless he just isn't made for distance running or isn't really serious about it. Hell, there are masters women running that fast. If you can't beat masters women then how serious can you be, really?
What was the time for Ilsa Paulson's debut, again?
As a Master's runner, I just ran 2:48, and would consider myself a running enthusiast, maybe a devoted part-time runner, but so many other factors, from work, family, coaching, the dog, children's practices and games, certainly take precedence over running. I allocate time each day to my running, but taking it too seriously would probably cause me not to enjoy it as much as I do.
We are just getting slower wrote:
Hell, there are masters women running that fast. If you can't beat masters women then how serious can you be, really?
Take 10-20 of your teammates and competitors from college. Wait 20 years, and see who has the TIME to get in shape to run <3:00 around the age of 40.
If you take a sample set of X00k runners, a few dozen who work and have a family will get qualifying marks.
But you are probably right - relative to work/career/family, running is far far down the list. Its not even close. Most people who run have other priorities. And those priorities are VASTLY more important than running.
When you are there, you will know what I am talking about.
Most people are not that serious about running - there is too much else that life has to offer. Its a fun sport, but its just a game.
is that the Nimbus?
John Smallberries has a good scale here. I would say that anything under 3hrs is pretty exceptional and shows that the person has a little talent and has put some work into it. 2:30-2:40 is a local elite, if you can run this you are probably finish in the top 5 in most local races at any distance. Sub 2:30 is regional elite. 2:12-2:20 is national elite. Sub 2:12 is (or at least used to be) world elite. Though with the recent performances we might need to toughen that standard up a bit.
In the end most people are recreational runners, whether serious or not. The 2:19 guy running 140mpw to qualify for the trials and working odd jobs to scrape by and keep training is a serious recreatonal runner, he isn't getting paid to run and he most likely never will.
the "problem" (if you can call it that) with endurance sports like distance running is that the masses get to enter what are world class events for the world class athletes. therefore, morons they they are somewhere close to that top level if they finish in the top 1/4 (or whatever) of a big marathon.
everyone has different abilities, and sub 3 hour or a boston qualifier is a great accomplishment for many guys/gals.
but what really grinds some of our gears here is Mr. Dumbshit at the office who acts like he is a semi-pro athlete because he ran that 3hr mark.
doesn't matter what you call elite, sub-elite, etc... what's important is to appreciate the different levels of work and dedication it takes to push yourself to each range of times. I ran a 2:31 in my only attempt, and i, by definition, am a recreational runner. 2:31 is not even close to elite in my book. Because i know, have lived with, and run with guys who crank out 140mpw to get down to and past 2:14. I see the workouts sub-4 milers do.
it's a different world. 3 hours should not even be compared in any way.
edumacator wrote:
I don't think those two are easily separated. I ran 2:35 last year and have no illusions that running is more than a hobby for me
The word is ALLUSIONS, you moron.