What is an impressive half marathon time for a non-elite but serious runner?

Long time back wrote:

...I ran 1:11:05 in my debut...And he snorted that was nothing special because one of his colleagues (mid-late 40s at the time) had run 2:44 in the marathon.

I don't get it. A 1:11 guy "converts" to a 2:29.

Either your prof was simply uneducated (on the relative difficult of times), or he's an idiot.

[quote]Clarification please? wrote:

At what age? For open, anything under 1:20 would get you top 10 among non elites in most races.

Plus One on this one. I think Sub 1:20 is very good time if you are not an elite and work full time.

LMAO.

Love the shit show comment. Hilarious but so true.

I agree with most here that sub 1:20 for open man is a good time for a decently serious runner. My best is 1:16, but usually anyone around 1:20 or under is pretty solid and puts the effort in.

This is how I would classify half marathon times for 20-40 y.o. guys:

sub 62 - elite

sub 66 - sub elite (national level runner)

sub 70 - very solid runner (wins many smaller events but struggles at national level)

sub 75 - good regional level runner

sub 80 - good runner

sub 90 - okay runner

sub 100 - fit guy who has done reasonable training (actual running)

sub 110 - fit guy with not much training or beginner with a few months (4-6) behind them

sub 130 - beginner runner with 2-4 months of training

130+ - overweight and/or unfit and/or undertrained (less than 2 months running)

I think 80% age graded is a good metric for older athletes, esp as that is generally my target range as I churn out 75% marks.

Depends on if you use the paul ryan conversion caculator or not................

How about Houston or Philly. Both are deeper than Brooklyn

How Fast? wrote:

Say the serious runner guy in your office is talking about his half marathon at the water cooler -- what time would he have to report for you to think it was an impressive finish? Discuss.

Well, that's easy -- I'm the "serious runner guy" in my office. I an 48yrs old and took up running roughly 8 months ago. I have run five 5k's since my first ever in June 2012 because I found they are QUITE addicting! I decided to try a half-marathon and ran it before I ever even did a 10k (didn't plan it that way!-- it just came up before I could do a 10k).

I ran it in approx 1:42. I am not sure I paced correctly or pushed enough in the beginning though. I am terrible at pacing, I have found.

I came in at the top 20% or so of the field -- I thought that was a good time, but you all are making me think I have a lot of work to do, lol!

Spiralsun1 wrote:

I ran it in approx 1:42. [..] but you all are making me think I have a lot of work to do, lol!

On page one of this thread I wrote:

Open: sub 1:20

40+ sub 1:25

50+ sub 1:35

So you got two years to shave off 7 minutes. Sounds doable to me. Good luck.

Yup. I am the same, but a 62 almost 63yo and I can run sub 1:40 and quite often am anywhere from 0 to 8 minutes behind the winner in my age group. Don't even think 1:38 or 1:39 at my age, age-grades out at National Class. Think it is still middle of the Regional Class.

[quote]half thon wrote:

This is how I would classify half marathon times for 20-40 y.o. guys:

sub 110 - fit guy with not much training or beginner with a few months (4-6) behind them

sub 130 - beginner runner with 2-4 months of training

quote]

Crack is a hell of a drug.

I'm pretty sure in the context of that post, those were minutes, not hours and minutes (110 = 1 hour 50 minutes).

Makemeasammich wrote:

[quote]half thon wrote:

This is how I would classify half marathon times for 20-40 y.o. guys:

sub 110 - fit guy with not much training or beginner with a few months (4-6) behind them

sub 130 - beginner runner with 2-4 months of training

quote]

Crack is a hell of a drug.

I did a double-take too, but I think 'half thon' was speaking in terms of minutes. I.e. "130" = 2 hours and 10 minutes.

BR wrote:

To impress me....

Marathon - Sub-3.

Half - Sub-1:20

10K - Sub-35

5K - Sub-17

Mile - Sub-5

800m - Sub-2 (the hardest to achieve out of all of them)

mile is out of wack because it the only one there I ever did

By depth comparison the top 10 was slower than the top 500. Shows the depth overseas. Safe to say we couldnt put together that kind of race in the US. Our national championships are decent times for the first dozen or 2 finishers, less for the women. No depth anymore, but lots and lots of hobby joggers and Oprah-thoners.

The scholarship guys at DI schools should be able to run sub-70 minutes and probably a number of non-scholarship guys as well. In fact, the top DIII runners would be not converting well if they ran over 70. However, these are athletes that are all potentially at least sub-elite.

Take the guys that were not top-5 on HS XC teams (this is size dependent as well, I went to a big HS >3000). How good can they be if they are reasonably driven/dedicated, defined by doing it for multiple years and running 80/week for a number of weeks in the year.

I considered myself a serious recreational runner, but was a poor high school runner (matured late?), and was able to run 2:50 (M) in my first six months of serious running at age 25 (grad school). Probably about the same as a 1:20 and ran 75 a year later. Never really raced a half, but ran a couple 74s as racing/training runs.

Four decades later I could not keep up with our other 62-year old above even if I were motivated due to training limitations (discs, etc.) and I have not raced in 20 years. However, 7:30 pace (1:40) is the most I could probably do unconstrained because it is what I can knock out for a 5km loop. I think that 1:20 at almost 63 is very good. The guy who is running 1:32-1:33 or ~7:00 pace is a big outlier and is definitely 'elite'.

I am prolly gonna run about 37 flat for our corporate 10K this weekend. The W is a sure thing. Guarantee you that I am the office hero and the performance remembered as nothing less than legendary.

I think that 1:20 at almost 63 is very good. The guy who is running 1:32-1:33 or ~7:00 pace is a big outlier and is definitely 'elite'.[/quote]

___________________________________________________________

Actually, I would consider them sub-elites. (Not the 60+ running 1:20, but the 1:32-1:33) They barely age grade at the National Level. In my mind an "Elite" is of World Class, Sub-elites are at least National Class and the rest of us are as so commonly referred to on this board: "Hobby Joggers".