"Everyone in my unit used to run 7 miles at 6 minute pace"

ttt wrote:

wddxx wrote:

I conclude that you don't know what you're talking about. The top girl this year so far has run about 16:00 so far. It's been about the same for the previous years (Cuffe, Hasay, etc).

In that elite race you speak of where Baxter ran 16:00 she won by 1 min 18 sec. The best time in the country is not a good standard for "pretty good" or "okay". I am guessing the girl who finished 10th (2 min behind) in this race is considered "pretty good" in California. Also that race was 3 miles. So you need to add roughly 40 seconds. With this conversion and 18:30 5k runner would of finished 7th. A "pretty good" result.

Fair enough.

I disagree with 40 seconds though. I'd say more like 30, no?

Placing 7th is meaningless to me. How close was she to the winner? Still 2 minutes back? Places are misleading by themselves.

To me, pretty good would be within 30 seconds over 5k. Good might be 45 or 60. Everything slower than that is ok.

wddxx wrote:

I disagree with 40 seconds though. I'd say more like 30, no?

They are not running 4 min mile pace, so no 30 seconds is not a good conversion.

( (16 / 3 ) / 8 )*60 = 40.

wddxx wrote:

Well...

Your daughter's mid 18 5k is not pretty good. She would get lapped maybe twice on a track. It's not a bad time, but it's not pretty good.

Second, many non-runners call anything between 6:00 and 7:00 as "6 minute pace". Runners tend to be a bit more exact about numbers, so you should take that into account. In other words, make sure that 6 minute pace means the same thing to both of you.

Third, 7 miles at 6 minute pace is hardly exceptioal. Anyone remotely athletic should be able to do that after a period of training. Think about it, there are people running 26 miles nonstop at 4:45 pace.

Lastly, the guy might just have an exaggerated memory.

Stop it, one of you again! Mid 18 for a girl IS good! Especially, XC. Have you ever even seem the results of road races in the USA?

Actually in a high school girls race, and 18 minute 5k would win a number of races. No, it is not the times of the national elite, but it is a "pretty good" time.

But back to the comment about the string of 6 minute miles. Point 1) For the Army PT Test you only had to run a 6 minute mile to get the 100 maximum points, and when I was there, relatively few ran 6:00 or under. 2 or us in our group of 50.

Point 2) I doubt if stringing 6 minute miles together is a relatively easy task for most people, even given proper traning. How many sub 37:12s do you see at 10k races?

ScottDye wrote:

Point 2) I doubt if stringing 6 minute miles together is a relatively easy task for most people, even given proper traning. How many sub 37:12s do you see at 10k races?

And how many of those people are overweight and or not trying to run as fast as possible? What percentage of them are moms and weekend warriors?

ttt wrote:

wddxx wrote:

I disagree with 40 seconds though. I'd say more like 30, no?

They are not running 4 min mile pace, so no 30 seconds is not a good conversion.

( (16 / 3 ) / 8 )*60 = 40.

That would only be 4 min mile pace if they were running 200m. They are running 160m.

Subfive wrote:

Stop it, one of you again! Mid 18 for a girl IS good! Especially, XC. Have you ever even seem the results of road races in the USA?

Would you call a highschool guy running 16 or 16:30 "pretty good"? I wouldn't. I'd say he's ok, certainly not anything bad.

I suppose that we should establish how many words we have to describe performances. For me, there is only "great" and "exceptional" above "pretty good".

Exceptional

Great

Pretty good

Good

Ok, average capability

Did the fat nurse also say Paul Ryan was in his unit?

I am in the "he is confusing miles and kms" camp. And that's me being generous.

wddxx wrote:

ScottDye wrote:

Point 2) I doubt if stringing 6 minute miles together is a relatively easy task for most people, even given proper traning. How many sub 37:12s do you see at 10k races?

And how many of those people are overweight and or not trying to run as fast as possible? What percentage of them are moms and weekend warriors?

Don't care. It is doubtful if with proper training that many can easily put together a string of 6:00 miles. Not everyone has that talent, even some well trained and not overweight.

[quote]not a poster follow up report wrote:

I work at a hospital. I was talking with a coworker about her daughter's state XC race this weekend. A large (fat) male nurse commented that her time seemed pretty slow. We argued that it was a pretty good time (mid 18's for 5k xc). He goes on to tell us about how "back in the service everyone in my unit used to run 7 miles at 6 minute pace. we used to just run forever at 6 minute pace"

I have read these types of posts before, but at that moment I was unsure how to respond. I just ended up telling him "you must be confused." He protested while I walked away.

What is the best response in this situation?

quote]

Don't worry about his running times. That was small part of his military life. Sincerely thank him for his service to the country.

You are "pretty good" at trolling these guys. Lets look at some college runners. My example is only from DII, but it is the RMAC championships. Last year, only one woman ran faster than mid 18s for the 5k and that is on a track. These are scholarship athletes, many All Americans, we are talking about here. But, only one of them is better than ok for you? Interesting.

I wonder what Mike Morton ran his 2 mile in the pt test.

xlr8r33 wrote:

You are "pretty good" at trolling these guys. Lets look at some college runners. My example is only from DII, but it is the RMAC championships. Last year, only one woman ran faster than mid 18s for the 5k and that is on a track. These are scholarship athletes, many All Americans, we are talking about here. But, only one of them is better than ok for you? Interesting.

There are no good runners in that RMAC championship then. They are all just ok. There are girls in college running low 15s for 5k. That's getting lapped twice on the track for your girls.

Being in the RMAC doesn't change the fact that you are a human being just like runners in other conferences. The definition of good shouldn't change depending on what conference you are in.

not a poster follow up report wrote:

I work at a hospital. I was talking with a coworker about her daughter's state XC race this weekend. A large (fat) male nurse commented that her time seemed pretty slow. We argued that it was a pretty good time (mid 18's for 5k xc). He goes on to tell us about how "back in the service everyone in my unit used to run 7 miles at 6 minute pace. we used to just run forever at 6 minute pace

Maybe he was talking about SOME of the guys on the unit and thought he would include himself in it since it was part of his group. I find these type of military guys are the ones who barely served their time and wanted to be recognize as something important.

As for his daughter running an 18:xx 5k, what year is she in? I think if she was a freshman or even a sophomore, it's a decent time. Who knows, maybe he's jealous that his daughter can outrun him?

To the poster who said a lot of military people tell lies about their running, maybe its the ones who never succeeded in their careers or had desk jobs.

I have to admit when I was in the military, the only time I did required running was during introductory training. We would get up around 5am each morning and run 1 mile on the track. No big deal. But then again this was Air Force. Just saying.

wddxx wrote:

[quote]Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

wddxx, are you trying to sound like a moron on purpose? There's probably 100 guys who could have lapped Dibaba when she ran her 5,000m world record. Does that mean she's not really that good?

"No, YOU sound like a moron.

A girl running 18min is ok, but it is not pretty good. She's almost half a mile behind the average top-ranked high school girl."

"Average top-ranked girl." This made me laugh. Is that like the "every day, run of the mill Olympian"?

Well, it is good to know that my daughters will have a scholarship to run track then, since everyone can run a 5k that fast.

Well, I'm not "pretty good," more like "average" guy runner (hobby jogger, haha). I can run 2 miles in 12 minutes, but NOT 3 miles in 18 min. I figure that is about what the military guys are like, too. Or something like that.

JMartin wrote:

wddxx wrote:

[quote]Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

wddxx, are you trying to sound like a moron on purpose? There's probably 100 guys who could have lapped Dibaba when she ran her 5,000m world record. Does that mean she's not really that good?

"No, YOU sound like a moron.

A girl running 18min is ok, but it is not pretty good. She's almost half a mile behind the average top-ranked high school girl."

"Average top-ranked girl." This made me laugh. Is that like the "every day, run of the mill Olympian"?

Not sure what's so funny about that. An average top high school girl runs around 16:00 for 5k. An average run of the mill Olympian runs sub 13:10 for 5k. An exceptional Olympian wins the gold or holds a time record.

The best guys (non-runners) usually break 18 for 3 miles for the PFT. I ran 16:55 and destroyed everyone.