You're joking, right?
You're joking, right?
Umm...the word is NOT "allusions."
There are other variables to throw into the mix. It depends on when the time was run and how old the runner was when he/she ran that time. For 25 years I ran somewhere between 45 to 70 miles most weeks. 47 years ago I ran two marathons slightly under 2:32 (winning in Chicago and placing 5th in Boston) and continued to run under 2:36 until I was 38, 13 years later in 1975. Even during those fifteen years a time of 2:32 quickly drifted farther and farther from being elite. Elites when I started racing were not paid so I guess all marathoner runners in those days were recreational runners.
All I really know is that it was great fun!
In 2005 2:45 was 986th best performance by a US man:
http://personal.bgsu.edu/~jsquire/2005menmarathonlists.pdf
In 2007 there were over 1 millions marathon finishers:
http://www.runningusa.org/statistics
So that's the top .01%
I'd say that's more than just a recreational jolly jogger. I can count on one hand maybe two the number of runners in the city of Louisville that have run 2:47 or better.
The sub 3:00 marathon is like the sub 5:00 mile. We think millions have done it...but that is not the case.
Alan
Off the Grid wrote:
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.
You're confused. This discussion is about men aged 20-39 running the time in the subject line. We've already agreed that for a masters guy it's outstanding.
Runningart2004 wrote:
In 2005 2:45 was 986th best performance by a US man:
http://personal.bgsu.edu/~jsquire/2005menmarathonlists.pdfAlan
I don't know who compiled that list but there is no way it is complete. 2:45 was not the 986th best performance of that year.
Runningart2004 wrote:
So that's the top .01%
I'd say that's more than just a recreational jolly jogger.
that's not logical. what if 1 million more fatasses walked a marathon next year? would you draw the line at 3:30 (or whatever)?
it has nothing to do with how you stack up against poor competition.
lolzzz wrote:
The word is ALLUSIONS, you moron.
delusions
First, I concur that sub 3 is no "semi-pro".
Second, your 2:31 is VERY GOOD.
Third, there simply aren't that many guys who run 2:14 in the US. Those guys are badasses, and certainly elite Americans, but just slightly short of World Class. But there aren't many 2:14 guys who don't make running their focus.
Finally, the original question was not about what is or is not elite or even fast. It was about "serious". At 2:31, you are or were a serious marathon runner... unless you are a non-serious 2:18 marathon runner... Anyway, you are pretty damn good.
I think of myself as a 'rec' runner, which does not mean 'not a serious runner' but rather 'not a high-level runner'. In my mind, sub-2:30 is the transition area (for men).
gadsgasdghdsh wrote:
What do you guys think is the cross over point for male runners to consider themselves serious marathoners oriented towards performance versus recreational runners?
I am definitely confused....that much I knowThe term "Masters" is somewhat arbitrary. Does something magical happen to your body @ 40? Why not 37? 48?Everybody is different. Of course you slow down. But with a few exceptions, you DO NOT HAVE TIME TO TRAIN the older you get. Your opportunity costs rise w/ each year you focus on running, at the expense of family/career etc. There are MANY runners +40 in the US alone who could run 2:15. They just do not have the time to train (KK for one will be in that boat in 2yrs). Read the logs of top tier unsponsored runners in their 30s - it is merciless in its rigidity, and requires a lot of sacrifice/flexibility of your EMPLOYER, partner (and children if you have them). As Alan stated, 2:47 puts you several standard deviations from the mean. Even if the mean is watered down by more participation, this will not move those +4sds significantly to the right, as the number of <3:00 athletes is already <0.1% of the total.
We are just getting slower wrote:
Off the Grid wrote: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.
You're confused. This discussion is about men aged 20-39 running the time in the subject line. We've already agreed that for a masters guy it's outstanding.
sure, you can say i was/am serious about running. so a specific reply to the OP is that someone who runs a 2:47 is in fact a "serious" runner. But they are also a "recreational" runner, because they're only running for their own enjoyment.
I was addressing the larger picture here, in which people think they are high-level athletes if they run a boston qualifier. Actually last year I wrote to a reporter for the NYT that called boston qualifiers elite athletes (or something to that effect). She said "she really struggled with finding the right wording." Anyway, it just gets out of hand when people get into that mindset that they're awesome because they don't suck.
i know i shouldn't care, but so what? i do.
Averaging about fifty miles per week training for a marathon will require an average of about an hour of running per day.
I would say that an adult, not cloistered and coached in a college, who practices a musical instrument an hour per day is a very serious musician. That he does not make it to a symphony chair is irrelevant.
An adult who hits balls at the driving range an hour per day is an insanely serious golfer. No one in the golf community would say otherwise because he isn't close to a tour card.
Being within the top 1 or 2 % of any recreational endeavor is very serious business in a country of 300 million.
Timer wrote:
Being within the top 1 or 2 % of any recreational endeavor is very serious business in a country of 300 million.
"very serious" is a stretch. Again, it doesn't matter what percentage you're in, because the competition is bad and getting worse.
Go look up past marathon results. Here...NYM 100th finisher time:
1980: 2:28:38
1981: 2:24
2007: 2:39
2008: 2:38
This is a very good metric - do you spend an hour/day on this pursuit? If so....you take it very seriously.
Timer wrote:
Averaging about fifty miles per week training for a marathon will require an average of about an hour of running per day.
I would say that an adult, not cloistered and coached in a college, who practices a musical instrument an hour per day is a very serious musician. That he does not make it to a symphony chair is irrelevant.
An adult who hits balls at the driving range an hour per day is an insanely serious golfer. No one in the golf community would say otherwise because he isn't close to a tour card.
Being within the top 1 or 2 % of any recreational endeavor is very serious business in a country of 300 million.
Certainly agree there. Boston qualifying is what I would call "solid" recreational. Maybe we just don't like the guys who think they are elite because of a decent time.
For example, a company of 500 people might have 1 2:33 marathoner, 1 2:48 marathoner, and 1 3:00 marathoner. Most likely, the 2:32 guy thinks of himself as sort of less elite than the others might think of themselves. He is comparing himself to a much higher standard.
I could see this being somewhat accurate. A time of ~2:40 will put you close to the top 100 at many of the world marathon majors like NY, Boston, Chicago, etc. Lots of the other runners will be foreign though, so it isn't like that is 100 US males. A time of sub 2:45 in a small marathon might put you in the top 10 or 20.
Jiminy Cricket wrote:
"2:47 is the threshold to get into the OT marathon for women"
Exactly, its a serious time....even if ran by a man.
Once you have a 2 in front of your marathon PR you are a serious runner and imo should be respected.
Sub 2:50 is very respectable.
Sub 2:40 is impressive
Sub 2:35 is enviable
Sub 2:30 is borderline elite
Sub 2:20 is elite
Maybe 20 years ago... Now it's:
very respectable.....Sub 4.00
impressive...........Sub 3.30
enviable.............Sub 3.00
letsrunly admirable..Sub 2.30
borderline elite.....Sub 2.10
elite................Sub 2.07
2:22 (trials limit)
stipe wrote:
Certainly agree there. Boston qualifying is what I would call "solid" recreational. Maybe we just don't like the guys who think they are elite because of a decent time.
For example, a company of 500 people might have 1 2:33 marathoner, 1 2:48 marathoner, and 1 3:00 marathoner. Most likely, the 2:32 guy thinks of himself as sort of less elite than the others might think of themselves. He is comparing himself to a much higher standard.
Are you kidding? Here we have a whole thread based on the premise that running under a certain time (such as 2:47) gives you some kind of inherent value (SERIOUS) that running over that time does not give, but the 2:48 and 3:00 guys have the ego problem?
Your hypothetical 2:48 and 3:00 guys justifiably feel better about themselves when they impress their sedantary co-workers with the fact that they can cover 26.2 miles at sub-7:00 pace. But they don't think they are better than 2:32. I understand where a 2:32 guy might overhear the conversation and be jealous that a guy 16 MINUTES slower than them is getting similar adoration because the sedantary folks don't know the difference (all they know is that it's fast and its further than they drive). Don't blame the 2:48 and 3:00 for the fact that the general public doesn't appreciate your (hypothetical) 2:32 more.