In addition to gender and age, weight is also a factor. Someone who diets down to their lowest healthy weight isn't as fit as someone else who runs the same time carrying more mass.
In addition to gender and age, weight is also a factor. Someone who diets down to their lowest healthy weight isn't as fit as someone else who runs the same time carrying more mass.
How about under 1:10 for half and for the full Marathon, under 2:30?
You said at the "office". In a typical office environment where people work 50-70 hour weeks and juggle family, I would say about 1 in 1000 people could run under 1:20. Out of the 5000 people in my location, I know of two guys who could go for 1:10 - 1:15 (young ex-collegiate track guys who are now business people) and maybe 2-3 who could do 1:15 - 1:20. Then you would have 6-10 who could do in the 1:20's. I base this off of projections from Corporate Challenge times (800+ people from my company compete each year). Normally, if you tell most of your co-workers that you can run 6:xx pace, they are blown away. In addition, anyone with a real job who trains so much that they could run under 1:10 would probably end up getting laid off. Your boss would be wondering why you were out running 80+ miles a week instead of slaving away at your desk. Maybe at the water cooler in a running shop in Boulder you would find guys snubbing 1:12.
"Impressive" is any time faster than my time.
26mi235 wrote:
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.
Actually, to put everything in perspective, I think ~75-100 DIII kids could be close to 70 in a given year. I ran just over that in between my cross and track seasons a few years back, and was ~110th at nationals in cross. To be totally honest, I think if you just had a college half championships with DI, DII, DIII, and NAIA all together, you would completely show up the Japanese races, both in terms of depth and in terms of speed up front.
It's just the way it I see it because of my own experience (and this was my debut half, with no specific training).
1:15
link me? wrote:
I think if you just had a college half championships with DI, DII, DIII, and NAIA all together, you would completely show up the Japanese races, both in terms of depth and in terms of speed up front.
I wouldn't put money down on that. Ageo is mostly second-string guys from only one region trying to make their team's A-roster for Hakone. The best college guys generally don't run it, and neither do people from other regions.
I think the key word is "impressive", not "respectable" or "pretty good", and if we look at it in relation to the entire running community at large, I think "impressive" should be a time that could win most races (at least non-elite races). I think that time would have to be sub1:10 (yes, age matters, but I'm thinking in terms of lifetime PR; i.e., open men). I've only run 1:11:27, and I have won my fair share of races (only one 1/2m, though). But I don't think my time is impressive. Also, even if you look at elite 1/2m races, sub 1:10 frequently nets a top-10 or 20 finish (depending on how elite it is). For women, sub 1:20ish. Let's face it, there just aren't as many women in that sub-elite space.
I ran 66.54 for the half marathon in 1986 ( give or take a year) and still have a copy of the ranking lists for that year - I was ranked 141st (I'm British) so hardly 'elite'
Of course nowadays I'd probably get an international vest :-)
My PR is 1:18.
I came in 19th in a pretty big but non elite race with that. I was very happy with the race and I am proud of that PR.
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)
I have done all of those execpt the 800. I don't have leg speed.
I didn't start running seriously until later (mid 30's). I am early 40's, have 3 boys and a high stress job......if I run more than 50 miles a week I break down, unlike many of my buddies who are better. My grail is sub 80....I ran a low 81 a few years ago....hoping to get a good training cycle in and go for it but it's been choppy for awhile.
I would definitely say sub 80 for males 40 and over is a good time.....the better runners I know in that age range in my area are 76-80, with most around 78 min.
I am non-elite. I've run 1:06:12 for a half marathon. I think that's respectable for non-elite. There's a difference between non-elite and recreational. Non-elite, I'd say 1:06-7 is respectable. Recreational 1:18-19, 6:00ish minute pace.
tigerox wrote:
You said at the "office". In a typical office environment where people work 50-70 hour weeks and juggle family, I would say about 1 in 1000 people could run under 1:20. Out of the 5000 people in my location, I know of two guys who could go for 1:10 - 1:15 (young ex-collegiate track guys who are now business people) and maybe 2-3 who could do 1:15 - 1:20. Then you would have 6-10 who could do in the 1:20's. I base this off of projections from Corporate Challenge times (800+ people from my company compete each year). Normally, if you tell most of your co-workers that you can run 6:xx pace, they are blown away. In addition, anyone with a real job who trains so much that they could run under 1:10 would probably end up getting laid off. Your boss would be wondering why you were out running 80+ miles a week instead of slaving away at your desk. Maybe at the water cooler in a running shop in Boulder you would find guys snubbing 1:12.
This seems spot on. The "stud" runner in my office that people talk about ran the corporate challenge in something like 24:00 last year.
Define what time makes one elite. Add one second to this time. There is your answer.
bangalangadanga wrote:
world's most competitive half!
10th place: 1:03:53
25th place: 1:04:20
50th place: 1:04:45
100th place: 1:05:28
200th place: 1:06:43
300th place: 1:08:09
400th place: 1:09:48
500th place: 1:12:59
http://japanrunningnews.blogspot.com/2008/11/deeper-and-deeper-goes-greatest-half.html
Now that's DEEP!!!!!
crap runner wrote:
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)
I have done all of those execpt the 800. I don't have leg speed.
Don't give up hope on that one. You really don't need much leg speed. As long as you work on your leg speed velocity you should be able to do it.
BR wrote:
To impress me....
Marathon - Sub-3.
20 kHalf - Sub-1:20
10K - Sub-35
5K - Sub-17
Mile - Sub-5
800m - Sub-2 (the hardest to achieve out of all of them)
What!!! You are comparing a sub 2:00 800 to a sub 3 marathon thu sub 17 5k???
A sub 2:00 800 is in the zone with a 2:28 marathon and a 15:20 5k. You should say sub 2:25 800m to make sense here.
yeah but plenty of people have run sub 2 in the 800 with minimal training or care. sub 3 marathon is going to take some work no matter who you are