Based on your half marathon time, I'd say you could run a sub 3:10, but probably with a little more mileage. A few posters have it spot on, LRC is not going to grade that very high. Considering age and everything that comes with that time in life, it's a solid B and a raised brewsky to you.
A 44yo 3:20 runner is either fat, has never done any sports earlier in life, has a complete lack of talent for cardiovascular sports, has terrible mechanics, and/or is severely undertrained.
But of course, if you compare him to the "marathon finishers" who struggle to beat the marathon cut-off time he is a big fish.
48 wrote:
Hardly, I was a soccer player in the past. It is true, but yes, a little than "zero." Did I "massively under-perform" in the second race? I don't think so, as I was still only running up to 60 miles a week, but it's a possibility.
Paul McMullen ran 3:08 in a marathon a couple years ago. Wilson Kipketer ran 3:06. Both of these guys were some of the most talented runners, and both of them had a LOT more training going into it than you claim, both in their lifetimes and in the months leading up to it. That is why you're clearly under-reporting your athletic background to make yourself look talented.
48 wrote:
Anyway, my point was the OP's time by itself is useless with more info on training and previous experience.
No. Neither of those things is relevant. 3:20 is 3:20 no matter what you did to get there.
Disputed wrote:
I used "solid" to mean pretty good, not great. Or decent. Or very respectable.
I started there because using "great" would be pointless.
B.
Fast enough to be respectable without being especially praiseworthy, and should be attainable by most but isn't.
nothin' to write home about wrote:
A 44yo 3:20 runner is either fat, has never done any sports earlier in life, has a complete lack of talent for cardiovascular sports, has terrible mechanics, and/or is severely undertrained.
OR he has a job, a wife, kids and a life too.
3:20 is solid.
In the end, unless one is running world class times, the only subjective evaluation of one's performance that matters much is their own. Whether this particular runner thinks his performance is solid, average, mediocre, or slow matters little to me.
Disputed wrote:
3:20 marathon by 44 year old male is:
A. Solid
B. Average
C. Mediocre
D. Slow
You titled this thread "Help settle beef" - whose result is it and what exactly is the beef here?
Citizen Runner wrote:
In the end, unless one is running world class times, the only subjective evaluation of one's performance that matters much is their own. Whether this particular runner thinks his performance is solid, average, mediocre, or slow matters little to me.
In the end, why the hell did you reply then???
Got curious, so went to BAA site and looked at numbers for 2010-2012 male finishers in the 40-44 age group. 6466 finishers, 2076 finished w/ a 3:20 time or faster. So, you're basically scraping into the top third in your age group at Boston. I'd pick "solid" as it is an above average result in a race (generally) requiring qualification.
Disputed wrote:
PRs of subject
1:26 1/2
38 high 10k
18:30 5k
These are in line with my recent times at age 48 (I know, I'm not worthy to even be reading LRC according to most of you - I'm bowing to you as I type this). I'm shooting for another 3:05 and agree with the guy that said a few more miles gets you to sub 3:10. So you can change your question to 3:10 is...(and probably get all the same answers but it sounds better).
D. Slow
At 25 I ran sub 2:30 and was called a gender bending epithet by another runner whose friend had run an OT qualifier. Vicarious put downs.
Ran sub 2:45 in my 40s and was called not even second rate by a well known poster on this board.
I think a 3:20 by a 44 yr old is none of the above. It's a decent time for a recreational runner. Well above average. 3:05-3:10 would be solid. Sub 3:00 very good.
dkny64 wrote:
Disputed wrote:3:20 marathon by 44 year old male is:
A. Solid
B. Average
C. Mediocre
D. Slow
You titled this thread "Help settle beef" - whose result is it and what exactly is the beef here?
Ok, here's the beef:
I believe any reasonably fit guy of that age should be able to do 3:20 or under, with the proper work. This guy I know thinks his 3:20 is some sort of accomplishment.
Those PRs are mine. And yes, I know I ain't that good. Been at it for about 8 years. I've run three consecutive 3:20+ marathons and was very disappointed with 2. Third was in a monsoon, so what are you going to do...
The other guy is one with 10+ marathons under his belt. And he's slower at shorter stuff. He claims to be marathon expert, which is hard for me to listen to.
So I thought I'd take it to the Board and settle it.
I thought 3:20 would get ripped far more than it has here.
It's given me reason to ponder, and perhaps it's not too bad.
Ok, here's the beef:
I believe any reasonably fit guy of that age should be able to do 3:20 or under, with the proper work. This guy I know thinks his 3:20 is some sort of accomplishment.
I agree: any reasonably fit guy should be able to do 3:20 or better at that age. If this guys has done 10 marathons and only has a best of 3:20, I'd say it's not very good. Yes, 3:20 is solid for that age, but if you've been running marathons for a while, he should be closer to 3 hours by now.
You, on the other hand, have only run 3 marathons, and you know that you can run under 3:20. You just haven't had your A race yet.
I'm running my 11th marathon this fall and hope to break 2:45 (at age 43), and I consider myself as having only average athletic ability. But I've gotten somewhat fast by working hard for years and getting my weight down. That's it.
Disputed wrote:
dkny64 wrote:You titled this thread "Help settle beef" - whose result is it and what exactly is the beef here?
Ok, here's the beef:
I believe any reasonably fit guy of that age should be able to do 3:20 or under, with the proper work. This guy I know thinks his 3:20 is some sort of accomplishment.
Those PRs are mine. And yes, I know I ain't that good. Been at it for about 8 years. I've run three consecutive 3:20+ marathons and was very disappointed with 2. Third was in a monsoon, so what are you going to do...
The other guy is one with 10+ marathons under his belt. And he's slower at shorter stuff. He claims to be marathon expert, which is hard for me to listen to.
So I thought I'd take it to the Board and settle it.
I thought 3:20 would get ripped far more than it has here.
It's given me reason to ponder, and perhaps it's not too bad.
LOL.
Moral of the story: this marathon thing is tougher than it looks. [spoken as someone who has similar short race PRs to yours all run at age 44 as it happens and who's never even attempted a marathon 'cause where's the fun in slogging for 26 miles?]
p.s. for inspiration about running faster marathons as you age, check out
http://web2.nyrrc.org/cgi-bin/htmlos.cgi/77286.1.019245194815297219Not the point. But I've run 6 marathons.
Starting with a 3:12. Which I thought was decent for first go.
And lead me to believe any reasonably fit person could do this, as I was new to sport.
But, I've gotten progressively sh*ttier since.
All the best with the 2:45. I think guys if my ability consider sub 3 or thereabouts an "A".
No idea - I'm not yet 44
Interesting. No offense, but I've never met anyone around this age that has gotten progressively worse after their first marathon. It's usually the opposite, as guys get more mileage under their belts. Have you put on weight or something? Do you have a coach?
No, haven't gotten fat. Yet. Yes, I've got about 50 coaches.
I'm really good at workouts, sh*tty at racing of late.
If races were on Tuesday afternoons with nobody around, I'd be pretty good.
This thread was not meant to be about me.
I wanted to show it to this guy and shut him up. But having taken it to
harshest peanut gallery of running, and if majority on here find that time better than I thought...guess its not so bad.
Disputed wrote:
I thought 3:20 would get ripped far more than it has here.
Yeah, this board is degenerating. Mostly hobby sloggers here now. Sad.