dirtacious wrote:
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.
This makes the best sense. At least to me. But then again, I like to aim high in life or are drawn to people who do....
Just a Hobby Jogger wrote:
dirtacious wrote: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.
This makes the best sense. At least to me. But then again, I like to aim high in life or are drawn to people who do....
So, 1:06 is non-elite?? And 1:18 is recreational? What about 1:12? Look, probably only the the top 3% of people who attempt the half can break 1:18? It's a bit more than recreational. And 1:06 is very near world class level. It seems a bit above non-elite, whatever that is.
My crazy friend, Chris Canoles was a high school senior and hit 1:12 for the first half of the full. He faded terribly to 3:07, but he was an average runner who trained his off: 100+ per week through XC season. This was when the Baltimore Marathon went out Satyr Hill to Loch Raven and turned around at Pierce's Plantation - a damned tough course!
=
subfive wrote:
Just a Hobby Jogger wrote:This makes the best sense. At least to me. But then again, I like to aim high in life or are drawn to people who do....
So, 1:06 is non-elite?? And 1:18 is recreational? What about 1:12? Look, probably only the the top 3% of people who attempt the half can break 1:18? It's a bit more than recreational. And 1:06 is very near world class level. It seems a bit above non-elite, whatever that is.
Don't get your jockstrap in a bunch. I was just looking/glancing quickly @ the above poster and thinking...anything sub 1:20 as serious recreational. Depending on your age group. Is that better? I was initially thinking a two tier versus one giant gap. Sorry if I offended anyone. Besides, what do I know? I'm just a Hobby Jogger.
1:10
Dully Knotted wrote:
crap runner wrote: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.
I appreciate your optimism. Do tell, what workouts could I do to help the leg speed velocity that I am lacking?
Clarification please? is right to ask How fast? to clarify age here (which he does). It's all relative. I ran 1:18 in 1982, 1:28 in 1993, and 1:48 in 2012. In short, Pete Magill is a freak of nature, not the norm.
New half marathon record set today. Anyone see Kip Litton?
http://resultsarchive.active.com/pages/searchform.jsp?rsID=134690&orgID=216362
Yes, only about 10% (508 of 5000) of the men at the Boston corporate challenge can break 24:30 for a 3.5 mile race (ie 7:00 / mile which is equivalent to a 1:39 half marathon)
Even Raytheon only produced 14 runners of 1:39 half marathon ability.
Under 1 45
Well, this is Chris Canoles and 1:12 for the half on a tough course is not too bad at 17 years of age. Yes, I did fade to a 3:06 but still proud of that time. I wish that I could run that fast today. Age can be a bite. Oh, by the way, I never thought that I was crazy.
naia champ wrote:
sub 1 hr 10 min for a guy is decent for a non-elite.
To recalibrate all you elite runners in elite tows running elite events. So the OP ask for a serious average Joe in an average town. Not Ny, Boston or Philly.. The last 8, 1/2s in my area that were ran by at least 350+ runners in the last year. You would have WON all 8 with a 1:14. Id say anything under a 7.20 mile or 1:35 is good for the average Joe that didn't run in collage.
After 6.25 months of running, I ran my first half in October. I'm 31 and lost 30 pounds over the same period of time. I was running about 30mpw on average for the final 2 months leading up to the race (yes, that means some 20 mile weeks as well, and only one 40+ mile week).
I ran a 1:38 and came in 90th out of 2,250 runners or so and was 5th in my age group.
Judging by the responses of my coworkers, it's an impressive time for the average person. For the serious but non-elite runner? Well, clearly not, though 'serious' is a very subjective term. I do take running seriously, but onlyvwithin the constraints of my lifestyle. I work a full time corporate job and am about to have my 3rd child - all of whom will be 4 and under.
I'm hoping to break 1:30 one day, though 50mpw is about all I can squeeze out in any given week currently.
1:15 is a dream, and I take running more seriously than most people that I come in contact with.
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.
Probably around 1:12.
I can relate to this post -- I started running regularly a year and a half ago (20 to 30 mpw) at age 29. I ran my first half after a few months in 1:48. I lost 10 lbs and followed a training program and 6 months later I hit about 1:38 at age 30.
From direct experience when I told a few people that I ran 13 miles at 7:30 per mile pace they were impressed. Most average people that stay fit in the corporate setting are shooting for 8:30 to 9 mins pace and couldn't fathom running that fast.
I'm hoping to go for 1:30 in the spring. Right now am still staying at about 30 mpw and did a recent 10k in 41 mins so I am told I am getting close.
I've taken two fairly serious stabs at it and haven't broken 1:30 (am mid 17s for a 5k, more competitive at shorter distances, etc.). For people who didn't run in college, I'm impressed by
Just curious, what was your training when you took serious stabs at 1:30? My 5k time is a lot slower than yours. I haven't raced it recently but would guess I'm in the low 19's / my mile time is about 5:15.
Context here matters, for the average runner who didn't run in college but may have in high school.
Male under 40: sub 1:30
Over 40 gets tougher maybe sub 1:40
Female under 40: sub 1:40
Over 40 gets tougher maybe sub 1:50
To me what matters though is how much they run in a week. It is much easier to run a race then run 6 or 7 days a week.
Chris Canoles wrote:
Well, this is Chris Canoles and 1:12 for the half on a tough course is not too bad at 17 years of age. Yes, I did fade to a 3:06 but still proud of that time. I wish that I could run that fast today. Age can be a bite. Oh, by the way, I never thought that I was crazy.
First 1/2 - 5:30 pace
Second 1/2 - 8:42 pace
That's just plain ignorant.
NYCRunner wrote:
In the country's most competitive half, the Brooklyn Half, out of 15,000 runners, this is what you get:
1:10 place 13
1:15 place 46
1:20 place 126
1:25 place 311
1:30 place 684
WHAT IS THE 1500th PLACE MENS FINISHERS Time?
Based on this list, I would say sub 1:20. Everything over 1:25 and it's a sh|t show - iPods, fuel belts, compression socks.
Using a big city half like this for the random guy at the water cooler (unspecified) I'd say top in 25% of the mens finishers would be impressive. and top 35% a very good showing.
Of course a younger guy with a history of college running is not your random guy at the water cooler nor is someone who ran JuniorVarsity HS XC. The random guy you chat with at the water cooler did not even play a HS sport and does not even have a dusty softball glove in his closet.
Seriously write down the description of the next ten guys you ride in a public elevator with and compose an average-- 43-45 balding, 15 pounds or more overweight perhaps?
I'd be impressed if this hypothetical random water drinker even said they work out a couple times a week at a gym that allows sweating and grunting when you work out.