What is an impressive half marathon time for a non-elite but serious runner?

I started running at 52. I have been running a year and I've had 5 months out with 2 injuries. I ran a 23:08 5k last autumn and a 1:50:11 first half marathon in Amsterdam in October. I ruptured ligaments in my ankle walking in Scotland and am just getting back to fitness. I ran 2:15:32 in Liverpool last month.

I've impressed myself when I've run. I'm hoping to do so again in Berlin next week. It's not you colleagues time that should be impressive. It's always a story about an individual's context and motivation for me. Time is relative.

My 14 yr old ran his second 1/2 marathon this past saturday in 1:32. He is wondering what would be a good time to work towards and I was not sure what to advise. Any help would be appreciated.

For a serious runner.. I'd say anything in the 1:20s.

Dashiell wrote:

My 14 yr old ran his second 1/2 marathon this past saturday in 1:32. He is wondering what would be a good time to work towards and I was not sure what to advise. Any help would be appreciated.

Just always shoot for a pr for the young ones. No pressure at 14 or he will come to resent you and the sport. Also, try to get him focused on some shorter distances for a while. So much time in life to focus on the half.

This guy nailed it. Under 50, for non-college runner sub-1:20 is impressive. Former College runners have a higher standard to meet.

Over 1:30 is overweight and unfit?!? That would place 80th percentile in most races so you're telling me 80% of runners in half marathon races are overweight and unfit? Unlikely lol. 1:30 is a solid time

NYCRunner wrote:

bangalangadanga wrote:

there need to be more races advertised as (the most competitive)

"most competitive" were my own words. Show my any other race in the country where more than 100 runners end up sub 1:20 and I may change my mind.

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

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.

I ran a half here in France (Semi marathon de Boulogne billancourt) in 1:20:xx and came around 230th.

It’s surprising to me that there’s a half in a small country like France that is more competitive than the most competitive in the US.

1:10 would be 18th and 1:15 would be 65th.

rabailey10 wrote:

Over 1:30 is overweight and unfit?!? That would place 80th percentile in most races so you're telling me 80% of runners in half marathon races are overweight and unfit? Unlikely lol. 1:30 is a solid time

He meant 130 minutes so 2:10. I think his time descriptions were relatively accurate.

I'll use myself as a benchmark - I don't consider myself yet a particularly impressive runner. 24M and started running with zero background 11 months ago because my office job and totally bad eating/drinking habits had literally driven me to obesity (was 6'0" ~235). With 4.5 months of running ~15-20mpw, maybe maxed at 25, and losing around 50lbs I did a 1:47 Brooklyn Half. I've continued with the running/fitness improvements through the year, and now sit at ~178lbs and did 3:21 in the NYC Marathon and 18:33 in my Turkey Trot 5k back home. That's off maybe 30-35mpw average with a peak of like 45 in an 18 week marathon cycle. So - all told - it didn't take any exceptional amount of work or running experience or even fitness background for me to log these times.

I am hoping to eventually get semi-fast and am shooting for a BQ time (I know around here still considered easy) at Grandma's this June. Along the way maybe logging a couple 1:26-28 halfs at NYC and Brooklyn. But if you're looking to benchmark an "impressive" runner, that line should probably be lower than what I have or might be able to accomplish in 1.5 years with zero background. So, maybe 1:20 for males is accurate?

This guy is bang-on. It is not impressive to run sub-1:30. All it takes is a little dedication. Sub 1:30 certainly means you care about running more than someone doing it for general fitness. I quit smoking and took up running, and managed a 1:27 within a year. Probably maxed out at 40 mpw at best.

I've got down to 1:18, and still don't think that's very impressive. It just means you took things a little further and worked a little harder. Again, I smoked a pack a day for almost 20 years and got to that time in about 3. How impressive can it be? I do think once you start getting faster than 1:15- 1:16, it is impressive for someone who took it up later in life. And sub-1:10 is absolutely impressive for a hobby jogger.

NYC and Chicago auto-quals are 1:21 and 2:53 for younger guys. I think those are objectively decently impressive times.

Dashiell wrote:

My 14 yr old ran his second 1/2 marathon this past Saturday in 1:32. He is wondering what would be a good time to work towards and I was not sure what to advise. Any help would be appreciated.

Anything faster than what he is doing would be great at 14. His ultimate goal would be to break an hour but that would be long term.

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)

800 us 10 harder than the rest

How Fast? wrote:

What age? That's a good question. Let's say for the sake of discussion this guy is in his early-30s and isn't a 25-year-old former collegiate runner who can stil just get off the couch and crush it.

That’s me. 33. I didn’t run in college. Half PR of 1:10. There’s actually a lot of us. Athletic dudes who switched to running post college, often times, after playing another sport like Lax. With decent mileage 30+ most people get under 1:20. With a group and workouts people start going under 1:15. With some LR trolling and Wejo worship you’ll hit 70 and under. A kid in my office had no idea what he was doing, started running by training for the Boston marathon and was very soon a 1:16 half, 16:xx min 5k person.

Def needs to be under 1:20 to even get a slight head turn.

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.

Not trying to troll, but if you by "serious runner" mean someone that cares about their times and trains to get faster (and has done so for years), then for a male under 35, I would expect under 70 minutes. Women of the same calibre probably under 1:18, I guess.

To follow on to these 2 guys:

I hadn't run since 2008 (5k, Kent State Bowman Cup) and started 6/9/17. Ran 15-25 mpw from 6/2017 to Columbus Half on 10/13/17. Dropped 17 lbs. and had other things go on...

But was running 9:29 mi./pace, then dropped to 7:39 mi./pace by September. Ran 10 miles in 77, and no more than 10 during training runs. Ran no more than 27 miles in a given week (peak), but average 15-25.

Cbus half was hot as hell (if you are from Cbus or Ohio and remember it) and I ran 1:45, on 5 hours of sleep and low mileage. Never did a half before. Was 75'F with crap humidity at the start and I could barely breathe. On a cool day I probably would have gone 1:42.

No speedwork or hills. The time wasn't great per se, but it's a good baseline to get faster. So these guys hitting 1:27-1:30 with basic mileage and improved habits gives me and others hope.

With a serious trainer and more improvement/changes I am hoping to hit 1:40 or better for the Cbus half this year.

Under 2 hours for women, under 1:45 for men is solid imo.

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

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.

Everything above - nose strips, racing shades, loincloth for shorts, and shaved legs.

Ran a 1:39 at the Cbus half, then finished and was not out of breath. I could have probably run 1:37 if I really pushed it.

Next goal is 1:35 for Cap City. Reading about Emily Sisson's 1:07 means I have a ton of work to do. It's inspiring but also humbling.