Help settle beef 3:20 marathon is...?

subfive wrote:

This again...the notion that you have just " average athletic ability" if you can run a 2:45 at ..age 43! Do you know much about running or are you just being disingenuous!!!!! Do you know what the word average means????

Yes, I know a lot about running, and am not being disingenuous. My ability, or talent, I consider near average. NOT my work ethic. I am close to being able to run 2:45 (haven't done it yet) because I work my arse off, running 90 mile weeks, and training smart. The result is far from average only because so few of my peers are willing to make such a sacrifice for years. But if all of my peers did what I do, with training, diet, learning as much as I can, strength training, etc., there would be a lot of them who could have a similar goal.

43 year old guy wrote:

Yes, I know a lot about running, and am not being disingenuous. My ability, or talent, I consider near average. NOT my work ethic. I am close to being able to run 2:45 (haven't done it yet) because I work my arse off, running 90 mile weeks, and training smart. The result is far from average only because so few of my peers are willing to make such a sacrifice for years. But if all of my peers did what I do, with training, diet, learning as much as I can, strength training, etc., there would be a lot of them who could have a similar goal.

False. You're showing an exaggerated sense of humility that's incredibly common on Letsrun: "I'm nothing special, it's just I work so damn hard."

One of the reasons you run 90 miles a week is because you have the talent to stay injury free and handle the mileage. We all know runners who, no matter how slow their mileage build up and careful they are with cross training/strengthening always find a way to get injured.

Another reason you stuck with the training is because you found you kept improving with the added mileage. As much as you might like to believe it, improvement isn't a simple equation of "hard work = success." We all have physical limitations that not even a thousand intervals can overcome.

One of the reasons most of us stuck with competitive running is because, after we first tried it (be it the gym class mile or running for soccer), we found that we were good at it. I doubt you made it to 2:45 starting out from 330 pounds and slogging a 15 minute mile. You probably realized when you tried running that you had some innate...wait for it...talent that made you want to continue.

Disputed wrote:

3:20 marathon by 44 year old male is:

A. Solid

B. Average

C. Mediocre

D. Slow

In my opinion for a 44 year old:

sub 2:40 - wow

sub 3 - very good

3:20 - respectable

3:40 - mediocore

4:00 and slower - pathetic

3:20 is mediocre at best

genuine random a hole wrote:

A-Solid.

Unless your audience is Letsrun. In this case the runner was some sort of pansy hobby jogger, he would have to drop 40 minutes to achieve "C-Mediocre".

Very well said, captain.

I've seen lots of masters running around 3:20. They don't even look fit. They don't have the typical tight skin in their faces that every real runner has. I'd say about half of the masters who break 3:00 look fit. 3:20 is a pedestrian time.

i like this guy.

Ed Whitlock ran 3:15 as an 80yo. But hey, if you're just 5 minutes behind an 80yo guy, you're a "solid" runner, eh?

straighter of facts wrote:

I've seen lots of masters running around 3:20. They don't even look fit. They don't have the typical tight skin in their faces that every real runner has. I'd say about half of the masters who break 3:00 look fit. 3:20 is a pedestrian time.

So they don't look like skeletons? That's the definition of fit?

3:20 guy wrote:

straighter of facts wrote:

I've seen lots of masters running around 3:20. They don't even look fit. They don't have the typical tight skin in their faces that every real runner has. I'd say about half of the masters who break 3:00 look fit. 3:20 is a pedestrian time.

So they don't look like skeletons? That's the definition of fit?

Try again, fatty.

You seem pretty sure of yourself for knowing very little about me. Yes, I'm pretty sure that I do have fairly average talent at running. Back in HS cross country, I was often one of the top guys on my team at the start of the season, because I had put in more training over the summer. But by mid to late season, many of the guys who had real talent would start kicking my butt, running times that I've never run. Twenty five years later, they're probably fat and out of shape, but still more talented than I am. But I stuck with running. And that's how you become a decent marathon runner -- you train as consistently as you can, over years and years. That's how I got down to a 2:45 goal (not yet a PR). My first marathon years ago was an hour slower than that time.

And as far as staying injury free, ha. Incorrect assumption. I've gotten injured many times, but learn a bit from each one, and get right back to training as soon as I am able, trying to maintain whatever fitness I had. And re my 90 mile weeks, this is the first year I've attempted that, so this is all unchartered waters for me. Maybe it will work out, maybe I'll get injured next week.

And, like you, I also don't believe that hard work equals success. Often, it leads to failure. I try to train as smart as possible, with good coaching, and that's another reason I've gotten to this point after many years of running. So it's not just hard work that got me here. It's hard work, extreme persistence over many years, and being smart about your training and diet. The level of talent I have has played a more minor role in where I am.

straighter of facts wrote:

3:20 guy wrote:

So they don't look like skeletons? That's the definition of fit?

Try again, fatty.

Whoa!! Try what again? Try to achieve physique of a 13 year old girl?

No thanks. Rather be slow.

Your first post was downright creepy and bizarre. You should go away.

So you were one of the top guys on your high school cross country team (presumably without much running experience before high school, but this is just an assumption on my part), but you only have average talent. I think your definition of average and my definition are very different.

See, I used to think like you. In high school my first race was over 22 minutes for 5k. By my senior year I won a state title. At the time I would pat myself on the back because I thought I did it only through hard work. But looking back, the guys on my team were doing the exact same workouts I was and running the same mileage (sometimes more). They were working just as hard or harder than I was, but I improved more due to my innate running talent.

You said you started off running 3:45s for the marathon. Well, there are a lot of people running those times that will never, ever improve, or they may be lucky to lop off a couple minutes here and there. There are a lot of runners in my club who are hard workers, dilligently putting in their miles and training, and they will never break 4:00 because they are always going to be help back by factors beyond their control.

Bringing it back to the original question (and by extension, your faster times), a 3:20 marathon is very good because it is something very, very few people can do. It requires a special blend of training, perseverance, and talent.

I started off as one of the top guys on my team my senior year. That faded quickly as I improved very little, while more talented guys who started the season out of shape improved rapidly and surpassed me easily.

You won a state title. I never even qualified to run at state, despite being one of the most disciplined guys out there.

Speed of improvement has been one thing that leads me to believe I'm of average running talent. Although I have improved steadily over many years, I see new runners all the time making giant improvements that I've never seen.

43 year old guy wrote:I'm pretty sure that I do have fairly average talent at running. Back in HS cross country, I was often one of the top guys on my team at the start of the season, because I had put in more training over the summer. But by mid to late season, many of the guys who had real talent would start kicking my butt, running times that I've never run.

Do you think half of boys in your high school could have achieved your cross country time by working as hard as you did? Even the slowest guy on your team probably had more running talent than 50% of boys in your high school.

Your talent might have been "average" among boys on high school cross country teams. That's far above average in the general population.

I think this time, 3:20 for 44 year old male, is where training, perseverance and talent split. Sure it may take some of first two, but talented guy is breaking 3.

Running Formula reader wrote:

Do you think half of boys in your high school could have achieved your cross country time by working as hard as you did? Even the slowest guy on your team probably had more running talent than 50% of boys in your high school.

Your talent might have been "average" among boys on high school cross country teams. That's far above average in the general population.

I'd guess my talent level around 60th percentile. Upper end of average. Yes, I think close to half of the boys in my high school could've run similar times to mine in HS by senior year (mid 17s), IF they actually wanted to be runners, weren't fat, put in the hard work, etc. And the slowest guy was probably 5th percentile. Man, was he ever slow, practically ran in slow motion.

Think back to the 1970s, when running a 3:20 was nowhere near as "solid" as it is today for a middle aged guy. People weren't more talented back then. They just weren't as fat or lazy as our current population of adults. And think of all the guys out there who do have running talent, but also have talent in other sports, which they just happen to favor over running.

Muscle fiber type and adaptations to specific training come into play here guys. It takes hard work, but it also requires talent. I would say that breaking 3:00 requires talent at any age, breaking 3:20 for a 44 y/o is pretty good I woud say. Its less impressive if he has been running since HS and much more impressive if he has been running for 3 years.

43 year old guy wrote:

I'd guess my talent level around 60th percentile. Upper end of average. Yes, I think close to half of the boys in my high school could've run similar times to mine in HS by senior year (mid 17s), IF they actually wanted to be runners, weren't fat, put in the hard work, etc. And the slowest guy was probably 5th percentile. Man, was he ever slow, practically ran in slow motion.

Think back to the 1970s, when running a 3:20 was nowhere near as "solid" as it is today for a middle aged guy. People weren't more talented back then. They just weren't as fat or lazy as our current population of adults. And think of all the guys out there who do have running talent, but also have talent in other sports, which they just happen to favor over running.

I'm glad you brought up the observation that 3:20 wasn't as impressive back in the 1970s. Back then, you had a very small population of runners. The first real running boom was just starting, but mass running events hadn't yet taken hold. Racing was still only for competitive entrants. These competitive folks had shown some talent for running, one of the main reasons they self-selected the sport.

Today, many, many more people are running. By your reasoning (e.g., that 40% of your high school class would've been faster than you had they just run), there should be a lot more people in front of our 3:20 marathoner. But there aren't. There are a lot more people behind him.

Of course there are always going to be people with running talent who never run a step. But in these days of 30,000+ runner marathons full of people who probably wouldn't have run a step in the first running boom, we can see that a 3:20 marathon is impressive.