2:47 marathon=serious runner or rec runner?

you cannot be serious wrote:

If you have all that time, and you want to dedicate your life to a couple of digits behind a colon go for it, but don't act as if you are somehow superior for doing so.

Who has? Another strawman for this thread.

"All of that time". What the hell are you talking about.

As the poster before you said, it does not take that much time to do the proper mileage to bring out your best.. It's not that hard. You can have a full time job, wife, kids, quality family life and STILL get in 100 miles a week. If you are single, you can do it and still go out a number of nights per week.

Don't kid yourself. Running your best is ALWAYS about numbers. Numbers on the clock or number of people ahead of you. If you are unwilling to put in the few extra hours needed, fine. But stop rationalizing your laziness as some sort of lack of "obsession" or healthy balance. You are merely afraid to find out how good (or bad) you really are.

No, you view everyone else's perspective through you're own narrow lense of ego. I'm not afraid to find out how good (or bad) I really am, I just don't care. I do what I do and I enjoy it. An extra hour every day - if you don't see that as a lot of time you're insane - would make it less enjoyable for me even if it took 5 or 10 minutes off my time. That's my choice, and you're free to choose differently.

That isn't laziness, its an intentional choice of running being one among many interests instead of an overriding, and defining, passion. I like to have good races, but when I don't, I don't sulk as I'm sure you do for a week.

Unless you're making a living at it, going to the Olympics or even the trials, you're the one kidding yourself to think a few minutes off a time makes any difference in the grand scheme of things. You're just in a never ending pissing contest with running as the metric instead of the size of your tallywacker.

you cannot be serious seriously wrote:

No, you view everyone else's perspective through you're

"your"

own narrow lense

"lens"

Thanks for the edits.

Another is that tallywacker is probably not the most proper in favor of tally whacker.

IT seems like your narrow lense of ego makes you think that your perspective is the right one.....for everyone else.You're wrong.

oh yeah, we can all tell you're a phenomenal and well-rounded go getter by how many times you have posted here.

explain please wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Maybe 20 years ago... Now it's:

very respectable.....Sub 4.00

impressive...........Sub 3.30

enviable.............Sub 3.00

letsrunly admirable..Sub 2.30

borderline elite.....Sub 2.10

elite................Sub 2.07

When only a few DOZEN runners in the entire nation can run a time (sub 2:20), that is necessarily elite.

To call sub 2:10 merely "borderline elite" is to be disconnected from reality.

Disconected from reality? Have you seen the World Marathon rankings recently? Not many Americans there.

You missed the point of my post, which was not meant to be taken too seriously.

Just sayin standards overall have fallen, but elite standards have improved a lot in the last 20 years.

bump

‘Off the Grid’ you’re an idiot and ‘got self-righteousness’ is actually trying to help you understand a few concepts. Maybe instead of arguing with him you should listen.

umm okay wrote:

‘Off the Grid’ you’re an idiot and ‘got self-righteousness’ is actually trying to help you understand a few concepts. Maybe instead of arguing with him you should listen.

Hate mail...I love it....

machiavellian wrote:

Don't kid yourself. Running your best is ALWAYS about numbers. Numbers on the clock or number of people ahead of you. If you are unwilling to put in the few extra hours needed, fine. But stop rationalizing your laziness as some sort of lack of "obsession" or healthy balance. You are merely afraid to find out how good (or bad) you really are.

The point also is...there is a time and place for that, and then you move on.

You can still have fun, prepare, set goals etc. but there is an awful lot do that is just as compelling and interesting.

I would reckon many of the "247 is pretty darn good" people are in their 30s/40s/50s, and have a lot on their plate. Running 100mpw is possible of course, but you then split the world into 2 categories - those who think ANYTHING you try shoudl be done 100%, and those who are happy w/ what they think is resepectable

There are many other hobbies requiring 10-15hrs/week you coudl start up. And the hardcore purists in those other games or whatever will also be saying, "you could do so much better if you werent a slacker" etc

thats life - there will always be people telling you that you could do more. they are right...at that point its a personal decision.

wellnow wrote:

elite................Sub 2.07

So this means Meb, winner of a silver medal in the Olympics in 2004, isn't elite?

If you're a medalist, you ought to be considered elite in that event. Hell, even if you can make it to the Olympics you should be "elite".

stipe wrote:

Certainly agree there. Boston qualifying is what I would call "solid" recreational. Maybe we just don't like the guys who think they are elite because of a decent time.

For example, a company of 500 people might have 1 2:33 marathoner, 1 2:48 marathoner, and 1 3:00 marathoner. Most likely, the 2:32 guy thinks of himself as sort of less elite than the others might think of themselves. He is comparing himself to a much higher standard.

Im that 248 marathoner and I do not consider myself anything special. I dont know if I get your post...why cant I compare myself to a much higher standard. Is it because he is 16 minutes closer to the really fast guys that he is allowed to compare his time to theirs? I know there are much much faster guys out there and I dont need to run a 232 to know my time is pedestrian.

isn't this a question that Age Graded performances answer? maybe you should just define the percentile of your age bracket. I bet the seriousness of training with people of similar age and time would give a better answer.