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

Anything under 2 hours is enough for me to nod and acknowledge that they are in good shape and take their training at least a little serioursly.

Anytging around the 1:30-1:40 range impresses me.

Anytging under 1:20 blows my mind.

1:59 is far from impressive. You get overweight charity runners who hobble around to break 2 hours. This is what a friend of mine did recently and he would be the first to tell you that he's a terrible runner.

I would say anything 7 min per mile or faster is "serious".

Under 1:02 is pretty good. 1:04 not so much.

And my opinion was asked so I gave it. 7 minute pace for 13.1 is out of reach for some people, it would require at the bare minumum sub 6 fitness and as mediocre as it is, that is not a level that just anybody can get to.

Well then you're answering a different question. OP asked what makes a serious runner. 2 hour half doesn't cut it. Not even close

Cinci runner wrote:

My debut was 1:11 and I was called slow.

Yeah, but we are talking about Half marathon times, not your 10K debut

In your opinion lol.

Funny - was googling half marathon "good" times and came across this.

Interesting discussion. I suppose if "you" in this context is a running nerd (I mean that in a good way) then sub 70 and some of those other times being thrown around make sense. Like someone said, I guess I personally am always going to look up to someone / be impressed, if they can do something faster/better than me.

If however "you" is a non-running average Joe/Jane who maybe does the JPMCC as their annual "race" with the occasional jog and gym visit outside of that, then it doesn't take something nearly that fast to be impressive.

At my current company (100 people) and the prior one (60 people), I am the "serious runner guy". I'm 38, run around 30-40 miles a week. Don't do any sort of constructive training. Didn't run (or even think about running) at college. Just like to run a few times a week to stay healthy and clear the head. My PRs are 18 flat for a 5k and 82 and change for a half. I'm always top spot within our company when we do the NYC JPMCC (or rather did; rained off last year and global pandemic or #2020), and to my colleagues I am an intense/ focused runner. I'm like honestly guys you have no idea - I'm really just a fast Fred (to use cycling parlance)

Another Runner wrote:

Open: sub 1:20

40+ sub 1:25

50+ sub 1:35

women open: sub 1:30

40+ 1:35/1:40*

50+ 1:50

*depends if that woman has kids. 1:35 would be without kids, 1:40 for those with kids, since they obviously slowed down and had a few years of slowed training.

This guy did a good job on page 1

Far from elite, and not especially pleased w my 1:17:20 at the old Davis (CA) marathon (1980 or so) at age fifty, I was surprised to be first in my division.

Then saw that the big shots (Beardall, et al) were at another race.

Define “serious.” Going to assume this guy is in his 30s.

Serious as in you know he runs everyday and it’s something he is into, but he’s not going around bragging and babbling about nutrition, fitness, etc. ? I’d call sub-1:30 good for that guy.

For the loudmouth, he better be at least sub-1:20 or STFU.

1:20, 1:25.

If you can do those times, that shows you are respectable. You are a good local runner. Probably not going to win any prize money but you are starting to see where you stand and can see how you're getting near 6 minute pace.

If you can run 1:30, that's still not bad either, but it's not really great. In my opinion. For a guy who is really out of shape and overweight and decides to turn his life around and runs 1:30, I tip my hat.

One second faster than me: impressive.

One second slower than me: unimpressive.

This is true for all runners at all race distances.

Truth hurts

Cinci runner wrote:

My debut was 1:11 and I was called slow.

Wow. This thread has been a major boost to my self confidence.

Ran a 1:29 13.1 training run a few weeks back and apparently I am respectable already! Never actually have raced the distance.

I’m the office, depends on gender and body type, but sub 140 I would respect the effort they had to put in to get there.

I am 65 ran Half Marathon in .1.24 so i thing i am doing not so bad at all.

Sub 1:25 would be impressive, it would make me interested in the guy experience with the sport : when started running, training etc.

1:25-1:30 still interesting, but I would not be " impressed ".

Under 1:09 is where it gets more impressive to me. The amount of runners hitting those times is much less than the 1:09:xx to 1:14-low group.

But 1:03-mid to 1:07+ are essential non-elite these days.