"Everyone in my unit used to run 7 miles at 6 minute pace"

You're an absolute moron if you didn't get what I was asking with the down year example. I dont have an attachment to my scale. People asked me to specifically describe the times and what words I would use to describe them. You are dumb for not seeing that.

You are dumb for not understanding the math also.

Why don't you tell me what your classifications and their respective times are? Is "pretty good" as good as your scale gets or do you have more categories for better performances?

wddxx wrote:

You guys are retarded. It's 3 minutes at the 2nd girl's pace and closer to 2:30 minutes at the 16:00 girl's pace. It is YOU GUYS that are retarded and dont understand math.

We all understand that the 16:00 girl can run a half mile in 2:30. The problem is that it is the 18:30 girl who is a half mile back.

"As a follow-up item, I just took a look at the indoor records and noted that the listed record of 10:13.16y for Laura Craven in 1982 was actually 10:13.15 set over 2 miles"

So a highschool girl in 1982 could run 5:06 and a 5:07 mile

back to back on an indoor track.

Did girls get any faster in 30 years?

Six minute pace is kind of slow.

So according to your theory, Roger Banister is only Pretty good because the mile world record is now 16 seconds faster than him, if someone runs 1:35 in the 800 in the future, will rudisha be only pretty good?

Well played. I'm now convinced that you have been correct all along and that I am dumb and a moron.

By the way, here is my own personal scale of adjectival performance evaluation:

World record= "Damn fine!"

Olympic Standard= "Schwingg!"

National Record= "Who dat!"

National Leader= "Expeditious"

Collegiate Leader= "Precocious"

High School Leader= "Stout"

D-1 Full ride-earner= "Spritely!"

Op's 18:30-running daughter= "Pretty good".

Illuminating, isn't it?

Applying descriptive terms to running performances is always a subjective undertaking. I just returned from the D.C. public school championship, which was run on a five km course which was undoubtedly short. The girls winner was over twenty minutes. I would not cavil with a mother who describes her daughter's sub 19:00 as "pretty good."

as for the question initially posed here, the hospital employee has a simple choice: either let the matter go entirely or confront the fat RN fully, and I could understand either reaction. When, at some point in our lives, we have trained and competed hard to reach whatever performance levels we were able to achieve, it's really difficult to listen to every Tom, Dick and Harry say, "Oh, yeah, I used to be able to do that, but now my knees bother me..." For whatever reason, military guys seem to have a particular weakness for this sort of stuff.

I suppose there is nothing to be gained by pursuing it. Believe me, the guy is not open to being persuaded he is mistaken. It's a no win to argue the point, but I fully understand the urge to do so. I really don't get the psychological dynamic, although in some cases, I suppose it's just a misunderstanding of numbers. But as for the deliberate deception, I fail to understand it. More than 25 years ago, in grad school, I wandered into a weight room for the only time in my life. My friends asked me to try bench pressing. I weighed around 140 at the time, and if memory serves, I think I maxed out at around 110, and got a very sore back for my efforts. I can't, for the life of me, imagine standing in a driveway telling a muscular neighbor that I used to be able to bench press 250.

In reference to the guys in the military that can hold sub 6:00 min pace for a full marathon. I am that guy. I got 3rd place in he Marine corps marathon in 2008. My PR is 2hr 23mins. Every PRT or PST for the 1.5 mile my times are still between 6:30-7:30 pace. It literally disgusts me that there are so many liars in the military who think they are in shape. My LPO is one of them. Braggin about how they almost qualified for olymipic trials in the decathlon so that people in our command thought he was this fast fit dude. I looked it up and he is a joke. For guys like me who dedicated my whole life to running it pisses me off. There are chiefs I know of in the Navy also for example who will give someone a good eval if they put down better scores on their PRT. SO that results in 250+ lbs dudes running around out of shape telling guys like me what to do when they cheated a simple 1.5 run.

Just to point out a few glossed over points here:

1. That 16:00 minute time was on Mt. Sac which I believe is 2.93 miles, not 3.

2. Sarah Baxter in running 16:00 minutes ran, arguably, the greatest hs xc race of all time.

Lastly when one speaks of outliers here you have to consider Baxter an outlier. It's not as if all of a sudden 1600 is the new standard for every girl to run. Baxter broke what was considered an untouchable record by like 16 seconds. That's mind boggling. Good night.

You are the one said a runner running 16:00 for 5k was running 2:30 per half, its more like 2:35 per half. So 5 seconds per half over a 5k is 30 seconds. How about other part how no girl has come close to running 16:00 at Footlocker and average time is over 17 for top girl?

Good god this troll is killing it. I mean it...he is absolutely doing a fantastic job. I can't beleave he's gotten this thread to "about" 10 pages.

The problem in the military is 5k's mean anywhere from 2-3 miles. I have run many military 5k's and one has never been the actual advertised distance. This is not the overall problem. The actual problem is, I know I did not run a 12:42 5k. However, Sgt. Schmuckatelli thinks he just PR'd by 3 minutes and ran a 15:42, and will not question it for anything. Therefore, he has no option, but to believe I broke the world record for the 5k. I just play along now, because I hate crushing people's dreams, and it makes me look super sexy for all the ladies.

trolled like a bitch

god guys dont feed it

diagnosis:

1. the fat male nurse is confusing kilometres with miles...i.e his unit may have ran 7K with each K around 6:00 pace

OR-

2. the fat male nurse is being knowingly dishonest...to prop up his ever failing ego which he links to his supposed athleticism.

OR-

3. the fat male nurse is a sociopath--he believes his own lies

Summary: the non-runner is very often confused about distances and times...generally does not have a any idea about how difficult it is to run "fast"

sample: "gee, you ran a marathon?"

Yep

"all 20 (or sometimes 25) miles?"

..."How many laps make up one mile again?"...(someone at the local track going "jogging")

.

wddxx wrote:

Well...

Your daughter's mid 18 5k is not pretty good. She would get lapped maybe twice on a track. It's not a bad time, but it's not pretty good.

Second, many non-runners call anything between 6:00 and 7:00 as "6 minute pace". Runners tend to be a bit more exact about numbers, so you should take that into account. In other words, make sure that 6 minute pace means the same thing to both of you.

Third, 7 miles at 6 minute pace is hardly exceptioal. Anyone remotely athletic should be able to do that after a period of training. Think about it, there are people running 26 miles nonstop at 4:45 pace.

Lastly, the guy might just have an exaggerated memory.

I'm a mid-18s high school male. I would have won County Championships if I had run in the girls' race. And I'm in Mary Cain's county.

[quote]qwertyu wrote:

Everything is relative, your value system included. If you were a "pretty good" runner last year, but this year a bunch of newly arrived Kenyans sweep the 20 first places, you don't suddenly cease to be "pretty good".

quote]

This is the best arguement heretofore

You can always tell a liar as they will be so specific. If they were any good at running they would have been running in army races not just some random training route

I always tell them what I think I don't need to get along with that sort of jerk and they rely on not being challenged

Well in OPs original statement he never made a claim about whether people would be able to run it if they trained correctly and put in the hard work. He was being a realist about the situation. Most likely the nurse and his buddies in the military did not go out and do 7 mile runs at 6 minute pace. I call comeplete BS on it as well. I have run half marathons at 5:35 pace. Even still when I am getting back into shape tempo running 6 miles at 6 min pace can challenging. I was built to run, i am 26, and i have been very serious about running for years. I really doubt some military guys were doing that

wddxx wrote:

ScottDye wrote:

Point 2) I doubt if stringing 6 minute miles together is a relatively easy task for most people, even given proper traning. How many sub 37:12s do you see at 10k races?

And how many of those people are overweight and or not trying to run as fast as possible? What percentage of them are moms and weekend warriors?

My own experience in the Military, I served twice (1978 to 1982 - 1986 to 1990).

In 1978, the former PT test was: 2 mile run w/boots, situps, run dodge jump, inverted crawl, and horizontal ladder. What I remember I was the only one who broke 12 minutes. I ran some were around 10 flat. 100 runners.

2nd experience: 1979 at Ft. Jackson the Gereral was a runner and had event called "Beat the Generals time". The time to beat was 6:20 for the mile. 10,000 soldiers "had to" voluteer to participate. Less than 50 soldiers beat the time. I still have my certificate...LOL

BYW: it was done in boots on cinder track. I ran a 4:48. No else that I remember broke even 6 minutes. I was 4:20 miler in HS.

New PT test standards changed to 2 mile, push ups, and sits ups

3rd experience: 1985 ROTC 2 mile at Ft.Riley, Ks. Approxiately 500 runners. We ran the event(PT test)on the roads. There were 10 groups of 50. After the results only two broke 11 minutes myself and someone else who beat me. Our was some were around 10:10 and 10:20. The aveage time was around 15:20.

4th experience: Ft Bragg, N.C. I was part of a training group (Soldiers) of runners who were local road racers. Most of us were okay but not real good. Example of times would be 16's for the 5k and 32 to 33 for the 10k. Since we were runners we were asked to help with PT test each year and help others run faster. I would say 99% of most runners (soldiers) at Ft.Bragg could not break 13 for the 2 mile run or 6 minutes for the mile.

RuKiddingMe!!! wrote:

I was part of a training group (Soldiers) of runners who were local road racers. Most of us were okay but not real good. Example of times would be 16's for the 5k and 32 to 33 for the 10k.

Careful how you use your subjective adjectives in this thread, lest you be held to wddxx or whomever's anti-social classification system.