I knew a guy in ROTC who told me his unit kept "a four-minute pace" on his runs. I told him that was impossible, but he insisted it was true.
I knew a guy in ROTC who told me his unit kept "a four-minute pace" on his runs. I told him that was impossible, but he insisted it was true.
As many of the other previous servicemen/women? have stated, almost 99% of those in the military are clueless when it comes to how fast they are running.
As a currently enlisted member of the Air Force I can say with certainty that less than 1% of the military can run a SINGLE mile in under 6 minutes, let alone 7 straight.
I just set the base record for the 1.5 mile run at 7:22, beating the longstanding record of 8:27....the general military population unfortunately is not a place to find fast running individuals.
common cents wrote:
[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
What? If a bunch of people show up and beat you, then no you are not as good as you thought you were. Is the state champion 4:20 miler as good when he gets exposed to real national class milers running close to 4:00? No, of course not.
So, yes, you do cease to be as good as you thought you were. Somewhere there is a couple try championship won by a 20:00 minute girl. Is she as good as every other county champion across the nation? No, of course not.
This is a stupid thread. Wddxx or whatever his name is is comparing pros to highschoolers. Most hs runners have a training age of 4-6 at the max. Pros that run "excellent" times have training ages of like 12+ years. That's like saying a five year old is stupid because he can't do algebra when a 15 year old can.
Keeperece wrote:
This is a stupid thread. Wddxx or whatever his name is is comparing pros to highschoolers. Most hs runners have a training age of 4-6 at the max. Pros that run "excellent" times have training ages of like 12+ years. That's like saying a five year old is stupid because he can't do algebra when a 15 year old can.
No, you are stupid and can't read. I never once compared a pro to a high schooler. In fact, I've only been comparing high schoolers to high schoolers.
wddxx wrote:
Keeperece wrote:This is a stupid thread. Wddxx or whatever his name is is comparing pros to highschoolers. Most hs runners have a training age of 4-6 at the max. Pros that run "excellent" times have training ages of like 12+ years. That's like saying a five year old is stupid because he can't do algebra when a 15 year old can.
No, you are stupid and can't read. I never once compared a pro to a high schooler. In fact, I've only been comparing high schoolers to high schoolers.
You have multiple times talked about college and pro runners...... You are an embarrassment to humanity and probably couldn't run 18:30 yourself...18:30 is obviously pretty good..is it national caliber no, but that's not what we're talking about. We are saying pretty good. Which, is exactly what she is. Step off your high horse and go run some pretty good 13:00 5k's.....
You clowns watch Top Gun and think terrorists can be killed with drones, cruise missiles, and boutique SWAT units riding air conditioned stealth helos. That may be the case when the President of the United States designs the hit squads utilizing the standard army, air, navy, coast guard, CIA, and FBI arms of the gov't. The terrorists look just like average citizens and mix in with children thus marines use bayonet stabbings and physical beatdowns often to minimize collateral damage.
Dude (WDDXX) you are clueless. It is obivious, you know nothing about running or the military!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!First of all a high school girl running 5k XC in mid 18's. Is outstanding and would most likely get her some kind of scholarship. They are many variables here of course (course, hills, weather conditions).But sticking with the thread. She is being compared to Mr. fat nurse who is also clueless. This High Schooler would beat 99% of the military in XC 5K male and female. Like many other actual runners that have commented and who have been around the military. Know that if you are a good to fair runner you will clean up in a military 5k. I have been in the military for 26 years serving in the Marine Corps, Army, and Navy. I am 49 years old and still clean up in the races and PRT's. I have run with seals and recon Marines and there are still only about 1/4 or less that could run 6 min miles for 7 miles. Most of them are carrying more muscle mass and not made for speed.So WDDXX I am wondering why you are even on this site. Maybe you should take up running and spend less time on the computer.
wddxx wrote:
asdgfh wrote:Oh, come on. He wasn't claiming his daughter was going to be on the USA team in Rio. A mid 18 5K for a high school girl is a good time. She certainly won't be qualifying for Footlocker, but do you have to be national caliber to be "pretty good"?
A college teammate of mine had a daughter who ran mid 18's for 5K in cross country and she got scholarship money at a Division I school.
Yes, but you're comparing her time to the capability of a full grown man.
a woooo wrote:
wddxx wrote:No, you are stupid and can't read. I never once compared a pro to a high schooler. In fact, I've only been comparing high schoolers to high schoolers.
You have multiple times talked about college and pro runners...... You are an embarrassment to humanity and probably couldn't run 18:30 yourself...18:30 is obviously pretty good..is it national caliber no, but that's not what we're talking about. We are saying pretty good. Which, is exactly what she is. Step off your high horse and go run some pretty good 13:00 5k's.....
Nope, you're wrong. I never compared pro runners to high schoolers or college runners. You're making things up.
I'm also not on a high horse. You guys are dumb. I never said 18:30 was a bad time for a girl. I said it's a positive time. I think it's a good time. But I personally do not consider it to be an extraordinary performance level if your peers can lap you or beat you by 2 minutes. I save words like extraordinary for truly extraordinary performances.
And none of you that are so focused on percentage rankings have answered my question. You think that being in the top 100 means that you're great. What if the 100th runner was only running 20:00. Would she still be considered great?
Holy shifting goalposts batman!
Before 18:30 wasn't even "pretty good". Now it's good. Before she was a half mile back. Now she's only 2:00 minutes back.
Just come clean and admit you made a mistake.
This is a long thread so I did not read a lot of the comments. Here is one possible tactic to use. Calculate what the equivalent mile time is: 7 miles @ 6 is about the same as a 37:00 10km (not 37:17 due to the extra 0.8 miles).
This mark is equivalent to a, say 4:55 mile. Now, they often have to run the mile in PT tests. What were the mile times. In basic training PT tests mile times under about 5:40 or so gives a perfect score of 100, so 4:55 is much faster....
I cannot link to the scoring tables right now; the links seem to be proken (404 and 403 errors).
Runner A runs a 15:32 5K. 4:59 min/mile pace.
Runner B runs a 18:30 5K. 5:57 min/mile pace.
When runner A crosses the finish line at 15:32 runner B still has 0.5 miles to cover at 5:57 min/mile pace to reach 5K.
4:59 min/mile pace is an "average top-ranked high school girl"? How many high-school girls across the nation from any year can you average and come up with a 4:59 min/pace?
It's tough to be "top ranked" in wwmd's world.
Just keep posting and keep wddx saying the same thing over and over as if that will change EVERYONE elses opinion. wddx can't be wrong in his own feeble mind. At least here he'll keep typing at his computer and won't be out procreating. Not he ever had a chance at that...
VERY VERY FUNNY
Killing is probably overstating things. I'd say he's doing "pretty good".
--44-- wrote:
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.
I sat next to a vet on the airplane, he told me he ran a 3:27 mile. I said you hold the world record. He proceeds "close to it!" They don't know any better. 6min miles sounds easy till you do it...
Nearly everyone in the military is slow (comparatively speaking). I've been in the military 15 years and have only lost once on a pt test. Yet, every now and then I'll have someone tell me how they used to run a 9:30 2-mile. I know it's happened, but to this day I've never seen anyone in the Army run sub 10 on a pt test and only 5 or so run sub 11.
wddxx, I'm really curious how you can type so well with just one hand....because trolling this thread is obviously getting you off big time...
And the rest of you, sorry, love you guys, but you ARE morons. Morons for arguing with this idiot and giving him so much attention.
wddxx wrote:
RRRR wrote:Look. Just to help the original OP out a bit, I have GOT to add in my two cents.
I trained for two years every day with a sponsored athletic group. We had PR's for guys that ranged from 1:46 in the 800m to 1:03 in the half-marathon, and at one point had 5 guys that had gone under 4 min in the mile.
6 minutes per mile was not an everyday thing. During long runs we would average over that, and steady state runs were somewhere in the 5:15-5:30 range, never exceeding 10 miles.
So for your co-worker who claims that he and his military buddies used to run "6 minute miles all the time", he is just plain full of s***. You can laugh in his pathetic face and walk away with your head held high. Seriously, that pace is "easy" only in races. In every day training, 6 min/mile never quite feels comfortable, even for athletes that run under 5 min pace in long distance races. Joe-blow is not going to be able to maintain that pace easily as part of his daily workout.
And by the way, 18 min for 5k, for a HIGH SCHOOl GIRL is damn impressive. Any college coach outside of the top 5 DI would recruit her, end of story.
Your co-worker either does not remember his old training times, or recalls one or two PT sessions where he cracked 7 min for a mile, and tells himself that was an everyday occurrence. He is a joke.
Your experiences indicate that six minute miles could easily have been a common thing for 7 mile runs.
18.5 minutes for a high school girl is like 16 something for a boy. Is 16 something for a boy just as impressive? Surely no. Both are ok times.
You stupid Fing idiot my school record for girl's 5k is 18:58! 18:30 would get you top 10 in my state (Indiana) which was VERY good for girl's xc (Ashley Erba, Anna Rohrer).
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.
Milesplit has 18:00 for a girl at 150th best in the nation. 18:30 is 500th best in the nation. This list contained 362,117 total times. 18:30 puts a girl in the 99.999% percentile for cross country runners ALONE. We're not even including the girls who don't even do XC.
I don't know what the F*CK you're smoking if you think 18:30 is an "ok" time.