What is your standard for being a "good" runner?

Sucks for all those runners in other countries not being able to be a good runner as they cant qualify for nationals or NCAA xc. I would say for being a god runner you have to be top 5 in Denmarks nationals.

For males
Sub 15k and at least 100k a year in salary

Good

low 16::00-15:00 5km

low 30:00’s 10km

very good

sub 15:00

sub 30:00

This is not the time or place for such a nonsensical question. Go find a running site.

i consider someone a good runner if he is not more than 10% slower than the WR of his event for distances ranging from 100m to 10 000m, for marathons even 20% slower than the WR i would still consider a good runner. I know this may sound extreme to some people, but as a commited runner, this is how i see it.

Darn, I meant to type sub 15 5k

Anyone in the top 10% of their age group.

Anything below a 4:20 is fast for a high school mile.

Sooooo...

10.54

21.11

47.33

1:51.00

3:46.60

8:04.74

13:50.90

28:48.1

Tbh I could get behind this. Personally I am unsure how to feel about runners in the 3:46-4:00, 14:00-15:00 kind of range (or the equivalent). Clearly they're not chumps, and it takes quite a bit of work to get into that range (I should know, I ran 3:49 and 14:26). However, nobody in that range could ever sniff a pro meet, and I also firmly believe almost anybody could get down to sub-4:00/15:00 if they trained "like an Ingebrigtsen" (i.e. from a young age with the sole purpose of maximizing their talent). Perhaps classifying the above group as "elite" and runners in the 3:46-4:00/14:00-15:00 range as "good". Tho tbh you might need to break up the elites into "pros" and "sub-elites" with a cutoff around 3:37/13:20 for pro-level times (given we have guys like Colby Alexander and Jon Davis running 3:33 unsigned, it might be even tougher than that nowadays).

Forgot to mention 2:25:49 would be the marathon cutoff by this rule...perhaps 2:12 or 2:15 or so for a "pro" cutoff and 2:45 or so for a "good" cutoff.

I can definitely get behind this. It's arbitrary, but this thread was meant to produce interesting opinions. Our standards as runners who follow the sport are obviously vastly different from the general public. To the latter, if you run a 5:30 mile, you're fast.

Kind of interesting. That's one way running is unique as a discipline. The gap between what we and the general public think is "good" is massive, and there are very clear numbers available, so you can easily see the chasm that exists between pros and non-pros, unlike other disciplines.

doing the best they can with what they got.

I consider the world record holder for a given distance good. Everyone else sucks.

A good runner is a person who got the most out of their talent while doing other things like working or raising a family. Just measuring for time will always fall short. For example a 2:17 Marathoner is a very good runner. At the international level he is obviously not that good but anywhere else he/she is a rockstar.

My scale for men in the 20-40 range:

Good: sub 20:00. You’re nothing special, but still beating 90% of runners in road races. So I can’t say it’s bad. It’s good.

Very good: sub 18:00. You either worked reasonably hard or have a bit of talent. Probably regularly finish in top 5% of road races. Age group competitive.

Excellent: sub 16:00. If you’re running in the 15’s, you are an excellent runner and probably competitive on the local scene. Probably committed to the sport for several years and take training seriously.

Sub elite: sub 14:30. Probably ran D1 at a high level. You pretty much win anything that isn’t nationally competitive.

Elite: sub 14:00. Pro or at least Pro aspirations, looking to compete on the national stage.

Super elite: Sub 13:00. The few. The GOATs.

Could you have been at the world championship in your favoured distance?

Otherwise training similar to a professional athlete and not as fast is an above average athlete.

Then you have those with like to run but don’t really follow any specific training and it’s a hobby for them.

It fully depends on who you're talking about and who you're talking to. Talking about myself to my friends in high school and college? Yeah, I'm a good runner. Talking to Olympians? I was alright. Talking about my buddy who's trying to break 20 in a 5k? He's better than the overwhelming majority of people, so he's actually pretty good. Talking about my 20-minute buddy to an Olympian? He's just getting into running.

Cleared

Surely the answer is - anyone better than me.