2:47 marathon=serious runner or rec runner?

I would think it woudl have more to do with training than time. If you're doing 100 mpw, but can still only run 3:20, I still think you could call yourself a serious runner.

I don't think those two are easily separated. I ran 2:35 last year and have no illusions that running is more than a hobby for me, but it's a hobby that I take quite seriously. I wouldn't worry about external things like what people think of your pastimes, just keep trying to improve and you can consider yourself a serious runner. Whether some a-hole who ran 2:46:59 will look down on you is not really something you can control.

For most people to run 2:47, they need to be a serious runner. Many former college runners can probably run 2:47 through recreational training, but not the general runner.

The letsrun bubble world and the real world probably provide much different answers to this question...

Since it took me more than 30 years of running to beat the time you mention, I'll say 2:47 = serious.

But really I wouldn't even base it on times. I see it as more subjective -- if you train consistently, set performance goals, and pursue them, you're a serious marathoner.

If you prioritize having fun, the social side of running, blow off planned training if the weather is unpleasant, etc., then you're recreational (which is absolutely fine IMO -- this is not meant as an insult -- by this definition I'm a recreational basketball player for instance).

depending on age, talent, etc., there could be a lot of overlap between these two groups in finishing times.

I am not sure serious marathoners oriented towards performance and recreational runners are mutually exclusive categories.

I would say 2:47 is recreational, but exceptional. Sub 2:40 is about where the men separate from the boys. Sub 2:35 is local elite. Sub 2:30 regional elite. Sub 2:22 elite for a white guy in the US. Sub 2:15 international elite for an American.

most people would have to put in a decent amount of training to run that. What is that, like 6:35s? I would say a person who runs that can be considered a serious runner.

The best term I have heard is 'A serious recreational runner'. I think that sums it up best.

And as someone else mentioned, it is not defined by time, but by the particular's person mindset.

loud awesomeness wrote:

most people would have to put in a decent amount of training to run that. What is that, like 6:35s? I would say a person who runs that can be considered a serious runner.

A 2:47 is 6:22 per mile. I think anyone who does something more than going out for easy runs (does intervals, tempos, etc) to prepare for a race can be considered serious, and not just a rec runner. I'd say this includes nearly all 2:47 marathoners, simply because most people out in the general public can't run 6:22 pace for a 5k without doing some interval training. But I think we'd all agree that there are different degrees of seriousness.

Is Dean K a serious runner?

If open or masters female or masters male, serious runner. If open male, rec runner.

gadsgasdghdsh wrote:

Please, give us the objective, absolute definition of what is necessarily a subject opinion. That way we can all try to state our opinions forcefully in the vain hope that will turn them into fact, insult each other, and resolve nothing.

Corrected

Serious runner.

If you're at that level of fitness and still call yourself recreational you're either sandbagging or you spend too much time on this board. Even post-collegiate guys will have to put in solid training to reach that time, not to mention the years of base they've already built. 2:47 may sound pedestrian when you compare it to the PRs on this anonymous message board, but anyone who runs that much is serious about running, even if it's just a hobby.

If you're doing 100 mpw and can still muster nothing better than a 3:20 then you're in the wrong damn sport.

? wrote:

I would think it woudl have more to do with training than time. If you're doing 100 mpw, but can still only run 3:20, I still think you could call yourself a serious runner.

Definitely a serious runner. While I agree with the above posters that it is an artificial line with many different components, I can draw a line in the sand if I have to.

A lot of serious runners run 7 min/mile on easy days, and in my experience, if you can run easily at 7 min pace, then you're likely somewhat serious or talented. I think if you put in the time to keep up that pace for 26 or so miles, I'd give it to you. So that's about 3:03ish. That's my line.

to not be considered recreational, you must be making money running....i doubt you are....therefore you are recreational

Yeah I would agree that anything sub 3:00, specially on a first attempt, is serious. Generally speaking that would require tempo runs, interval training and generally specificity. I am sure a lot of varisty college cross runners could dip sub 3:00 if they were so inclined and did modest preperations, however, by definition those individuals are serious runners or at least should be. Yeah I would think 3:00 is a nice clear division on performance alone. However, there are serious runners that by age or ability can not move it very quick and I would give them the classification of serious runner if there commitment was intense.

2:47 is the threshold just to get into the OT marathon for women. All RW style pluralism and platitudes aside, if you're a sub-masters male who can't even do that then you can't be much good at distance running.

"2:47 is the threshold to get into the OT marathon for women"

Exactly, its a serious time....even if ran by a man.

Once you have a 2 in front of your marathon PR you are a serious runner and imo should be respected.

Sub 2:50 is very respectable.

Sub 2:40 is impressive

Sub 2:35 is enviable

Sub 2:30 is borderline elite

Sub 2:20 is elite