What do the masses say? And please keep in mind the difference between "respectable" and "good."
I'd say anything under 20 fits the bill for "respectable." At 80 percent of road races, that'll earn you an age-group award.
Good? Gotta go under 18:30, at least.
Depends who you hang out with.
Age grade tables give you the following for a 40-year old man:
60% (Local class): 22:45
70% (Regional class): 19:30
80% (National class): 17:04
90% (World class): 15:10
Yeah, for the general masses, I think your sub 20 = "respectable" is reasonable.
How would you classify 25:59 for a 40-something guy? Just curious...
He hangs with Plus-size women if that helps.
Does he drive a small car?
Any average 40+ year old should be able to break 15:30 with moderate running (10-15 mpw) after 4 months.
Is "small car" a new euphemism for male genetalia?
A
One of 'em wrote:
16:30
Out west 16:00 to 16:30 in CA
Az 16:50 easy
17 flat in TX
When I look at all the races to see the first master, I see a lot of mid 18's. Of course that gets much faster as the races get more competitive.
it's all relative wrote:
Depends who you hang out with.
Age grade tables give you the following for a 40-year old man:
60% (Local class): 22:45
70% (Regional class): 19:30
80% (National class): 17:04
90% (World class): 15:10
Yeah, for the general masses, I think your sub 20 = "respectable" is reasonable.
where'd you get these?
no. 15.30 is only realistic if you are doing high mileage (80+).
Mugsy Bogues wrote:
it's all relative wrote:Depends who you hang out with.
Age grade tables give you the following for a 40-year old man:
60% (Local class): 22:45
70% (Regional class): 19:30
80% (National class): 17:04
90% (World class): 15:10
Yeah, for the general masses, I think your sub 20 = "respectable" is reasonable.
where'd you get these?
Runnersworld has an age grade calculator.
Any 40-year old who runs 10-15 mpw should crack 15:30 for a 5K within 4 months? what in the fuc-k are you smoking?
I played with the Runner's World age graded table and it IMO is skewed to give higher ratings to the 5K distance compared to a marathon.
For a 43 year old male: 19:09 for a 5K is about equal to a 2:59:59 marathon.
A 2:59:59 is much tougher for most 43 year olds IMO.
I wonder how this data was compiled.
I used Boston Qualifying time for a 43 year old of 3:14:59 and the aged grade table gave me 20:44 being about equal ranking.
No way. I would bet a lot more 43 year olds could run 20:44 than 3:14:59 for a marathon.
Some funky calculation there.
Did you mis the heading??? It says. "Average" guy. Do you understand AVERAGE???
The 60% age graded post shows 22:15 for a 40 year old. Of course the heading is OVER 40, so 20:15 IS respectable. Reality?? 23 is probably respectable for OVER 40 'Average' guys. Do you see it??
opnion nated wrote:
I played with the Runner's World age graded table and it IMO is skewed to give higher ratings to the 5K distance compared to a marathon.
For a 43 year old male: 19:09 for a 5K is about equal to a 2:59:59 marathon.
A 2:59:59 is much tougher for most 43 year olds IMO.
I wonder how this data was compiled.
that´s true. it´s statistics.
interesting is just the "age-performance %" of what someone has run in reality:
http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/wmalookup06.htmlBruce Deacon recently won a 5k race in B.C. in 15:52, I would say that is respectable. He's 46 years old.
For the average 40+ runner I would say 18-19 seconds is something to be reasonably happy with.