Whats a respectable 5k time to you?

Honestly? When I see someone running around 22 minutes, I start thinking "OK, this person is clearly working on their fitness pretty seriously." Now, obviously it doesn't blow me away or anything, but I take notice of it.

I consider anything under 18 to be absolutely exceptional

wfwefwfwefw wrote:

Honestly? When I see someone running around 22 minutes, I start thinking "OK, this person is clearly working on their fitness pretty seriously." Now, obviously it doesn't blow me away or anything, but I take notice of it.

I consider anything under 18 to be absolutely exceptional

Agreed, as long as it isn't HS XC guys

Either 7 minute miles (sub 22:00) or in the teens. 'elves are allowed too.

yeah 20:00 flat is a nice round number and is also about the top 10% of male runners in large open 5ks. Obviously you aren't going to get a track scholarship or anything but it's definitely respectable.

My breakdown

As far as guys not doing this for a living/scholarship I say:

Sub 22-Working on your fitness..congrats but keep going

Sub 20- Nice time, could talk training with this person, obviously takes running somewhat seriously

Sub 19- Into the 18's I say well done. Took a bit of commitment.

Sub 18-Respect. Decent 5k time. Would feel this runner takes running seriously and has either invested a lot or is very eager to improve

Sub 17-Into the 16's and Id say your legit. Serious runner...know the score, work hard.

Sub 16-Ballin. Anybody with a 15 in front of their PR is pretty awesome in my book

Sub 15-Superstar

Well, if you mean when do I start to take a guy seriously as a threat to me in races; I look for guys who are consistently under 15:30 and assume I'll have to pay attention to them and maybe let them do some work up front early in the race.

In terms of just respecting people as athletes and runners, anything under 20 minutes shows some talent or effort in my opinion.

Anything under 18:35 (sub 6) is pretty impressive. Unless you're in HS or college. Really sub 20 is competitive at least in age groups at most road races.

The times listed above are pretty accurate but age plays into it for me also. I don't hold a 40 year old to the same standard as a 20 something.

I'm just a hobby jogger in my late 30s, and my original goal was sub 20. I think it takes a bit of dedication to hit that as a hobby jogger. That said, ~18:30 is my current threshold ( sub 6 pace ) for noticing a person who is over 35 or so.

PoliceCops wrote:

Some guy broke down the times pretty well in a thread about a month ago.

I can't find the thread....but he said something like 15:59 and lower was "ballin'".

When looking at race results, I always look at who ran 16:59 and lower and nobody else.

I should clarify. It's not that I don't respect people who run Sub-20 (which does show a good amount of fitness), it's just that I'm very impressed by anything in the 16:XX and lower. At most semi-competitive road races the people who are running in the 16's are winning the race or within the top 5.

I'd also like to think that anyone running a sub-6 pace for a 5K has some innate athletic ability. The average person CANNOT do that even if they train for it.

At what age and what sex? For a male, I'd say 1600 is OK for HS, pretty bad for college, but exceptional for your typical Master's runner.

30 seconds slower than my PR.

Note: The times I listed above are my opinion for male aged 25-35.

Anything over 35 or female obviously requires adjustments to those times.

5k hmmmmmm wrote:

At what pr (sub 20, sub 18, sub 17 etc.) do you start to take a guy seriously?

What age are yopu talking about? Most of the top master runners are under 16:40 easy.

I'm in my early 40s, so when I see someone around my age running a sub 18:00 5k, I take notice.

How would you adjust it for females? I need to evaluate my self-worth as a runner (kidding...sort of).

As someone who runs 16:XX, I feel that most of the pub goes to guys who run in the mid-15's. Therein lies the difference between 2nd place and the overall winner on many occassions.

5k hmmmmmm wrote:

My breakdown

As far as guys not doing this for a living/scholarship I say:

Sub 22-Working on your fitness..congrats but keep going

Sub 20- Nice time, could talk training with this person, obviously takes running somewhat seriously

Sub 19- Into the 18's I say well done. Took a bit of commitment.

Sub 18-Respect. Decent 5k time. Would feel this runner takes running seriously and has either invested a lot or is very eager to improve

Sub 17-Into the 16's and Id say your legit. Serious runner...know the score, work hard.

Sub 16-Ballin. Anybody with a 15 in front of their PR is pretty awesome in my book

Sub 15-Superstar

I did the nerd work on my own. According to the IAAF conversion charts:

sub 22:00 Male = sub 31:18 Female

sub 20:00 Male = sub 27:35 Female

sub 19:00 Male = sub 25:44 Female

sub 18:00 Male = sub 23:53 Female

sub 17:00 Male = sub 22:01 Female

sub 16:00 Male = sub 20:10 Female

sub 15:00 Male = sub 18:19 Female

This would currently put me at "serious/legit." I'll take it, but do you really think a 16:xx male performance is the same as 20:xx-21:xx female performance? I kind of feel like the female conversion here is a little on the soft side, but maybe I have high standards. I guess this did say for NON-scholarship/pro runners, but still..

"Due to obvious biological differences, it is not proposed to fully compare men's and women's

performances. Thus, the system contains scoring tables for men's and women's events respectively."

-From the IAAF Conversion Tables, "Author's Introduction," p. VI.