How good is a 2:30 marathon really?

It is good and very respectable, but a ton of asshats on here will probably say it is average.

Do most people respect this time?

Yes. Note that the answer would have been different if you had asked about the LRC crowd rather than "people".

What does it say about a runner?

That they are able to run a marathon in under 2:30

Can anyone do it with enough training?

No.

... or does it require at least some natural/genetic talent?

Yes.

What percent of D1 runners will go on to do it?

12.4%. Note that the answer would be VERY different if you asked what percent COULD do it if they focussed on this goal for a couple of years.

How hard is it to go from 2:30 to 2:20?

Very hard.

For instance, does anyone who breaks 2:30 early enough (say before 27 years old) have a legitimate chance at improving to 2:19 and make the Trials?

If they hit 2:22 at the age of 22 then their chances are good. If they hit 2:29 at 27 then I'd say their chances are not so good.

... I'm looking to break 2:30 within a couple months and I'm just generally curious as to how good it actually is...

It is quite good. If you succeed I will be impressed.

2:30 is pretty good for a chick. 2:20 is really good.

Generally Curiouss wrote:

How hard is it to go from 2:30 to 2:20?

It would be like going from a 15:00 5K to 13:55. Although if you are able to run 2:30 on relatively low mileage and can tolerate high mileage, it might not be quite as hard as knocking more than a minute off your 5K PR.

Times aren't everything, but 2:30 is about 1 minute per mile slower than the world record. It is about as impressive as a 4:30 mile.

That said, it is faster than my 5k pace, and most casual and even serious runners will think you are a god for running that fast a marathon.

A 2:30 marathon is far more impressive than a 4:30mile. Even though natural talent required may be the same, the work you need to put in for the M is just so much more.

^^^This pretty much nails it.

I don't know what you're trying to get by asking this question. Perhaps you'd like to see examples that it's possible for a 2:29 guy to eventually become a trials qualifier because that's your end goal. If so, then yes, people have done it before. Is it possible for you? We have no way of knowing.

Just keep your nose to the grindstone for a few years (or longer) and see where it takes you.

Sub240 wrote:

A 2:30 marathon is far more impressive than a 4:30mile.

McMillan calculates a 2:30 as a 4:26.5 mile.

Sub240 wrote:

A 2:30 marathon is far more impressive than a 4:30mile.

web reader wrote:

McMillan calculates a 2:30 as a 4:26.5 mile.

An equivalent marathon is much more difficult, i.e. takes a lot more work than running a mile.

This time is better than I've hit so far. As far as some of the other comments I've seen here:

My former coach ran between 130 and 155 mpw for 3 years and never broke 2:25. His first marathon (with no specific training) was 2:45, and broke 2:30 with his next, but he claims to be one of the least talented runners on his college teams (Iowa and Montana in the mid 70s). I guess what I'm trying to illustrate is that this is likely the asymptote of what someone can achieve without a hole lot of talent, but pure dedication.

I will never break 2:30 (lack of talent and unwillingness to put in those kinds of miles) but breaking 2:40 should be relatively attainable for me.

I can say for sure that a 4:30 mile is easier than a 2:30 marathon. I could show up from base phase in college and run a 4:26 mile, but no chance in hell could I have done a 2:30.

Running 2:30 might not take a ton of talent, but it does take a lot more work than a comparable 5k or whatever other distance.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

2:30 is pretty good for a chick. 2:20 is really good.

The "X is pretty good for a chick" joke is really not that funny.

Let's be realistic here. By IAAF tables, a 2:30 marathon is equivalent to

~4:25 mile

~15:15 5000

What percentage of D1 runners can do this? Well, TFRRS lists the #200 5000 time in D1 last year as 14:21 (and that was form the US Naval Academy, which might tell you something).

If you cannot run 15:15 (ever, not just coming out of high school), you are probably not good enough to run D1 in a distance event. You are certainly not any good as a D1 distance athlete, and every single person who qualifies for NCAAs in 5000/10000 is probably capable of running significantly faster than 2:30.

The times listed here are roughly what someone with what Renato has described as "mediocre talent" is able to accomplish.

Now I know someone who ran about 2:50 off 50-60 mpw, and eventually ran 2:24 I think off 115, barely missing the OT and once finishing about #15 American at Boston. So there's a prospect for someone who does it with light training (which is why many of us who coach try to recruit such people). But ~2:30/15:00/4:20 off hard training and significant mileage is about the point where people with non-elite talent run out of talent.

I think how far a 2:30er can go is personal. I ran 2:29:13 at 27 in my first effort. I was confident that I could have improved a good deal on that with more miles (I was more quality than quantity), but I never thought I could get into the low 2:20s, let alone south of that. I'd been running for a while. In fact I didn't finish a second marathon for another 23 years (I DNFed the year after the first one).

It may be that a relative newbie who pops a sub-2:30 out of the box with low mileage has a lot more upside potential than does someone for whom the first marathon is a natural progression from racing shorter stuff.

InWyo wrote:

This time is better than I've hit so far. As far as some of the other comments I've seen here:

My former coach ran between 130 and 155 mpw for 3 years and never broke 2:25. His first marathon (with no specific training) was 2:45, and broke 2:30 with his next, but he claims to be one of the least talented runners on his college teams (Iowa and Montana in the mid 70s). I guess what I'm trying to illustrate is that this is likely the asymptote of what someone can achieve without a hole lot of talent, but pure dedication.

I will never break 2:30 (lack of talent and unwillingness to put in those kinds of miles) but breaking 2:40 should be relatively attainable for me.

Lots of talented people claim to be not talented to make their achievements seem greater. Also, there's some genetic luck involved in being able to run 150 mile weeks consistently without getting hurt, though obviously your coach deserves props for putting in the work.

coach d wrote:

Now I know someone who ran about 2:50 off 50-60 mpw, and eventually ran 2:24 I think off 115, barely missing the OT and once finishing about #15 American at Boston. So there's a prospect for someone who does it with light training (which is why many of us who coach try to recruit such people). But ~2:30/15:00/4:20 off hard training and significant mileage is about the point where people with non-elite talent run out of talent.

Is it considered rare to be able to run a 2:50 marathon off 50-60mpw? I think there is an awful lot of people that can do that. I can do it and I never ran in high school or college.

I'm sorry but i see this crap all over and it's just dumb. An 18 minute kid out of high school can find some D1 school that they can run for. My 7th place in conference D2 school beat plenty of D1 schools. D1 is way way deeper at the front end. But there is also a back end that is just as slow as the slow d2 or d3 kids. There is a lot more to D1 then the schools that are talked about on this website.

coach d wrote:

Let's be realistic here. By IAAF tables, a 2:30 marathon is equivalent to

~4:25 mile

~15:15 5000

What percentage of D1 runners can do this?

You look at it the wrong way. What percentage of D1 runners can run those times today?

4:25mile/15:15 5k: ~80% (the rest is injured or recovering from injury)

2:30 Marathon: <5%

Of course the last number would change with the required Long Runs and taper, but right now, or tomorrow morning, I am sure there are not more than 5%.

I've run under 2:30 a few times with a best of 2:26. My experience is most runners have a solid amount of respect for sub 2:30, and the general population is often in awe and will often think you're elite. 2:19/2:18 seemed more or less impossible to me even after breaking 2:30 (at age 23), but it seemed a lot more possible after running 2:26 a year after first running 2:29. It isn't an overly tough standard to hit as there are lots and lots of people who could do it, but it's hard enough that there aren't that many people who ultimately do run sub 2:30, so there's a real discrepancy between people with the potential for it and people who do it which I think accounts for a lot of the difference in how runners view it versus non-runners.