3:20 marathon by 44 year old male is:
A. Solid
B. Average
C. Mediocre
D. Slow
3:20 marathon by 44 year old male is:
A. Solid
B. Average
C. Mediocre
D. Slow
Based on the percentage of 44yr. old marathoners that run under 3:20, I would call it "solid".
E. Dead slow
Between B&C.
Keep em coming. Need large sample.
slow
Disputed wrote:
3:20 marathon by 44 year old male is:
A. Solid
B. Average
C. Mediocre
D. Slow
Well, a 3:20 marathon for ANY age group is not AVERAGE, so anyone calling it less than solid is full of it.
With "solid" as the top choice, I think you're forcing people to pick something else.
I would do this:
A. Great
B. Solid
C. Mediocre
D. Slow
And, then I would pick B. Solid.
You need to restate this poll with different words. "average" for example is a bad qualifier, because it can have several meanings. What does solid mean? fast? Mediocre and slow are basically the same thing, right? See what I mean. You need different qualifiers.
It can only be solid, since it is so far above the average marathon time for that demographic. Anyone who thinks that it is average or worse is ignorant about marathon times for that demographic. Also, there is no difference between average and mediocre when time is at issue.
duderz wrote:
You need to restate this poll with different words. "average" for example is a bad qualifier, because it can have several meanings. What does solid mean? fast? Mediocre and slow are basically the same thing, right? See what I mean. You need different qualifiers.
Mediocre wouldn't be equal to Slow here. Mediocre and Average are synonyms.
Yep, "solid" too low on the high-end options. He needs something like "outstanding" for "A".
Depends on whether or not the person trained for a marathon. If the person engaged in a marathon training program, then slow.
I think definition of mediocre is below avg, better than horrible.
More info of runner:
Someone fit. Works at it, long runs, speed work etc...
Been at it for ten or so years.
Disputed wrote:
I think definition of mediocre is below avg, better than horrible.
More info of runner:
Someone fit. Works at it, long runs, speed work etc...
Been at it for ten or so years.
And has run how many prior marathons? + has what PRs for shorter distances like 5M, 10k, 1/2 marathon?
D. Slow
When trained correctly any 44yo could be running sub 2:20
It qualifies for Boston.
A.
This age grading stuff is dumb. A 3:20 is a slow average time. Being 44 doesn't change this. Lagat will be 39 or 40 this year and he's still running sub 13 for 5k. Just accept that your time is slow and stop trying to make it better by applying your age to it.
That's about 7:40 pace. I can't believe that would qualify for Boston. It's not slow. It's not particularly fast either, but . . . . . Is this 44 year old a relatively new runner? How many miles/week? Is he fat? Did he run the 3:20 at the end of an ironman? Course? Weather? Need more info and better choices. Hard to differentiate between "average" and "mediocre". What the hell does "solid" mean?
come on, it's clearly solid if you look at average times in that demographic. No, it's not very fast, but it's far faster than average for that age group.
And why customize the answer based on whether someone is fat, skinny, new to running, etc? If any 44 year old male runs that time for a marathon, it's solid.
Now, what would he need to run for the time to be considered "excellent"? I say sub 2:50. And "outstanding"? Maybe low 2:40s or faster.
A-Solid.
Unless your audience is Letsrun. In this case the runner was some sort of pansy hobby jogger, he would have to drop 40 minutes to achieve "C-Mediocre".