I suppose this would depend a little bit on age, but in general - what times should someone hit in order to be consider a good runner? How about very good?
I first started running a few years ago (I'm 31), and I find that it's a constant moving target. What I first thought was good (below) now looks 'meh'...
Mile - under 5
5k - under 18
10k - under 38
Marathon - under 3
well on letsrun its 2:25 for the mile, 5:00 for the 2 mile, sub 2 for the marathon you get the picture
As long as you look relaxed...
For anyone over 30, I don't give a shit about their mile or 10K -- it's usually just a 5K or half/full test. Sub-18 sounds about right, and 1:25/3:00 is probably the half/full standard.
I'm sure others here will say they have a higher standard, but I have yet to see someone tell a 17:55/1:23/2:58 guy he's not a good runner.
Raysism wrote:
For anyone over 30, I don't give a shit about their mile or 10K -- it's usually just a 5K or half/full test. Sub-18 sounds about right, and 1:25/3:00 is probably the half/full standard.
I'm sure others here will say they have a higher standard, but I have yet to see someone tell a 17:55/1:23/2:58 guy he's not a good runner.
This is about right. Possibly getting age group awards at small/medium races.
Qualifying marks for me.
Even though they don't align performance-wise, I take note when this happens:
4:59 Mile
16:59 5K
36:59 10K
1:19:59 Half
2:59:59 Full
For women I would say:
Sub 21:00 5K
Sub 5:45 mile
Sub 2:35 800
Any slower and you aren't "good" in my opinion.
Sub 5:45? that seems pretty quick relative to the 5k time.
5k - 21min
1 mil - 6:10
800 - 2:45 maybe?
I would also add that the BQ for women seems close - but a little easy. Either that or the standard for men is a little hard. I think a 3:04 for a guy vs 3:30 for a female isn't equivalent.