If I described myself as an above average distance runner in high school, what would you expect my times to be?

Sesamoiditis wrote:

So when you ran 4:19/9:31 you didn't notice that you were much faster than most if not all of your teammates and were finishing races in front of most if not all of your competitors?

Well yes that is true but I always wanted to be a name on the national scale. In my mind 1:52/4:08/8:55 is an "excellent" high school runner, 1:54/4:16/9:10 is a "good" high school runner. And so, if 1:56/4:20/9:25 was "above average" then I fit right in there. Anything above 4:30 and its comparable times is irrelevant.

I have the letsrun mentality. You are either a contender or a hobby jogger.

So if I ran these times in high school:

400: 52

800: 2:03

1600: 4:47

5k: 17:34 (XC)

How would you classify me as a distance runner?

It's all about perspective. If you are running 4:40 and winning varsity races in your town, then you feel above average.

In my day (late 70's) and where I came from (SoCal) 4:40 did not make varsity (except maybe at some of the small schools). No one ever won a dual meet with 2:08, 4:40, or 10:40.

If you got to run in our league finals. First, you would not make it out of qualifying, but if for some miracle reason you did (maybe you were tripped and granted entry), you'd be last in the final unless someone dropped out.

In those circumstances you won't feel above average.

nguigi wrote:

Sesamoiditis wrote:

So when you ran 4:19/9:31 you didn't notice that you were much faster than most if not all of your teammates and were finishing races in front of most if not all of your competitors?

Well yes that is true but I always wanted to be a name on the national scale. In my mind 1:52/4:08/8:55 is an "excellent" high school runner, 1:54/4:16/9:10 is a "good" high school runner. And so, if 1:56/4:20/9:25 was "above average" then I fit right in there. Anything above 4:30 and its comparable times is irrelevant.

I have the letsrun mentality. You are either a contender or a hobby jogger.

It would help if you understood the concept "average". Perhaps you should have asked; " Was I a very good high school distance runner?"

You know full well that 4:19 for 1600m is way above average for a high school distance runner. Read the definition for average in a good dictionary.

However, 4:19 is not a "big"threat for a state HS title....as you already know.

52/2:03 is above average. 2:03 is not as good as 52. Someone capable of 52 ought to be able to break 2:00. 4:47 and 17:34 are average.

You clearly had more speed than endurance. So as a "distance runner" you are average. As a middle distance runner you were above average. Not great, but decent.

Sub 17 guy

Sub 20:30 girl

when I was 13 I wanted to be the fastest 13 yr old 'in the neighborhood'/school. Likewise @14 and 15 and 16 ... then I wanted to be the fastest guy in the county with times reflecting that. My 'town' was LA as was my county/'section'. What city/town/county/state you run in impacts how you see yourself and what you can do and how you 'settle'. Hit on some of those, missed on others - but I never settled.

If you are talking about yesterday than you probably haven't done much lately..

More importantly can you run any of the same times on the track as you did in the mid 90's?

Now that would make you above average and relevant.

Don't use age or work as an excuse... At 40 years old you should still be able to run close to your 5k from high school....

W. Mitty wrote:

Analogously, consider the SAT. Would you regard a 600 as above average?

As an aside, the SAT is a normal distribution. The mean is set at 500 for each section with a standard deviation of 100. So a 600 in a given section is by definition 1 SD above the mean, or better than about 84% of students nationally. Running ability also occurs on a normal distribution although an abundance of confounding variables (obesity, age, etc.) make it much harder to figure out the mean and SD.

nguigi wrote:

This is a statement check. If I described myself as an above average high school distance runner what would be the slowest I could run to make that true?

1) The guys who point out that most HS distance teams have 5th-7th men running 19+ minutes for a 5k and that the "average" on those teams is ~19 minutes are of course mathematically correct,

BUT

2) I wouldn't consider anyone north of 19 minutes to be a "distance runner."

"High school distance joggers" maybe, but not "distance runners."

well I think in my case I could use age as an excuse - and i have done zip in last (many - many) yrs

sat is easy wrote:

W. Mitty wrote:

Analogously, consider the SAT. Would you regard a 600 as above average?

As an aside, the SAT is a normal distribution. The mean is set at 500 for each section with a standard deviation of 100. So a 600 in a given section is by definition 1 SD above the mean, or better than about 84% of students nationally. Running ability also occurs on a normal distribution although an abundance of confounding variables (obesity, age, etc.) make it much harder to figure out the mean and SD.

Yes, that was my point: the SAT is a normal distribution. The analogy was meant to help clarify what the original poster considered as "above average". But +1 stdev > 84%? Am I missing something obvious here (not unlikely)?

As for confounding variables, one thing I didn't delve into deeply was the issue of populations and representative samples for each. E.g., in comparing running times to SAT scores, should we compare only varsity times to college bound scores? No need to get technical, just want to nod in that direction.

nguigi wrote:

If I described myself as an above average high school distance runner what would be the slowest I could run to make that true?

"pretty good":

4:50-5:00

"above average":

4:35-4:50

"good":

4:25-4:35

"real good":

4:15-4:25

"one of the best in the state":

4:05-4:15

"one of the best high school runners ever":

sub 4:05

TheSenioritis wrote:

800m: 2:15-2:20

Are you serious?

I ran two 800 races in HS, off of zero track training but being fit from other sports.

The times were 2:12, 2:09. I think the second was faster because I was in running trainers and not skateboard shoes.

4runner wrote:

2) I wouldn't consider anyone north of 19 minutes to be a "distance runner."

"High school distance joggers" maybe, but not "distance runners."

I consider 5k times in the 18s and 19s to be very JV-like. This conversation starts at 17:05 and builds from there. Here are some of my idea's cutoffs:

* 15:25 - outstanding

* 16:10 - above average

* 17:05 - average

* 18:00 - below average

I was definitely not outstanding but from this outlook above average for varsity distance runners.

No Way wrote:

Steve Martin wrote:

Not sure why people put the 400 times in for distance runners.

800: 2:10

1600: 5:00

3200: 10:30

5K: 17:30

10K: 37:00

Those times are all over the place. 2:10 for 800m is nowhere near the same as 5:00 for the 1600 or any of those other times. 17:30 for 5k is way more impressive than 37:00 for 10k.

All of them are well above average though.

In New York in 2013, the average 5k xc time was 18:55.

To me, average is a time you could get from any decent athlete in HS with a couple of months training. To be above average, you would have to be a guy for which it would take some serious training to find a replacement. It is easy to find 2:15 guys. It is easy to find guys who can get "close" to 5:00 and not break it. It is a tad harder to find a guy who can get 18:00, but not impossible, so I went with 17:30. The 40 minute guy is easy to find, but 37:00 is not.

nguigi wrote:

4runner wrote:

2) I wouldn't consider anyone north of 19 minutes to be a "distance runner."

"High school distance joggers" maybe, but not "distance runners."

I consider 5k times in the 18s and 19s to be very JV-like. This conversation starts at 17:05 and builds from there. Here are some of my idea's cutoffs:

* 15:25 - outstanding

* 16:10 - above average

* 17:05 - average

* 18:00 - below average

I was definitely not outstanding but from this outlook above average for varsity distance runners.

When the question is about "above average distance runners in high school," there is no stipulation that it only applies to varsity runners. When considering the stats from my hometown's best cross country team (which was a regular title contender in a smaller state about 10 years ago):

Varsity: 15:50-16:45

Next 7: 16:50-17:30

Next 14: 17:30-19:00

Next 30: 19:00-21:00

Next 30: 21:00-26:00

Last 5-10 would range from 26:00-32:00, usually.

Clearly, the top JV guys were still above average. This was a strong school; at most schools, anything under 18:00 would be contending for varsity, even on teams with 30+ members.

As a member of my smaller team at a small school outside of town, I was the top guy as a 10:19 3200/17:30 5k xc runner my senior year. We got 5th at state in the small school division - mainly because most everyone else was not too far behind me. My school later won and XC title with their top 5 being something like 16:20/16:40/17:20/17:40/17:45.

So, I would say that anyone who thinks it takes something like 16:30 to be above average is taking a ridiculously narrow view of high school distance runners. Maybe 16:30 is the above average cutoff for high schoolers who make distance running their biggest/only passion, but that cuts out a huge portion of all high school distance runners.