What time's do you consider to be elite?

Top ten in the world in any given year or made a major final.

2:10:01 - equaled or broken 2231 times

27:30 - equaled or broken 2216 times

13:17 - equaled or broken 2256 times

source

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/index.html

Man what is your problem? I didn't say anything inflammatory nor did I insult you. People have different opinions than you. The only thing that "appears " here is that you are an idiot.

For example, you not counting 3:30 1500s as being equivalent to 3:47 miles. If you can do one, you can do the other. Thus, there are clearly more than 8 people under 3:47 practically in the context of this discussion.

Your Rupp section of writing is completely irrelevant to our discussion. The whole point is THIS year. What someone did in another year DOES NOT MATTER for this point. It has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity. It has to do with reading comprehension. Personally, no, I would not count 27:17 as elite. I would count it as on the edge of elite or sub-elite, but unlike you I am open to other peoples' opinions.

Rupp's #1 ranking in the 10k last year is silly. How many world class paced 10ks were even run in all of 2014? I think that event should have just had no ranking at all last year due to infrequency of competition.

Wow, out of all of the billions of people who have walked (and run) this earth, and of all the millions of runners past and present, I would love to be in a group of about 2,000 people.

Definition of elite

1. a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities.

The difference between elite and sub elite comes down to many a matter of semantics. Let's talk about elite on the international stage because that's where all runners on the professional path ultimately strive to compete at.

An elite runner should finish in the top five of the Olympic/World Finals or year end ranking.

Top five is very likely to win the event or be a medal contender. A top five QB is considered elite, a top 10 Qb is deemed to be good but not preferred by coaches or general managers.

But I also think tiers that follow the shape of a pyramid allow for more exact ranking based on number of competitors and levels within competition.

Tier 1A.

Medalist in Olympic/World s or top 3 in year end ranking

Tier 1B

Olympic/World Finalist or top 10 year end ranking

Tier 2

Olympic/World Semi Finalist or top 20 year end ranking

Tier 3

Olympic/World Qualifier

Tier 4

Someone within realistic range of qualifying for Olympic or World Championship qualifier.

3:43 mile

12:37 5k

26:17 10k

58:23 half marathon

2:02:57 marathon

everyone else is just a no good hobby jogger

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

Qualifying for a US Championship or Olympic Trials is just "sub-elite." Being "elite" is actually making the Olympic or World Championship team. (Except for the World Championship marathon team, for which most top runners do not try to qualify.)

Everyone else is a hobby jogger.

That's your opinion, and coming from presumably an average Joe posting on Letsrun doesn't carry much weight.

Respectfully, Vail has a pr of 2:10:47. That's not the same thing as he has not repeatedly run 2:15 and not improved, hence his pr that I listed.The Hanson runners that I mentioned have never run anywhere near that, except for Sell who doesn't run for them anymore. Morgan, Verran, Humphrey, O'Brien, etc.. all stuck at 5:10 pace (or thereabouts).Bobby Curtis has a pr of 2:11:20 and he has not been there that long, maybe about a year. The others have or had been there for several years.

outsiderunner wrote:

I tend to think more 2:15 than 2:18 for an elite male runner, but am not upset if one thinks 2:18 a better measure. Vail recently ran New York in 2:15:08. Is he not elite?

Based on what I said, a 2:20 guy is a sub-elite, not at elite.

Anyone who's qualified for a US Championship/Olympic Trials has committed themself to a high enough level to know what it takes to be an "elite". The majority of casual runners would refer to them as elite too.

I know a lot of 2:20-something guys (and 2:45+ marathon women)-- they are usually trying to juggle too much crap in their lives, while trying to train like an "elite" (or just below the level of an elite). They don't know what it's likely to fully commit to running and reap the benefits. These runners are sub-elite for a reason.

I stand by what I stated- making a US Championship/Olympic Trials qualifies you as an "elite". Anything below is sub-elite.

1) You have the right to your own opinion, as do I.

2) You don't have any clue how good a 2:20 something marathon would do without juggling too much crap in their lives and neither do I. You're guessing and assuming that they would be much better which may or may not be true, but I respect your point.

3) Your handle "coming from an elite" means nothing to me unless you put it with a name. If not, you can be real or pretend, no one will ever know.

4) It's not a dis on a 2:20 marathoner as it's something to be proud of, as is a 2:15. Regardless, it's not elite. A top national runner, sure, but elite, I respectfully disagree. The many U.S. 2:15 marathoners from the 80's, who weren't facing 2:05 marathoners, had no idea that they were elite. I've met quite a few at races and got to really chat it up. 2:15 is not elite...in my opinion it's merely no man's land. Sad and maybe unfair, but true. Kyle O'Brien ran 2:15:13 and I don't see anyone could possibly call him elite, and he's just one example.

Coming from an elite wrote:

Based on what I said, a 2:20 guy is a sub-elite, not at elite....I stand by what I stated- making a US Championship/Olympic Trials qualifies you as an "elite". Anything below is sub-elite.

So Glen Latimer is ultimately the person who decides who is elite or not? In addition, a person's "elite credentials" could be taken away at any moment? Everything depends on the variable standards set by USATF?

Making the Marathon Trials, whether male or female, does not make you an elite. Finishing 2 miles behind the winner is simply not "elite".

Neutral Observer wrote:

Coming from an elite wrote:

Based on what I said, a 2:20 guy is a sub-elite, not at elite....I stand by what I stated- making a US Championship/Olympic Trials qualifies you as an "elite". Anything below is sub-elite.

So Glen Latimer is ultimately the person who decides who is elite or not? In addition, a person's "elite credentials" could be taken away at any moment? Everything depends on the variable standards set by USATF?

We need a thread regarding simply the semantics and definitions of each word. I see the following words thrown around a lot regarding fast athletes:

Elite

World-Beater

Professional

Competitive

Any of the above words with the prefix "semi-" or "sub"

We need to have about 30 or 50 threads regarding the definition of each word before we can start placing the word on different times.

800 - 1:49

Mile - 3:59

3200 -8:30

5K - 13:40

10K - 28:30

1/2 - 1:04

26.2 - 2:15

Neutral Observer wrote:

So Glen Latimer is ultimately the person who decides who is elite or not? In addition, a person's "elite credentials" could be taken away at any moment? Everything depends on the variable standards set by USATF?

Glen raised the bar to reflect the current state of the sport. Unfortunately, American men haven't really stepped up to meet the raised bar, like the women have.

Btw, the Olympic Trials standards are the IAAF standards, and in my mind (and other elite minds) if you're good enough to be on the IAAF performance list/have an IAAF profile, you're an elite. While we're at it, if most sub 2:18 guys were from any other country, they'd be Olympians and National heroes.

No need to continue arguing with a bunch of Letsrun armchair critics who have no idea, or respect, of the work that goes into making a National Championship/Olympic Trials. You're average for a reason.

You are not really following the logic of your own argument. You said, " How many people even ran within 1 MINUTE of the world record? There were no elite 10k guys last year except for maybe Rupp."

I answered that there were FOUR and I named them, pointed out that Rupp is now 15th fastest ever (which according to you still doesn't meet your definition of elite - as it is slower than 26:40). The others ran 26:49, 26:52, and 26:54.

Then you say, "Personally, no, I would not count 27:17 as elite. I would count it as on the edge of elite or sub-elite, but unlike you I am open to other peoples' opinions."

I never argued anything about being within 1-minute of the WR, and none of the people listed ran as slow as 27:17. I still do feel (for what it is worth and it ain't worth much) that anyone who runs 27:17 EVER is an elite runner.

My point was that if you have an unrealistic perception of "elite" if you can't, based on time, count people who MEDALED in the last two global championships and then improved timewise this year as "elite" then who is?

Paul Tanui medaled in the 2013 WC in the 10k, Rupp medaled in the 2012 Olympics. Then they BOTH ran the fastest they ever have at 10k in 2014, then they ranked number 1 and number 2 in the World in 2014. Yet you say that they aren't "elite".

Do you see the difficulty there?

I appreciate that people have different opinions and I don't feel like everyone should share mine, just that they should have opinions based on reason and logic.

In the last 10 years there have been just THREE people who would meet your criteria:

Kenenisa Bekele

Micah Kogo

Zersenay Tadese

These three ran under 26:40, 7 years ago, 9 yrs ago, and 9 yrs ago.

Indeed there are only 12 people who have done it all-time. So, by your rationale, there have been NO elite 10k runners for SEVEN years and only one in the last nine yrs.

I feel that you and "Ghost of Jhasari's" grasp of track is so weak that you don't realize that with a standard of ...

3:47

12:50

26:40

... being elite, that is an impossibly high level to reach. If you are the best in the World at a point in time or for an entire year, then you are the best, that is the definition of "elite". It is up to you to decide what TIME constitute "elite", but consider this:

If you take accept 3:30 as an equivalent to 3:47, only 14 men in the last 10 years meet your definition.

Kiplagat

Kiprop

Mo Farah

Ron Kwemoi

Dan Kip. Komen

Rashid Ramzi

Choge

Ndiku

Amine Laâlou

Ayanleh Souleiman

Bernard Lagat

Abdelati Iguider

Aman Wote

Nick Willis

So their are only 1-2 guys each year that meet your standard.

In the 5k it is WORSE. There are only 8 people who meet your standard in the last 10 years:

Dejene Gebremeskel

Hagos Gebrhiwet

Kenenisa Bekele

Isiah Koech

Issac Songok

Yenew Alamirew

Thomas Longosiwa

John Kipkoech

6 out of the last 10 yrs NOBODY did it.

Your last rhetorical question:

"Rupp's #1 ranking in the 10k last year is silly. How many world class paced 10ks were even run in all of 2014? I think that event should have just had no ranking at all last year due to infrequency of competition."

Do you really want to posit what my definition of "world class" is? My answer (so this question is not allowed to remain rhetorical) is about 25 "world class paced 10ks were ... run in all of 2014."

Again, there are parts of the track world that you aren't even aware of, like the Japanese Corporate track circuit. But this is circular logic, you don't consider someone to be elite, because (even though they were the fastest in the world) there were not enough "world class" 10ks held that year for you to consider that valid.

Coming from an elite wrote:

While we're at it, if most sub 2:18 guys were from any other country, they'd be Olympians and National heroes.

Any other country? You mean, like Kenya and Ethiopia? Yeah, if you are a woman...

Peak of the roman empire, renessaince perhaps?

Think of the numbers. There are about 500,000 marathon finishers a year in the US and the average time is about 4:30 to 5:00.

Maybe 20-30 men a year are running 2:15 or faster in the US. That puts them in the 0.01%. or in the 99.99%. Think about that for a bit and get back to us.