I want to be good; so please help.

I would say that those are pretty damn good times. I wish I could break 15 for 5K and run 1:06 for a half marathon. I think Seriesrunner might be pulling our collective legs again.

Oh and Series thanks for the entertainment on this thread, although most of us could tell is was all in fun, some couldn't which makes it entertaining. Kept my fingers busy, ha.

Poker is better than BlackJack.

Have you heard that joke?

Kid walks in on his mom and dad while they're having sex. Bewildered the kid asks, "what are you doing?" The dad, quick to respond, replies "Your mom and I are playing poker and she is my wildcard." The kid replies "ok" and walks away.

The next day, the kid again walks in on the dad, except the dad is jerking off in the bathroom. The kid says, "Dad, what are you doing?" "I am playing poker, son."

Confused, the kid asks, "but where is your mom, your wildcard?"

Holding out his hand, dad says "Who needs a wildcard when you have a hand like this?"

As for whether it is average...certainly, those times are on the slow side for someone focusing on running.

When exactly did Galloway sell out? His first, book, which was from the early-mid 1980's (?) is pretty damn good, I think.

I don't have it sitting in front of me (I'm at work), but didn't he suggest doing workouts like 13x1mile intervals on the track for marathon training?

I'll have to look at it tonight. At some point, yes, he sold out.

You Gallow-haters are just behind the times and need to catch up with the cutting edge Galloway ideas. In fact, I just read that Lance Armstrong is planning on taking some walking breaks during the steep mountains in the next Tour de France. He has reasoned that on the really steep ascents, he is going so slow, that walking and pushing his bike will be as fast as riding AND he will give his weary legs a break. You watch, when he does that and then rides faster than ever, no one will EVER talk bad about Galloway again!!

Go Sir Gallow-Lance!!!

this is going to be my new definition of what makes a runner "competitive" !! people keep saying it might help people slower than 3:30 to do the Gallow-walking thing, but not people faster than that.

competitive, (adj.); if gallow-walking improves your race times, you're NOT.

The times of which the coach speaks are average at best.

When one needs to start qualifying why a time is better than it appears, then one needs to stop listening to he who is so qualifying.

A time is either fast or not, and the times quoted simply aren't fast.

Sure, they may be fast for the universe of people who: (a) watch 8 hours of football on sunday, (b) drink with the boys on friday, (c) eat chinese three times a week, and (d) have an amputated pinkie toe; but fast in an objective sense they are not.

The point for which you should thank me is as follows: each person has circumstances which, for whatever reason, generally place some limitation on their ability to get faster. When you revert to qualifications, you become subjective and lose all perspective of fast. You are no different than those in the Clydesdale race category

I liked the joke. Good thread topic too, whether you were serious or not (I assumed you were not). As for 14:52/1:06/2:25 being considered "average", I still disagree, but that could be argued all day.

Less than 1 in 1000 finishers cracked 2:25 at Chicago in 2000. I assume that's probably typical for flat, fast courses.

No goddamned way 2:25 is average. Just one man's opinion, mind you.

I'm very interested to see SeriousRunner's PBs posted. He sure talks big. He must be real FAST.

Pete,

Thanks, this average runner also would like to know Mr. Serious' PB : )

Read my words carefully before engaging in seemingly logical reasoning.If you are working and have a life outside of running, then 2:25 is impressive. However, if running is to you what work is to me, then 2:25 is average to below average at best. Those who run 2:25 while working and being responsible for a family deserve the utmost respect and they surely would run faster had they no such responsibilities.BUT--impressive or not, once we qualify one's performance, in essence, we are making an excuse for a time we think not to be that good, in objective terms. When I tell you that I ran 15:30, your reply is, well, not so impressive. Then I further qualify that statement to say, that was run when I was 17, then you say, well, you were an average to above average HS runner. The latter is an excuse--justification for not running what we truly consider to be a fast time.The dude who ran 2:25 while working and supporting a family...his time is impressive--much better than others who do the same. However, when compared to those who do nothing but run and the absence of context---can you say with a straight face that 2:25 (not fast enough to beat several women) is a good men's time for the 26.2? If so, you are a better liar than I.

Pete wrote:

Less than 1 in 1000 finishers cracked 2:25 at Chicago in 2000. I assume that's probably typical for flat, fast courses.

No goddamned way 2:25 is average. Just one man's opinion, mind you.

I'm very interested to see SeriousRunner's PBs posted. He sure talks big. He must be real FAST.

I can't find any fault in your logic. It's just the conceit implicit in your point of view. You've called out a guy as being average for only getting to 2:25. Sure, maybe 2:25 is only average among a group of pretty good runners. It's a pretty arbitrary standard to pick and label. You're looking down your nose at those who haven't cracked 2:25. If you've done better, then you have that right to look down at the "slowpokes." Given you may have that right, it's not evident to me why you would choose to exercise it. Out with it - what is your marathon PB? It's relevant to this discussion.