An age grade of >70% is good and >75% is "fast" in my opinion. >80% is very competitive. Then you are definitely fast. Of course, you would still be far behind the truly gifted outliers, but 80%+ is a very strong performance.
An age grade of >70% is good and >75% is "fast" in my opinion. >80% is very competitive. Then you are definitely fast. Of course, you would still be far behind the truly gifted outliers, but 80%+ is a very strong performance.
Let's not get off track. The types of runner must be:
1. Fast
2. Not fast
3. Not slow
4. Slow
The OP was asking about what separates #3 from #4.
Also, all the stuff about obesity and age is just a red herring. Some people are Slow because they are overweight, some people are Slow because they are old. That doesn't make them Not slow. If you were talking about fast/slow cars, would you allow the fastest economy sedan to be called "fast"? (We must allow women as a separate runner category, though.) As a 70% 54-yo, I fall squarely in the "Not slow" category. The best I can claim is "not bad for an old guy", but in the real world it's "Not slow", trending to "Slow".
For a man (any age), these one-mile times seem reasonable to me:
Fast sub-4:15, Not fast 4:15-5:15, Not slow 5:15-6:15, Slow 6:15+
Hmm, maybe I am already Slow.
Other posters are correct, "slow" is so subjective. My measuring stick is the times I ran while I was pregnant - 1:30-and-change half marathon (with a pee break) and a 6:30 pace for a 4-miler. Anyone who runs slower than that is slow.
Slow is subjective.
But if you want truth, here it is.
You know what they call 2nd place at the Boston Marathon?
Loser.
Also ran.
If you don't run a 2:03:02 marathon, you are "slow."
*gets back on pedestal*
Alan Bennet wrote:
Let's not get off track. The types of runner must be:
1. Fast
2. Not fast
3. Not slow
4. Slow
The OP was asking about what separates #3 from #4.
Also, all the stuff about obesity and age is just a red herring. Some people are Slow because they are overweight, some people are Slow because they are old. That doesn't make them Not slow. If you were talking about fast/slow cars, would you allow the fastest economy sedan to be called "fast"? (We must allow women as a separate runner category, though.) As a 70% 54-yo, I fall squarely in the "Not slow" category. The best I can claim is "not bad for an old guy", but in the real world it's "Not slow", trending to "Slow".
For a man (any age), these one-mile times seem reasonable to me:
Fast sub-4:15, Not fast 4:15-5:15, Not slow 5:15-6:15, Slow 6:15+
Hmm, maybe I am already Slow.
This guy got the spirit of the original post. Kudos.
age grader wrote:
An age grade of >70% is good and >75% is "fast" in my opinion. >80% is very competitive. Then you are definitely fast. Of course, you would still be far behind the truly gifted outliers, but 80%+ is a very strong performance.
Man is being competitive in jogging races this easy? I have a age grade rating of 88% in the 60m and never get close to winning anything. Or are the tables screwy for sprints?
That's how it is for me. My slow down has been incredible the last few years. Going from 1:22 half marathons to 1:48, And I don't know why ...
Alan Bennet wrote:
Let's not get off track. The types of runner must be:
1. Fast
2. Not fast
3. Not slow
4. Slow
The OP was asking about what separates #3 from #4.
Also, all the stuff about obesity and age is just a red herring. Some people are Slow because they are overweight, some people are Slow because they are old. That doesn't make them Not slow. If you were talking about fast/slow cars, would you allow the fastest economy sedan to be called "fast"? (We must allow women as a separate runner category, though.) As a 70% 54-yo, I fall squarely in the "Not slow" category. The best I can claim is "not bad for an old guy", but in the real world it's "Not slow", trending to "Slow".
For a man (any age), these one-mile times seem reasonable to me:
Fast sub-4:15, Not fast 4:15-5:15, Not slow 5:15-6:15, Slow 6:15+
Hmm, maybe I am already Slow.
+1
I was going to say the same thing, you beat me to it.
Also, 4:30 should be the cutoff from Fast to Not Fast, because "everyone ran a 4:30 mile in high school".
For males Prior to age-related decline - sub 18 5k
I would think it's something along the lines of 40 yards in 5.3 seconds
squarelyjc wrote:
Full in the blanks with your opinion of the max pace you can run at a certain distances to avoid being labeled a slow runner.
I think if you can run 13.1 miles at 7:00 pace, you are not slow.
That doesn't make you very fast, either.
If I see a runner going at sub 7 pace on the road I don’t think they’re slow
My feelings like this have changed as I age.
At 60, I'd be very happy to run under 19:00 for 5K. I used to do tempo runs much faster than that.
I rarely ran slower that 7:00 per mile on even the easiest runs. Now, if I see 7:xx on my watch I'm happy.
mediocresprinter wrote:
age grader wrote:
An age grade of >70% is good and >75% is "fast" in my opinion. >80% is very competitive. Then you are definitely fast. Of course, you would still be far behind the truly gifted outliers, but 80%+ is a very strong performance.
Man is being competitive in jogging races this easy? I have a age grade rating of 88% in the 60m and never get close to winning anything. Or are the tables screwy for sprints?
I don't like races that give awards based on Age Grading (in place of regular AG awards) but I think for this discussion that is a valid point.
I think your %'s are on.