Here are the SUPER OFFICIAL, BARE MINIMUM, UNIVERSAL times to beat to NOT be a hobby jogger:

For those of you concerned with hobby jogger status, don't get chicked in races.

http://www.usatf.org/Events---Calendar/2016/U-S--Olympic-Team-Trials---Track---Field/Athlete-Information/Qualifying-Standards.aspx

Half marathon and marathon should be near or sub 6:00 minute pace times. Basically, no events where any 6-minute miles happen. I know some guys who picked up running after college and now run 2:35 marathons and 1:14 halfs. Never done track races, can barely break 5:00, don't know what track meets are like. etc.

Finisher Medal- wrote:

Let's end the discussion ONCE AND FOR ALL about who qualifies for Hobby Jogger status and who escapes that title.

Universal NOT HOBBY JOGGER Qualification times to BEAT (i.e., run faster than, under, or Sub) for MALE RUNNERS:

800m--2:00.00

1600m--4:30.00

3200m--10:00.00

5000m--16:00.00

10000m--35:00.00

Half marathon--1:20:00.00

Marathon--2:45:00.00

If your time in ANY of the above events is FASTER than ANY of the times stated above in your distance of preference, Congratulations, you are not a Hobby Jogger.

If your time in ALL of the above events is SLOWER than ALL of the times stated above, you are slower than a stampede of turtles running through molasses with glue on their feet.

Smoove wrote:

Interesting approach, but I don't think those times equate to one another very well. Looking at Daniels' VDOT tables, the 10k is soft relative to the 5k and the marathon is soft relative to the half marathon. 2 mile is a little soft too. My personal experience leads me to lean with the times established by the VDOT tables. They are below for the mile up, using 4:28 as the baseline. I am not suggesting that I agree with these standards as a line of demarcation. I am just suggesting a set of times that many might agree are equivalents of a 4:28 mile.

Mile - 4:28

3000 - 8:51

2 mile - 9:33

5000 - 15:23

10000 - 31:57

Half - 1:10:30

Marathon - 2:27:38

Problem with VDOT is they are based on what people SHOULD run, IAAF tables are based on tons of actual performances.

Smoove wrote:

Interesting approach, but I don't think those times equate to one another very well. Looking at Daniels' VDOT tables, the 10k is soft relative to the 5k and the marathon is soft relative to the half marathon. 2 mile is a little soft too. My personal experience leads me to lean with the times established by the VDOT tables. They are below for the mile up, using 4:28 as the baseline. I am not suggesting that I agree with these standards as a line of demarcation. I am just suggesting a set of times that many might agree are equivalents of a 4:28 mile.

Mile - 4:28

3000 - 8:51

2 mile - 9:33

5000 - 15:23

10000 - 31:57

Half - 1:10:30

Marathon - 2:27:38

Like coach deez nuts state the IAAF tables are based on performance and are pretty close to the USA OT qualifying standards for females.

Finisher Medal- wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

That 800m is by far the best time

5km time is out compared to 10km and half

Your knowledge about running is definitely at a hobby level

Wrong. 2:00 is not HARD to break is you have any kind of speed at all.

The 5k and 10k times are pretty equal speed wise if you double the 5k time and add 30 seconds to each mile which adds another 3 minutes.

Believe me, the only "Hobby Level" Runner is YOU. Compared to you, I'm a certified expert.

2:00 seems about on the mark. I've run 2:23/1:07/14:55 and could never touch 2:00.

After hearing the arguments, I'll lower the 10k time to 34:00.00 and the half marathon to 1:15:00.00. Not much of a difference, but maybe it will appease the whiners.

To all saying I'm a hobbyjogger: I've surpassed the 800 time (only 1 time required according to the qualifications) and neared all my posted times from the 1600 through 10,000.

Forget that this makes no sense!!

I am not a hobby jogger!

I can make that 13.1 time.

I am 45.

There are at least 10 people in my state that can break 1:20 for a half marathon.

I doubt there are 10 people my age in the entire US that can break 2:00 for an 800.

Forget that this makes no sense!!

I am not a hobby jogger!

I can make that 13.1 time.

I am 45.

There are at least 10 people in my state that can break 1:20 for a half marathon.

I doubt there are 10 people my age in the entire US that can break 2:00 for an 800.

Surprised wrote:

Forget that this makes no sense!!

I am not a hobby jogger!

I can make that 13.1 time.

I am 45.

There are at least 10 people in my state that can break 1:20 for a half marathon.

I doubt there are 10 people my age in the entire US that can break 2:00 for an 800.

You must live in Wyoming.

Folks, here's the reality. HS girls regularly break 1:00 in the 400 dash. If you can't run a 1:00 400 and then a 59.9 consecutive 400, you either haven't run any speed workouts or you simply have "slow turtles running through glue" disease.

I suspect he was talking about masters runners, not all runners.

I still don't think the underlying point is all that strong as it is pretty unusual for 45 year olds to train for or race the 800m, so I wouldn't expect many to be breaking 2:00; whereas you have probably tens of thousands of masters athletes participating in half-marathons every year.

Finisher Medal- wrote:

After hearing the arguments, I'll lower the 10k time to 34:00.00 and the half marathon to 1:15:00.00. Not much of a difference, but maybe it will appease the whiners.

I am a fat hobbyjogger. Emphasis on fat. And that's hobbyjogger by my standards, which are way more relaxed than yours.

And yet, there is only 21.5 seconds per mile difference between my 10k pace and my 5k pace.

So it's good that you lowered the 10k to 34:00, but keep in mind that the faster you get, the difference between 5k & 10k paces is less. I run a 5k in just under 20 minutes, my 10k is just under 42 minutes. But somebody running 16:00 is equivalent to a 33:11 on the VDOT (Jack Daniels') calculator, equivalent to a 33:14 on the McMillan calculator, and equivalent to a 33:20 on Tinman's calculator -- all between 11 and 14 seconds per mile difference between 5k & 10k equivalent in pacing.

It is true that on the 2014 revised edition of the IAAF Scoring Tables that a 16:01 5k is worth a 34:04 10k. However, those scoring tables are for multi-eventers foremost, and those guys need to be able to do some sprinting, so there would be a steep drop-off as you get up in distance. Furthermore, as someone else already said, they are based on actual performances, not performance equivalents. If your goal, OP, is to define non-hobbyjogger status as having bested only one of the times, you must choose equivalent performance times, not ability outcome times.

So the 10k needs to be lowered even further.

For 800m, mile, 2-mile, 5k, 10k, half-, marathon,

JD says: ???, 4:39, 9:57, 15:59, 33:11, 1:13:15, 2:33:20

McMillan says: 2:04, 4:36, 9:47, 16:00, 33:14, 1:14:05, 2:35:54

Tinman says: 2:08, 4:43, 10:00, 15:59, 33:20, ???, 2:34:03

So, based on that, if you're looking for nice, round numbers to choose, I would propose that "NOT a hobbyjogger" status should be:

2:05, 4:40, 10:00, 16:00, 33:15, 1:14, 2:35

There is no need to add the word hobby in front of jogger. It's a made up phrase only used on LR message board. It came up in a discussion about jogger vs runner and someone wrote that if you are not paid to run you are a hobby jogger. Insecure runners didn't want to called that so they tried to add ways to consider themselves runners, sort of the way they did when it was runner vs jogger. So if you want to still use the phrase hobby jogger, the only way not to be one is by making a living off running.

What if you make a modest amount of cash each year in prize money? At what point is it enough $? If you make $2000-$3000 a year, is it still merely a hobby?

?????????? wrote:

There is no need to add the word hobby in front of jogger. It's a made up phrase only used on LR message board. It came up in a discussion about jogger vs runner and someone wrote that if you are not paid to run you are a hobby jogger. Insecure runners didn't want to called that so they tried to add ways to consider themselves runners, sort of the way they did when it was runner vs jogger. So if you want to still use the phrase hobby jogger, the only way not to be one is by making a living off running.

Pre didn't make a living off running. Brian Sell didn't make a living off running. Yet they qualified for the Olympics and are now running legends.

Thus, your argument based on being "paid to run" as the only way to not be classified as a Hobby Jogger is invalid.

Folks, it all comes down to WHAT TIME are you capable of running. That's how ability is measured, nothing else. That simple.

Lurker wrote:

What if you make a modest amount of cash each year in prize money? At what point is it enough $? If you make $2000-$3000 a year, is it still merely a hobby?

Lurker gets it exactly right. How can you tell me that someone who runs 13:20 in the 5k and 28:00 for a 10k is a Hobby Jogger because "they aren't paid enough to make a living"?

Stupid argument.

I wasn't arguing, I was giving how the phrase came about and the definition. In reality it is the same argument as running vs jogging which is a stupid argument. If you want to use the hobby jogger saying then you have to go with original meaning, if you don't make a living from running it is a hobby.

Finisher Medal- wrote:

Lurker wrote:

What if you make a modest amount of cash each year in prize money? At what point is it enough $? If you make $2000-$3000 a year, is it still merely a hobby?

Lurker gets it exactly right. How can you tell me that someone who runs 13:20 in the 5k and 28:00 for a 10k is a Hobby Jogger because "they aren't paid enough to make a living"?

Stupid argument.

Because unless they are in school, they are jogging as their hobby.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the hobby jogger backstory, but by that definition, it strikes me that the intent of the person to make money distinguishes them from a true hobbyist.

Sort of how the guy that Aaron Hernandez murdered (the LAST one) was a "semi-professional" football player. That is, someone who makes money doing something, but not enough to survive on.

So a semi-professional runner is also a hobby jogger?