Is a sub 17 5k mediocre ????

It's a fast time, but it's not anything really anything special considering there are many other kids who can go sub-17 and even kids who can run sub-15.

Sub-17 won't even land you a scholarship. It is good, but by no means is it anything special.

What are you talking about??? I've seen plenty of 16:40's and 16:50s kids getting scholarships

What the heck wrote:

I've seen some threads on here where people call 16:30-17 min 5ks mediocre. That's considered pretty fast in my state, and I run in the 16:30s myself. These people are stupid. Sub 17 is pretty quick....don't you all agree?

Yep, those girls are quick

Really depends on how fast a sub 17 you're running. Galen Rupp runs a sub 17 5K. He's pretty fast.

yeah maybe your state sucks. that's pretty much it. where do you live? wyoming?

i ran a 17:24 freshman year of high school off of 20 mpw and not running during the summer, and that was only like top 10 or 15 in my state, i don't really remember. that's close to sub-17. i was 14 years old.

graduated with a 15:23 and couldn't even nail a scholarship.

johnny bean wrote:

yeah maybe your state sucks. that's pretty much it. where do you live? wyoming?

i ran a 17:24 freshman year of high school off of 20 mpw and not running during the summer, and that was only like top 10 or 15 in my state, i don't really remember. that's close to sub-17. i was 14 years old.

graduated with a 15:23 and couldn't even nail a scholarship.

*top 10 or 15 for freshman

Where i went to school, 16:30 was competitive to win most dual meets. I think it was probably top 10 in the district.

On the other hand, i saw a thread where there was a national standout that was ranked number 1 in the country by a minute. Someone on letsrun claimed that the number 2 runner was just a mediocre runner because at the national level, shed get beat by the number 1 runner by a minute

Jimmy21 wrote:

Where i went to school, 16:30 was competitive to win most dual meets. I think it was probably top 10 in the district.

On the other hand, i saw a thread where there was a national standout that was ranked number 1 in the country by a minute. Someone on letsrun claimed that the number 2 runner was just a mediocre runner because at the national level, shed get beat by the number 1 runner by a minute

seth hirsch at nebraska state champs much

Sub 17 (or even sub 18) is a terrific 5k, much faster than most runners will ever achieve. Far from mediocre.

As others have pointed out, it's also not at all unusual as 1,000's of runners hit that time every year. It all depends on what your benchmark is. If it's the general running population, then those are very fast times. If it's competitive racers with 5 years experience and solid training, it's nothing special.

It's fast wrote:

Sub 17 (or even sub 18) is a terrific 5k, much faster than most runners will ever achieve. Far from mediocre.

As others have pointed out, it's also not at all unusual as 1,000's of runners hit that time every year. It all depends on what your benchmark is. If it's the general running population, then those are very fast times. If it's competitive racers with 5 years experience and solid training, it's nothing special.

This. It's accurate answer here. In the grand scheme of things, a sub17 or 18 5K is easily in the top 5% in the country or world, so it's fast. But yes of course there will always be faster Runner's out there.

What the heck wrote:

I've seen some threads on here where people call 16:30-17 min 5ks mediocre. That's considered pretty fast in my state, and I run in the 16:30s myself. These people are stupid. Sub 17 is pretty quick....don't you all agree?

It's all a matter of perspective. To a hobby-jogger like me, it seems like a stellar time. To the best-of-the-best, you're Stephen Hawking at the paralympics.

What the heck wrote:

I've seen some threads on here where people call 16:30-17 min 5ks mediocre. That's considered pretty fast in my state, and I run in the 16:30s myself. These people are stupid. Sub 17 is pretty quick....don't you all agree?

I agree. I'm pretty damn proud of myself whenever I break 17 nowadays but it's all a matter of perspective of course. I've been out of shape enough that I couldn't break 19 so getting back sub-17 feels great. I wasn't so happy with a 17-flat when I was able to break 16, however.

There's such a wide range of running abilities out there. On a local level, sub-17 is good is good for HS and I'd say that sub-15 is pretty good for DIII, sub-14 is pretty good for DI, sub-13:30 is national class (for the US) and sub-13:00 is world class. The world record is 12:37 and may be the strongest distance record on the books. No one has come close in a decade. At each of these levels very good runners get destroyed by the runners at the next highest level. Whether you are happy with your times has more to do with your outlook than how fast you run.

What the heck wrote:

I've seen some threads on here where people call 16:30-17 min 5ks mediocre. That's considered pretty fast in my state, and I run in the 16:30s myself. These people are stupid. Sub 17 is pretty quick....don't you all agree?

Sub 17 is mediocre. It will land you in the back of the slowest heat at Gina Relays at Hillsdale, which is a heat of almost entirely red shirt division 2 walk on runners. So basically it's garbage.

Sure, you can run high 16s and win loads of local races that don't have prizes, but if there anything more than a pint glass on the line you're going to get beat by a minute or more. You're a group run hero to all the 50 year olds that are happy to "just complete" whatever they signed up for in the fall, but you are a scrub when you go to any race with more than a thousand people.

Signed, a dude who runs mid 16s.

Why the negativity? You could make a pretty similar case against a sub-14 guy. Sure a 13:45-guy he can win some races and be a hero to older or slower runners but he'll never win enough in prize money or sponsorships not to need work a full time job too and will get spanked in national-calibre races and get lapped indoors by world class performers. I'd rather look at the positive. Going sub-17 represents a high level of fitness. So what that some small faction or runners are faster?

3hr-marathoner wrote:

kadoo wrote:

Sub 17 is mediocre. It will land you in the back of the slowest heat at Gina Relays at Hillsdale, which is a heat of almost entirely red shirt division 2 walk on runners. So basically it's garbage.

Sure, you can run high 16s and win loads of local races that don't have prizes, but if there anything more than a pint glass on the line you're going to get beat by a minute or more. You're a group run hero to all the 50 year olds that are happy to "just complete" whatever they signed up for in the fall, but you are a scrub when you go to any race with more than a thousand people.

Signed, a dude who runs mid 16s.

Why the negativity?

Because he´s the typical immature, basement dwelling LR idiot.

It's definitely rubbish to the average letsrun member as they all run sub 14 while earning $500k a year so your efforts would always be mocked.

For the average person it's a solid time.

Can I point out how ridiculous this is? You ran 15:23 and couldn't get a scholarship? Was your GPA .05?

johnny bean wrote:

graduated with a 15:23 and couldn't even nail a scholarship.

I laughed out loud. You either a) have a terrible GPA b) ran that on a crazy short course

If you run a 15:23 on a legit course, you will get a scholarship

I do agree with you, the thing is that measuring 5k times are so dependent on the course. You can run a 16:30 one week then the next week run a 17:00, with the same effort and being in the same shape, just depending on the course. I'd honestly say you can give or take 30 seconds from most 5k PR's. The best way to see how solid a 5k runner is is to look at a season's view of their times.

Overall- a sub 17 5k on a challenging course is definitely good I'd say.