Are you considered talented if you can run a half-marathon at sub 9 minute pace?

what is your point? wrote:

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

She is 5'10, fairly well trained. Has run NYC and Philly marathons. She did Philly in 3:52, NYC in 4:06. She broke 6:30 in the 5th avenue mile and has run 10K in 48:XX.

What is your point? You know what world class times for these events are, people who have talent, what is it that you wanted accomplished here? You clearly have an agenda - this woman bothers you for some reason, why?

Aye bruh. We are friends from high school. She doesn't bother me bruh bruh. Chill, aye?

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

what is your point? wrote:

What is your point? You know what world class times for these events are, people who have talent, what is it that you wanted accomplished here? You clearly have an agenda - this woman bothers you for some reason, why?

Aye bruh. We are friends from high school. She doesn't bother me bruh bruh. Chill, aye?

Right. All you do all day long is post on this site and you don’t know if a 9 minute mile for a marathon is any good? Ok, brah, if that’s how you say it is.

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

what is your point? wrote:

What is your point? You know what world class times for these events are, people who have talent, what is it that you wanted accomplished here? You clearly have an agenda - this woman bothers you for some reason, why?

Aye bruh. We are friends from high school. She doesn't bother me bruh bruh. Chill, aye?

Then let’s put it in terms of high school. A 6:30 mile is not really a competitive time for a girl’s varsity high school team. Maybe she makes a team, but she is not going to factor into any meets. Would you call someone who is not good enough to play in a varsity basketball in a normal high school a “talented” basketball player? If so, then call her talented; if not, then don’t. That's kind of the level of talent we are dealing with here.

I'll never understand why so many people think talent means how fast you can run without training much or at all.

It depends: was she wearing the Vapor Fly?

CopperRunner wrote:

I wouldn’t consider a runner “talented” until they are in the “competing to win” bracket which is usually the top 0.5-1% of a competitive race field. I once won an 8K with a field of 400+ people in about 28:50. I was the only person under 30. If I went and ran that in a D1 race I would probably not even be in the middle of the pack.

"Probably?" At that pace in D1 you'd be shot out the back as soon as the gun went off.

No unless she is at least 68 years old.

The below would be for a 28 year old woman with two to three plus years of training (50-60 miles+ per week).

Genetic Lottery Winner: 1:12:26 or faster (90 PLP)

Talented 1:21:30 or faster (80 PLP)

Average 1:33:08 or faster (70 PLP)

Slower: below average (below 70 PLP)

Darren Rovell would say she is among the top 1% of Americans

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

I have a friend who recently finished the 3M half marathon in Austin at sub 9 minute pace. A lady. I'm wondering where her talent level ranks among other women.

No. There is nothing special about this at all. There is no talent required to run that pace. Any young woman who trained moderately (assuming they aren't obese) could do that.

Get under 90 minutes for a young woman and we are starting to talk about "moderate" talent. Not everyone can pull that off even with training. But they are still getting clobbered by the really talented girls that are running under 80 or 75 minutes. That's legitimate female talent to pull that off. 99.9% of women could run their whole lives and get nowhere near 80 minutes.

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

She is 5'10, fairly well trained. Has run NYC and Philly marathons. She did Philly in 3:52, NYC in 4:06. She broke 6:30 in the 5th avenue mile and has run 10K in 48:XX.

If she ran Philly in 3:52 then she averaged 8:51 for two half marathons in a row.

She should be able to run 1:45 for the half.

So 1:59 is above average for the average runner, but for her it is sub par.

You need to read a few books on the meaning of the word talent

It takes a certain kind of talent just to be able to run a half marathon or marathon. Just to put your body through the wear and tear.

Nope, that's not talent, that's dedication and discipline. Is your friend dedicated and disciplined? Most likely so as she's physically and mentally trained herself to run distances Jack and Jill Mainstream would never contemplate. Talent implies an ability to do something particularly well. Your friend isn't running particularly well based on the criteria you've laid down. She might be most talented runner in her office full of non-runners, which isn't saying a lot.

So in response to the blanket question you've asked, the answer is no, she's not a talented runner. But keep looking for niches though, her 'talent' may fit one of those.

I’m glad you highlighted subjectivity. I’m a woman in my mid twenty’s who can run around 8 minute pace for a half. I usually do pretty well in my age group (80-90th percentile) but I know I’m running among people who are just trying to complete the race let alone run a fast time. In high school I was a 6 minute miler. Among other high school girls who were training seriously I was probably around 50th percentile. I ran varsity in XC for only about half the races.

midpackgirl wrote:

In high school I was a 6 minute miler. Among other high school girls who were training seriously I was probably around 50th percentile. I ran varsity in XC for only about half the races.

I went to high school in south Georgia. A girl breaking 6 minutes in the mile in my region usually placed in the top 3 in region meets. You would have been competitive in the southern part of the state.

But go up to north and central Georgia where all the hills and mountains are and you started to see guys who could break 16 in the 5k in cross country and girls who could run rub 19, sub 18 consistently.

stateroftheoblivious wrote:

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

She is 5'10, fairly well trained. Has run NYC and Philly marathons. She did Philly in 3:52, NYC in 4:06. She broke 6:30 in the 5th avenue mile and has run 10K in 48:XX.

If she ran Philly in 3:52 then she averaged 8:51 for two half marathons in a row.

She should be able to run 1:45 for the half.

So 1:59 is above average for the average runner, but for her it is sub par.

This is what I though as well

Surprise! wrote:

I'll never understand why so many people think talent means how fast you can run without training much or at all.

I think because most people are looking at it from the vantage point that someone who runs an impressive time without training has a better potential to race faster if they did train.

I know a guy that has run a 13:40 5000 on the track. A few years have gone by, he put on a few pounds, ran 20-30 miles per week and jumped into a Marathon and ran 2:29. He is well aware he could do better if he actually trained. I don't think I am going out on a limb by saying he has talent.

Like with running, just looking to have some fun!

A few years ago I ran a rolling half marathon course with a 64 year old training partner. We ran an 8:30 pace and she didn't consider herself talented. Thirty years ago she had trained with a group that included 5-6 female Olympic marathon qualifiers (trials) and one Olympian. She was one of the slowest women in the club so she just considered herself an average runner.