Can you define a fast runner?

--amadeus--

We've done slow marathons to death on here...

But can you define a fast runner? Or a fast time?

For me it's easy - anyone faster than me is fast, no matter how slow I am

ike

scottreynolds

--amadeus-- wrote: »

We've done slow marathons to death on here...

But can you define a fast runner? Or a fast time?

For me it's easy - anyone faster than me is fast, no matter how slow I am

Surely there's an accepted fast pace for all events like a 3-hou marathoner, 35-min 10k'er (made that one up don't know really). An 11-sec 100m runner. Sub 60 sec for 400m.

If there's not then faster, as you say, is anyone faster than me.

Kissy Lips

didnt even read your opener but i came in to post that...

Anybody faster than me until I can beat them :cool:

ecoli

Okay i am going to try and make a definitive list of what i believe is acceptable to run specifically for each distance at a competitive level

100m 11-12 secs
200m 24-25 secs
400m 56-58 secs
800m 2.04-2.05
1500m 4.25-4.26
3000m 9.30
5000m 16.20
5 mile 28 min
10k 35 min
13.1 1.20 min
26.2 3hrs

This is just my opinion though

village runner

sub 2.50 marathon runner
But they wont improve at the rate that some folks can(4.30 to a 3 hour marathon)

thirtyfoot

ecoli wrote: »

Okay i am going to try and make a definitive list of what i believe is acceptable to run specifically for each distance at a competitive level
100m 11-12 secs
200m 24-25 secs
400m 56-58 secs
800m 2.04-2.05
1500m 4.25-4.26
3000m 9.30
5000m 16.20
5 mile 28 min
10k 35 min
13.1 1.20 min
26.2 3hrs
This is just my opinion though

I'd agree with many if you are talking women, not so many if you talking men!

louthandproud

--amadeus-- wrote: »

We've done slow marathons to death on here...

But can you define a fast runner? Or a fast time?

For me it's easy - anyone faster than me is fast, no matter how slow I am

A very subjective and relative topic. You might say an Olympic sprinter running 10.5 Seconds for 100m is slow.

That would probably be faster than 99.99% of the running population though overall.

It would probably have to be defined in terms of the overall human population and say fast is something like the top 1% at
a given distance.

thirstywork

Tingle wrote: »

I'd agree with many if you are talking women, not so many if you talking men!

Legend reply Tingle haha loving it.
On the topic of marathon running i would grade it with grae 1 being the best.
grade 1.sub 2.30
grade 2.sub 2.45
grade 3.sub 3hours
grade 4.sub 3.30
grade 5.sub 4hours
anything slower goes in the same bracket of grade 6
It will differ slightly for women.
Olympic/world champs/european champ level are on a differn't planet

thirstywork

ecoli wrote: »

Okay i am going to try and make a definitive list of what i believe is acceptable to run specifically for each distance at a competitive level

100m 11-12 secs
200m 24-25 secs
400m 56-58 secs
800m 2.04-2.05
1500m 4.25-4.26
3000m 9.30
5000m 16.20
5 mile 28 min
10k 35 min
13.1 1.20 min
26.2 3hrs

how do we define competitive????
If its to be competitive in an national championships then:
100m-sub 11
200m-sub 23
400m-49/50
800m-1.53
1500m-3.56/56
3k-sub 8.35/40
5k-sub 15
10k-sub 31.40
half Marathon-sub 75
full-sub 2.40

ecoli

Tingle wrote: »

I'd agree with many if you are talking women, not so many if you talking men!

It depends on whether you are talking top end club runners or just also rans. My opinion would be that these are the times an average runner in an average race somewhere in the country might not feel too out of place running. This doesn mean that they are in the mix but simply not finishing ages behind second last

Stupid_Private

--amadeus-- wrote: »

But can you define a fast runner? Or a fast time?

ecoli wrote: »

My opinion would be that these are the times an average runner in an average race somewhere in the country might not feel too out of place running.

There's your problem right there...

thirstywork

look at road racing results in ireland.Lets take the 10k whcih is run alot over our roads.
the average winning time would be around 33minutes.
So a sub 40 for me would be good running on the basis that 33mins is the winning time.

ecoli

Stupid_Private wrote: »

There's your problem right there...

Point taken but that would be my perspective as a club runner. I think the point being proven here is that it is completely subjective

Pisco Sour

ecoli wrote: »

Point taken but that would be my perspective as a club runner. I think the point being proven here is that it is completely subjective

The definition of a "fast runner" is different for each and everyone of us. For Tyson Gay the definition of a fast runner would be "Usain Bolt". For the many people who dont do any running I would be seen as a super fast athlete (21:02 5k, 46:59 10k, 1.49 HM). For Alistair Craig I'd be the definition of a painfully slow runner. Its all relative. There really is no actual way to define a fast runner. You cant draw a line and say anything over it is fast.

Running Bing

400m-56
800-2:04
mile-4:49 (1600m)
5k-16:59
10k-34:59
Marathon-2:45

Would've had a much different opinion of what a "fast runner" was a year ago.....lets hope I have a different opinion again in one years time.;)

donothoponpop

--amadeus-- wrote: »

But can you define a fast runner?

One who belongs to the set of all non-slow runners.

QED

bourne99

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I can run the 100m in around 11 seconds and all my life I've been told I'm a 'fast runner' as 99% of the time I'm faster than anyone I'm with. Yes, there are faster runners, but Bolt and co. are professionals and are probably 'super-fast runners'. Like the difference between a sports car vs. a supercar.

Also, my sister is grade 8 on the piano. Everyone thinks she's amazing and there's no one better. But she'll then go on to point some amazing concert pianist etc. But it doesnt take away from the fact that she's an amazing player.

So beauty or, eh, 'fast' is in the eye of the beholder. I'm just glad I don't live in Jamaica..!

thirtyfoot

thirstywork wrote: »

100m-sub 11
200m-sub 23
400m-49/50
800m-1.53
1500m-3.56/56
3k-sub 8.35/40
5k-sub 15
10k-sub 31.40
half Marathon-sub 75
full-sub 2.40

Most of those are closer to what you'd expect from a man. I think for a man you are fast if in your event you would beat (or challenge for a medal) against the best women in the world. So maybe the 800 slower by 3 or 4 secs, full marathon faster by 15 mins or so, 200 faster by nearly a second. Not sure for a woman but ecoli's list would be good for woman I'd say. Although word of caution on the 100m, it would have to be electronic timed, there is a chasm of difference between a hand timed 11.9 and a FAT of 11.01.

shels4ever

Tingle wrote: »

Most of those are closer to what you'd expect from a man. I think for a man you are fast if in your event you would beat (or challenge for a medal) against the best women in the world. So maybe the 800 slower by 3 or 4 secs, full marathon faster by 15 mins or so, 200 faster by nearly a second. Not sure for a woman but ecoli's list would be good for woman I'd say. Although word of caution on the 100m, it would have to be electronic timed, there is a chasm of difference between a hand timed 11.9 and a FAT of 11.01.

i just compare myslef to times i run when i was younger then i was fast compared to now, but i train harder now...

robinph

So does "fast" mean that your in with a chance of winning, or does it just mean that your quicker than X% of the field in some random race?

Pisco Sour

Tingle wrote: »

Most of those are closer to what you'd expect from a man. I think for a man you are fast if in your event you would beat (or challenge for a medal) against the best women in the world. So maybe the 800 slower by 3 or 4 secs, full marathon faster by 15 mins or so, 200 faster by nearly a second. Not sure for a woman but ecoli's list would be good for woman I'd say. Although word of caution on the 100m, it would have to be electronic timed, there is a chasm of difference between a hand timed 11.9 and a FAT of 11.01.

100m-sub 11
200m-sub 23
400m-49/50
800m-1.53
1500m-3.56/56
3k-sub 8.35/40
5k-sub 15
10k-sub 31.40
half Marathon-sub 75
full-sub 2.40

These are a bit inconsistent. Theres no way a 3.56 1500m for women would compare to an 8.35/40 3000m for women. Very few clean runners have gone under 3.56, while countless women have gone under 8.35 for 3000m. Likewise with sub 15 5k and sub 31.40 10k. So many women have gone under these marks.

robinph

How about this then...

Use the quickest time from each of these tables as the starting point and maybe add a couple of %'age points one way or the other. Anyone faster than those times is clearly in a different league than the rest of us here, everyone else is normal('ish).

thirtyfoot

04072511 wrote: »

100m-sub 11
200m-sub 23
400m-49/50
800m-1.53
1500m-3.56/56
3k-sub 8.35/40
5k-sub 15
10k-sub 31.40
half Marathon-sub 75
full-sub 2.40

These are a bit inconsistent. Theres no way a 3.56 1500m for women would compare to an 8.35/40 3000m for women. Very few clean runners have gone under 3.56, while countless women have gone under 8.35 for 3000m. Likewise with sub 15 5k and sub 31.40 10k. So many women have gone under these marks.

Ok, here is my official 'You Are A Man And Fast' submission.

100 10.94
200 22.30
400 49.83
800 1:57 (+/- 1 sec)
1500 3:59 (+/- 2 secs)
3000 8:36 (+/- 4 secs)
5000 14:37 (+/- 6 secs)
10k 31:29
HM 1:07
FM 2:24

There is statistical backup to this but very flimsy backup!!

mithril

Its defined by my PBs. The goal is to set the level at a standard I can achieve and so feel superior but exclude as many other people as possible.

in the case of a marathon, 3 hours looks right.
In the case of 100m, its around 18 seconds.

robinph

Tingle wrote: »

Ok, here is my official 'You Are A Man And Fast' submission.

100 10.94
200 22.30
400 49.83
800 1:57 (+/- 1 sec)
1500 3:59 (+/- 2 secs)
3000 8:36 (+/- 4 secs)
5000 14:37 (+/- 6 secs)
10k 31:29
HM 1:07
FM 2:24

There is statistical backup to this but very flimsy backup!!

Is that not more like a "You are a man and elite" list though?

"Elite" is quicker than "Fast" which is quicker than most A/R/T boardsies which is quicker than someone who doesn't move.

Do we not just want to find the threshold between A/R/T boardsie and "Fast" rather than "Elite" and "Fast"?

Running Bing

robinph wrote: »

Is that not more like a "You are a man and elite" list though?

"Elite" is quicker than "Fast" which is quicker than most A/R/T boardsies which is quicker than someone who doesn't move.

Do we not just want to find the threshold between A/R/T boardsie and "Fast" rather than "Elite" and "Fast"?

Best way to define fast is by looking at the results of the big races.

If your in the top 5% your fast. Might not be a blistering time by elite standards (or even very good club runner standards) but still fast.

Out of interest anybody know what time would put you in the top 5% for some of the big 5k's, 10k's and marathons around the country?

thirtyfoot

robinph wrote: »

Is that not more like a "You are a man and elite" list though?

"Elite" is quicker than "Fast" which is quicker than most A/R/T boardsies which is quicker than someone who doesn't move.

Do we not just want to find the threshold between A/R/T boardsie and "Fast" rather than "Elite" and "Fast"?

They are not elite standards. They are good club runner standards for a man. Good club runner is fast in my opinion.

For a boardsie fast man, I dunno. Most common distance is 10k so what a good time for a fast male boardsie, 40min? Relate that back to 100 that would probably be 13.5-14.0 secs.

nerraw1111

Running Bing wrote: »

Best way to define fast is by looking at the results of the big races.

If your in the top 5% your fast. Might not be a blistering time by elite standards (or even very good club runner standards) but still fast.

Out of interest anybody know what time would put you in the top 5% for some of the big 5k's, 10k's and marathons around the country?

I'd go along with that. Being in the top 5 - 10% of a field makes you fast.

thirtyfoot

nerraw1111 wrote: »

I'd go along with that. Being in the top 5 - 10% of a field makes you fast.

Thats can't work as then you could describe yourself as 'fast' if you raced in carefully selected 'slow' races.

robinph

Tingle wrote: »

Thats can't work as then you could describe yourself as 'fast' if you raced in carefully selected 'slow' races.

Works for me.

Running Bing

Tingle wrote: »

Thats can't work as then you could describe yourself as 'fast' if you raced in carefully selected 'slow' races.

Thats why I think you need the caveat of only including the big races with a large spread of competitors with respectable winning times.

I was thinking races like Dublin Marathon (or even NY/London/Berlin etc.) and races like the Aware 10k or Rathfarnham 5k (I think thats a big race? I have no idea what the biggest 5k is).

Gringo78

Tingle wrote: »

Ok, here is my official 'You Are A Man And Fast' submission.

HM 1:07

There is statistical backup to this but very flimsy backup!!

How do you select a HM time which would have won cork HM, Bay Run, Dublin Addidas HM, and placed you on the podium at the national HM championships? Is that person just to be defined as fast and a good club runner? Most clubs don't have such a runner in their ranks??

BeepBeep67

Just to add complexity to the discussion, we had another thread on age related performance, you can be fast for your age group, but mayb not so fast against the top X% males or females.
Would be great to see world wide performances on a distribution for 10k for example and maybe elite / fast could be defined in six sigma terms.
Elite = -3 sigma (0.2% of the popoulation)
Fast = -2 sigma (2.2% of the population)
Average = 1 & -1 sigma (68%).
In a race with 1488 runners (Aware 2008) assuming they represent a normal performance spread, then 36 would be fast. 36th place in Aware was 38:24. Take from that what you will.

ecoli

okay just going on the last graded meet if we were to take top eight(for sprint purposes to make up full field for Grade A)
By definition these are the highest grade athletes in the race meeting so in terms of general attendance they would make up roughly top 15%-20% of the fields ( some smaller events alot more)

to achieve top 8 in these a male would have to run
200m 23.4
1500m 4.02.05
3000m 9.48

If we were to take a survey from everyone that day we would find that people are of the opinion that Grade A is reserved for the "fast runners". Of course many of the grade A guys may think that the top 3 were fast runners and thurd and second reckon 1st was a fast runner. Point is that the idea of fast is related to ones own personal ability i feel

thirtyfoot

Gringo78 wrote: »

How do you select a HM time which would have won cork HM, Bay Run, Dublin Addidas HM, and placed you on the podium at the national HM championships? Is that person just to be defined as fast and a good club runner? Most clubs don't have such a runner in their ranks??

This is probably due to the decline in road running standards etc (which has been discussed here many times). Don't know the winners of those races and whether they were within themselves but yes if they are running for the HM an equivalent of say 1:57 for an 800 or 49.8 for a 400, then yes they are just fast and a club runner and not elite. Martin Fagan is elite. Alistair Cragg. Mary Cullen and probably a dozen or so other Irish distance athletes who are getting qualifications for majors. The rest are either great or good or ok club athletes. If clubs don't have these types of athletes then that is probably a reflection of the dilution of standards across clubs with too little resources spread across too many clubs. Elite here on this forum has been bandied about too easily. Elite in athletics/running circles is either international class or bordering on it.

Take the other events -

100 13 Irish guys have the time.
200 19 have it
400 20 have it
800 71 have it
1500 60+ have it.

mrak

No offence but is this the most pointless thread to-date..? It's up there!

Like everything, it's all so relative. This time of year the relativity of fast is made obvious. Just at the end of the road racing season and our mates and fit4life training partners are waxing on about how fast we have become and we feel really quick fresh of a new sub 35 minute 10k. Roll on the intercounties - we feel great!

The intercounties arrive and find ourselves popping a lung desperately trying not to be last - amazed at the leaders up there a hundred places ahead and probably lapping us. Roll on the euros Ireland looks good!

Those same leaders are picked to go to the european XC where they usually don't make the top 50 and under 80th is considered a great result. Roll on the worlds - europe looks strong!

Needless to say the top euros don't usually feature at all in the worlds....

Fast is so relative and depends mainly on the population size you are working with.

Running Bing

Think there's a difference though between being fast and being the best.

Just because Cragg sucks monkey balls as soon as he goes up against the Africans doesnt mean he isnt fast...Just because someone like Keith Kelly will make you look like your standing still doesnt mean your not fast (35 min 10k is fast imo).

I know what your saying, eveyone will have different views but I think "fast runner" is being used here to describe somebody who has reached a good level at the sport of running.....you dont have to be running 13 min 5k's to be fast imo.


I think there is a general level that when somebody gets to it you can say they are a decent i.e. fast runner.

bourne99

mrak wrote: »

No offence but is this the most pointless thread to-date..? It's up there!

I think it's pitiful actually...

dna_leri

mrak wrote: »

No offence but is this the most pointless thread to-date..? It's up there!

.

bourne99 wrote: »

I think it's pitiful actually...

How to kill a thread in 2 easy steps... don't be so negative...makes a change from the gait analysis, which marathon should i do, how does my garmin work, races cost too much threads.

Fast is top 3 in national finals.

Pherekydes

dna_leri wrote: »

Fast is top 3 in national finals.

Whose nationals? See, it's entirely dependent on context. Paul Hession (the fastest EVER Irishman) wouldn't make the USA 100m final, let alone the top 3. Closer to home, compare the third placers in the national marathon for 2009 and 1988.

They are right. It's a pointless thread.

MCOS

Pherekydes wrote: »

They are right. It's a pointless thread.

+1 --Amadeus-- asked and answered his own post in the OP.

So what is fast... Haile, Usain... how about from a Cheetah's viepoint of 70+mph or how about a Cockroach who only move at 3mph but in relative terms cover 50 body lengths per second. This would be equivalent to a human sprinting 100m in about 1sec or around 200mph!

Now thats fast running! All depends on who is asking really isn't it

dna_leri

Pherekydes wrote: »

Whose nationals? See, it's entirely dependent on context. Paul Hession (the fastest EVER Irishman) wouldn't make the USA 100m final, let alone the top 3. Closer to home, compare the third placers in the national marathon for 2009 and 1988.

.

All that means is that Hession is FAST in Ireland but not FAST in USA and Irish marathon runners are not as FAST as they used to be.

The fact that FAST is relative is self-evident.

Pherekydes

dna_leri wrote: »

The fact that FAST is relative is self-evident.

If fast is relative how can one define it?

Now look at the thread name. The answer is, it's entirely relative.

/end thread.

Pisco Sour

Suppose we say that sub 40 10k is fast well then...

39:59 is a fast runner
40:01 is not a fast runner

Now that would be pretty stupid. Of course 40:01 is fast (as he is just 2 seconds slower than a "fast" runner), but then a person with 40:02 would feel agrieved at not being part of the "fast club". Let him in then you most certainly have to let the lad with 40:03 in aswell, and so on and so forth.

thirtyfoot

dna_leri wrote: »

How to kill a thread in 2 easy steps... don't be so negative...makes a change from the gait analysis, which marathon should i do, how does my garmin work, races cost too much threads.

.

Too true. 90% of the running/athletics community would find 99% of all threads here pointless and pityfull and the whole concept of a messageboard pointless. Its a bit of craic, lighten up:pac:

Its a bit of craic but also good to compare performances across events. Whats wrong with standards? Standards are good, something to strive for. Whats wrong with saying whats a good club athlete or a fast boardsie. On the fast boardsie, I'd add 25% to each of my 'good club athlete' standard. I'd think its fair enough and something that many here could strive for. Again, its a bit of craic.

100 13.7
200 27.8
400 62.3
800 2:26
1500 4:58
3000 10:45
5000 18:16
10k 39:21
HM 1:23
FM 3:00

What do you think? Reasonable, those with more of a knowledge of the distance stuff, how do the relative times stack up, are they fair? Thats for those who want to play of course and realise its a bit of craic.

Did I say, this is a bit of craic.

Pherekydes

Tingle wrote: »

100 13.7
HM 1:23

I think I could make your standard for 100m, even now, at 49 (maybe next summer at 50), but my lifetime best for the half is too slow to be considered fast. :pac:

thirtyfoot

Pherekydes wrote: »

I think I could make your standard for 100m, even now, at 49 (maybe next summer at 50), but my lifetime best for the half is too slow to be considered fast. :pac:

Well, then you are, as we always suspected, one bad ass FAST sprinter MF and should never have done any activity that lasted greater than 50 odd seconds!!!

TFBubendorfer

Tingle wrote: »

5000 18:16
10k 39:21
HM 1:23
FM 3:00

A bit uneven, I'd say. The 5k is just about within my reach, the 10k is almost easy, the HM and FM are out of reach at present.

To me, anyone faster than myself is fast. And even that is a moving target.

--amadeus--

4 pages and over a thousand views - not bad for a pointless thread

Like Tingle said it was just supposed to get a bit of banter going and to get us away from arguing if a 5hr marathon is an achievement or not... And I think it's interesting to think about standards - the dividing line between world class / elite / nationally competitive / locally competitive / fast. And as Boardsies are a good cross section of the average runner if we knew what a fast Boardsie was we'd know what a fast runner was relative to the average running population.

I think the idea of top 5% in a mass participation race is as good an arbiter of "fast" as any with top 1% probably being "competitive" and maybe top 0.25% as "elite". By that standard I think Tingles times are a bit soft.

I don't have time to check teh results of DCM or a big 10k but I would guess 2:50 and 36:00 respectively would be top 5%?

TFBubendorfer

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I don't have time to check teh results of DCM or a big 10k but I would guess 2:50 and 36:00 respectively would be top 5%?

No, not even close. Last year I did DCM in 3:05 and was somewhere around the top 3 % (344th about of over 10000 I think, not entirely sure). I wouldn't expect this year's figures to be markedly different (can't check them from here).