How do you measure an 'average' club runner

oldrunner

Following on from some of the discussion in the Big 8 thread, how do people think you measure an average club runner?

Based on the times in this year's National 10k and 1/2 marathon championships the average was around 38m for 10k and 81m for half marathon (incidentally the masters average in the 10k was about 40m - not much difference considering the range of ages masters covers).

So, somewhere around 6 minutes a mile for distance racing seems average.

I have to say, I was surprised it's so bad - I would have expected sub 35 10k and sub 78 half.

(I only checked the average for men)

asimonov

i'm not so sure it would be that quick to be honest; the powerof10 has 1180 sub 78 half marathons on it and 1800 sub 80 - I'd be surprised if 1180th represents the average runner in the UK - and it would be a similar bell curve over here.

ecoli

oldrunner wrote: »

Following on from some of the discussion in the Big 8 thread, how do people think you measure an average club runner?

Based on the times in this year's National 10k and 1/2 marathon championships the average was around 38m for 10k and 81m for half marathon (incidentally the masters average in the 10k was about 40m - not much difference considering the range of ages masters covers).

So, somewhere around 6 minutes a mile for distance racing seems average.

I have to say, I was surprised it's so bad - I would have expected sub 35 10k and sub 78 half.

(I only checked the average for men)

Can see where you coming from. Personally i would consider myself to be at the bottom end of the average club with a 36.15 and a 77.06 for a senior athlete but is suppose it all comes down to perspective. No one ever really says there isnt a level above what they are achieving at the moment that they dont strive towards. This is one of the positive qualities that running possesses. There is a common mentality whether your an olympian or a "fun runner" they are all striving to be better.
How do you rectify a cultural mindset though which has crept into modern day athletes?

ManwitaPlan

How many years have you been training Ecoli and how hard do you work at it?

The point I am trying to make is if 36.15 is an average time where does that leave the 45 min 10k guy or the 40 min 10k guy? Why would such runners ever join a club?

I think this is the biggest reason why clubs are'nt getting members and the sport is slowly dying...if one has to devote a decade of training and 60 miles a week to be considered at the lower end of average its not very encouraging is it?

ecoli

ManwitaPlan wrote: »

How many years have you been training Ecoli and how hard do you work at it?

The point I am trying to make is if 36.15 is an average time where does that leave the 45 min 10k guy or the 40 min 10k guy? Why would such runners ever join a club?

I think this is the biggest reason why clubs are'nt getting members and the sport is slowly dying...if one has to devote a decade of training and 60 miles a week to be considered at the lower end of average its not very encouraging is it?

Training 15 years now (granted have only ran 3 10k s in my life haha). They would joing clubs for the same reason they train to improve and get the best out of themeselves with similar runners around them and the facilities to coach and facilitate improvement. When i say average i am talking on the overall scale of athletics in Ireland. I would be one of the quicker in my club but overall i would not be considered even a well known name in athletics circles for my ability.
I agree can be intimidating but we dont train to say "oh im great" you work hard to improve your own ability. A PB is as satisfying for a sub 50 min runner as it is for a sub 30. Its an ever moving goal post which i feel is an appeal. Dont think that definition of "average" should be compromised due a cultural shift towards laziness (not just in athletics but overall lifestyles)
This generation wants results instantly what happened to the days of striding to get the best out of yourself long term?

donothoponpop

ecoli wrote: »

Training 15 years now (granted have only ran 3 10k s in my life haha). They would joing clubs for the same reason they train to improve and get the best out of themeselves with similar runners around them and the facilities to coach and facilitate improvement. When i say average i am talking on the overall scale of athletics in Ireland. I would be one of the quicker in my club but overall i would not be considered even a well known name in athletics circles for my ability.
I agree can be intimidating but we dont train to say "oh im great" you work hard to improve your own ability. A PB is as satisfying for a sub 50 min runner as it is for a sub 30. Its an ever moving goal post which i feel is an appeal. Dont think that definition of "average" should be compromised due a cultural shift towards laziness (not just in athletics but overall lifestyles)
This generation wants results instantly what happened to the days of striding to get the best out of yourself long term?

That's one of the best posts I've ever read on this forum, hard work will get you whatever you want.

oldrunner

There's no quick fix and no easy solution. If you want to run faster then get out and work at it. Target 6 days a week, do the speed-work sessions, get the long run in, make sure you recover. But above all, give it everything when you race. I am convinced that too many runners under-perform because they are not willing to hurt themselves when they race. Pick a race that doesn't matter, go hard above your normal standard and see how far you get - that's how you learn.

We could always re-define what's 'average' but, for me, that's just a cop out. Twenty years ago, I just about finished top 20 in the Dublin Intermediate Cross Country (when I could break 33 for 10k). This year, I finished top 20 - it shouldn't happen. (I know aul fellahs and their war stories:)).

My point, there's not enough ambition - young runners are delighted to break times that used to be considered poor.

Condo131

Oldrunner,

To try to answer your original Q, "how do people think you measure an average club runner?" imho, there isn't such a thing as "an average runner". We all have our own individual ambitions and abilities. Some are improving, some at standstill and others are on the way down.

I reckon anyone who has been running a long time really couldn't give a fiddlers what bracket they fall into. On the other hand, newbies - and we were all that once! - really want to know where they are in the 'pecking order'. When I started running one of the best books I bought was "The Competitive Runner's Handbook" I used to use it as my Bible. Actually the link is for a later edition - mine was by Bob Glover and Pete Schuder. The book has tables grading runners, for most of the usual distances, by age and sex into Basic, Advanced, Champion and National Class. I used to grade myself on these - they were targets to aim at and, having dug it out of the depths for this post, I reckon its past time to add a few more ticks to the tables.

ManwitaPlan wrote: »

The point I am trying to make is if 36.15 is an average time where does that leave the 45 min 10k guy or the 40 min 10k guy? Why would such runners ever join a club?

I think this is the biggest reason why clubs aren't getting members and the sport is slowly dying...if one has to devote a decade of training and 60 miles a week to be considered at the lower end of average its not very encouraging is it?

A couple of points:
There are some clubs that will turn their noses up at someone doing "just 36:15", while others welcome, with open arms, the 40-55min 10k person. The first are in a minority and one needs to find "their club". I used to be joined a club that filled the first bill, but my current (last 12 years) has coached sessions for ALL levels.

After that its up to the individual - you get out what you put in - provided that enough of your work is quality. We all have varying degrees of talent but very, very few have the ability or knowledge to self coach. You will improve up to a point and, depending on your natural talent, that point can be very high. However, provided that you put the effort in, with decent coaching you should improve *far* faster and to a higher level again in a club environment. Besides that competition within a club should spur you on too.
Note: before I first joined a club, I felt I had to achieve a certain standard - that was a mistake. I would also advise checking out several before deciding which to join - I think all clubs operate a trial period system before you make your mind up.

oldrunner wrote: »

My point, there's not enough ambition - young runners are delighted to break times that used to be considered poor.

I agree. Furthermore, many are not prepared to put in the time mileage. I often hear people say that they "did huge mileage last week" and when you ask - "about 35 or 40". That may be fine for short races, but it'll certainly catch you out for the longer ones. Anyway I'm biased - my strong point is endurance (and my weaknesses are mental strength and lack of raw speed )

Appendix: Tables (sorry about scan quality ) from The Competitive Runner's Handbook

jailhouse_dave

Condo131 wrote: »

There are some clubs that will turn their noses up at someone doing "just 36:15

just curious, which clubs would turn their noses up at 36:15 runners? I dont know any, in fact many of the bigger dublin clubs could have done with 36:15 runners in their teams at inter and novice cc this year.

I think its all about individual improvement, one mans average is anothers mans elite. a great quote i heard here before "aint none of us going the olympics"

Condo131

jailhouse_dave wrote: »

just curious, which clubs would turn their noses up at 36:15 runners? I dont know any, in fact many of the bigger dublin clubs could have done with 36:15 runners in their teams at inter and novice cc this year.

I've heard a coach say, about a guy who was doing about 28:00 for 5 miles "He's a tryer, just a tryer. That's all!" This was in relation to team selection for a National Inter-club XC. Sorry....ain't going to name the club, but it still rankles with me that any coach would take that view. (I wasn't the individual being discussed, but was present for the discussion)

robinph

Do you mean average runner who is in a club? In which case you should be adding a minimum of 50% to those times in the OP.

If you mean the average time of club runners who score points for their club in county/ national events then it's a different range all together as they only send their fastest along. There are a lot more people in any club than the couple turning out for those events.

menoscemo

The National 10k was the great Ireland run right? In that case I know that most clubs didn't preselect runners to send to that race. Rather club runners could apply directly through the AAI to run in the race starting in the elite pen and paying €20 instead of €35. They represented their clubs but were far from the upper echelons of the runners in the club. I suspect the average times are skewed downwards as a result. (I passed several of the 'elite' women even though they started 15 minutes ahead of me and I only finished just under 44 minutes).

theboyblunder

oldrunner wrote: »

So, somewhere around 6 minutes a mile for distance racing seems average.

I have to say, I was surprised it's so bad - I would have expected sub 35 10k and sub 78 half.

(I only checked the average for men)

do I detect the not so faint whiff of elitism? I dont think a guy who busted his ass to break 50 min for 10k will feel great reading that.

On a less important note - 6 minutes a mile for the 10k is runnng 50% slower than bannister, for over 6 times the distance. That aint bad in my book.

TheRoadRunner

This is a great topic for a thread and something I've been thinking a lot about lately.

First point, it's hard to measure what the "average club athelte" is/capable of running when so few club athletes run in national races. Look at the numbers in the inter counties last weekend. The inter club XC probably won't attract larger numbers. My point being the national races don't attract all club athletes therefore apart from detecting the top athletes (and they don't always race) it's hard to detect the average. I'm guilty in this respect in that I have never ran national senior track or cross country . Compare this to the UK where the national champs are the one date in the calendar where every club member tries to toe the line regardless of current fitness. This attitude lets us determine what the average club athlete can achieve/run.

Another point worth mentioning is the fact that historically each club had a senior/intermediate/novice section. Due to low numbers in clubs these days these sections aren't as well defined and there is a lot of cross over so again it's hard to ascertain what the average is.

The 8 targets set out by Racing Flat in his original post would be aims for modern day novice to lower intermediate level club runners in my opinion (and this is only my opinion, apologies if it is too soft or too hard). Most senior club athletes would run the majority of these times in training. I know I do and I wouldn't consider myself a senior athlete.

In my experience I would consider the following times the norm for a mid standard club athlete.

2mile 10.10
3k 9.45
5k 17.30
4 miles 23 mins
5 miles 29.30
10k 36.60
10 miles 60.30
half mar: 81 mins
marathon: 2.55

Even as I write this I know this sounds a bit elitest/smarmy. However, I regularly train with lads who have never come in an asses roar of hitting these times and it relates to something mentioned earlier. Training consistently One lad in particular runs quicker with me in training then he does in races, just doesn't make sense to me.

robinph

Everyone seems to be understanding the term "average" significantly differently to how I remember them teaching us what it meant in school.

seanynova

Condo131 wrote: »

However, provided that you put the effort in, with decent coaching you should improve *far* faster and to a higher level again in a club environment. Besides that competition within a club should spur you on too.

I see what your saying here, however, as i dont train with a club i cannot fully appriciate this.

i have however seen a few club track training sessions and one thing strikes me is that for the numbers that run these sessions, would it be fair to ask if everyone in the group is training at "their" optimal pace?

i recently joined up with CIT AC but cant train with them as the timing isint great for me, but i want to give it a go in january if i can....

BeepBeep67

seanynova wrote: »

I see what your saying here, however, as i dont train with a club i cannot fully appriciate this.

i have however seen a few club track training sessions and one thing strikes me is that for the numbers that run these sessions, would it be fair to ask if everyone in the group is training at "their" optimal pace?

i recently joined up with CIT AC but cant train with them as the timing isint great for me, but i want to give it a go in january if i can....

Can be achived if the spread within the group is not too great, by either putting the slower runners on the inside lanes or making it 'handicapped' with the faster runners hanging back by X secs at the start of each rep.
The main risk is running too fast in your session, which you or the coach needs to control as it's only natural to get a little competitive and potentially spoil your session.

RayCun

robinph wrote: »

Everyone seems to be understanding the term "average" significantly differently to how I remember them teaching us what it meant in school.

Yes, totally. oldrunner's first post talked about

the times in this year's National 10k and 1/2 marathon championships the average was around 38m for 10k and 81m for half marathon

That's not the average club runner. That's the average time of those who competed in a national championship. Only the better runners at that distance are going to show up. If you pick a 'normal' local race - Raheny, Sportsworld, Rathfarnham... - you could pick out the club runners from the results and work out their averages. Just scanning the Jingle Bells 5k results from last year, there are about 50 men finishing under 17.30, but the average for senior men club runners is significantly slower than 17.30.

Condo131

seanynova wrote: »

i have however seen a few club track training sessions and one thing strikes me is that for the numbers that run these sessions, would it be fair to ask if everyone in the group is training at "their" optimal pace?

i recently joined up with CIT AC but cant train with them as the timing isint great for me, but i want to give it a go in january if i can....

The sessions run under our Head Coach involve some 25 to 35 athletes of varying standards. They are split into groups of 2 to 6 or 7 and they run at target paces geared to each sub-group. So, yes, everyone is training at, or near,"their" optimal pace?
I'll PM you later and maybe you might like to try out our sessions in the New year?

robinph

Poeple who are members of clubs appear on every page of the results here:

http://www.rahenyshamrock.com/r510/men.pdf

Times for club runners range from 24minutes to 1:10'ish. Just taking those two times puts the average for 5 miles at something like 45 minutes.

Yes, there are more people who have declared their club at the sharp end of the race. But that weighting of more club runners seems to end after page 5 of the results and then the spread of club runners is pretty evenly spread over the next fifteen pages, so there are more club runners running slower than 34 minutes for five miles than there are faster.

I'm not offering to do a proper analysis of the times and spread of club runners, but the "average" is nowhere near the 30 minute claim already in this thread.

ocnoc

Condo131 wrote: »

I've heard a coach say, about a guy who was doing about 28:00 for 5 miles "He's a tryer, just a tryer. That's all!" This was in relation to team selection for a National Inter-club XC.

If that was a guy on my team, I'd prefer to be running with a "tryer" who busts their ass the entire way around that some hot shot, that thinks they are amazing, goes out with the lead group and drops out.
Clubs generally have one or two really good athletes and the rest of the team is made up of tryers, but without those tryers, the club would be winning very few team medals.

Just my tuppence worth.

seanynova

Condo131 wrote: »

The sessions run under our Head Coach involve some 25 to 35 athletes of varying standards. They are split into groups of 2 to 6 or 7 and they run at target paces geared to each sub-group. So, yes, everyone is training at, or near,"their" optimal pace?
I'll PM you later and maybe you might like to try out our sessions in the New year?

cheers, do send me a PM....i was talking to TNO about maybe doing a session or two...finding it hard to motivate myself for tempo runs lately so might be good to run in a group....although previously, i liked the idea of getting through those session on my own as come race day when there are people around it seams easier....its all in the head :rolleyes:

YFlyer

RayCun wrote: »

Yes, totally. oldrunner's first post talked about


That's not the average club runner. That's the average time of those who competed in a national championship. Only the better runners at that distance are going to show up. If you pick a 'normal' local race - Raheny, Sportsworld, Rathfarnham... - you could pick out the club runners from the results and work out their averages. Just scanning the Jingle Bells 5k results from last year, there are about 50 men finishing under 17.30, but the average for senior men club runners is well under 17.30.

So you are saying that the average club runner can run much quicker than 17.30 for 5K while their 10K time would be over 38 minutes? It doesn't seem right.

asimonov

Considering that we all have unique AAI registration numbers you'd think that it would be possible to build a national database of results of races that are certified or sanctioned.

From the commercial perspective it would allow the AAI to create some added value for their certification when dealing with race organisers, and runners of all abilities would be keen participate in races where their results are recorded and ranked against a national average in their AG.

Condo131

asimonov wrote: »

Considering that we all have unique AAI registration numbers you'd think that it would be possible to build a national database of results of races that are certified or sanctioned.

A) Unfortunately, I've been trying for years to get the AAI to list all races that have a permit, without success. It's all very well saying that (in theory) you can be suspended for running in a race that has no permit - *but how about telling us which ones DO have permits*.

A side issue of that is matter of certification/measurement. Seems to be no official desire to build a list of certified courses. My club does have a list/calendar of Cork area races listing the initials of the race measurer.

C) We also have a database of Cork area races, plus many other relevant ones, mainly Munster and some national, containing 155,610 individual results from 846 races. It's not rocket science to do this and individual AAI reg numbers would make it much easier to weed out duplicate individuals.

[Note: Anyone looking for an update of CARD..please be patient. We're sorting out a few problems with the searches and also working on a more user-friendly and faster (particularly for the more user-useful Detailed Search). The new version should be on-line early in the New Year, and hopefully, missing recent results will be on-line in a week or two]

Sorry asimonov, this is probably peripheral to your views, but it gives a glimpse of what a voluntary club can do. The AAI should be able, as it (should) have direct access to everything, to do all you're asking with out too much effort.

RayCun

YFlyer wrote: »

So you are saying that the average club runner can run much quicker than 17.30 for 5K while their 10K time would be over 38 minutes? It doesn't seem right.

No, sorry, confusing usage on my part, I'll go back and change it.

The Jingle Bells results would seem to indicate that the average club runner is significantly slower than 17.30.

People seem to be using 'average' when they mean 'unimpressive'.

asimonov

Thanks condo, its not peripheral at all, I've browsed through CARD before, and was thinking of it when I posted. Excellent piece of work considering it's not resourced. Going slightly off topic, i agree it's an achievable system at national level, but would probably require a shift in priority and thinking from the association. Maybe a commercial partner like a timing company might help. I mentioned power of ten above; whilst it doesn't drill down to all levels, at least its some form of national ranking or table for club athletes. Looking forward to the CARD update.

oldrunner

I was trying to start debate on two separate issues when I started the thread:

1 What times do you have to run to be considered an 'average' club runner? What I mean by average, is statistically in the middle. I don't think that average should be seen as a criticism.

The only races I could think of that have a good sample of runners are the National 10k and National half marathon. Cross Country races are too variable to measure times (distance and conditions can vary greatly). Track championships are dominated by above average runners. Based on this, I calculated 38 minutes (actually abut 38:40) as the average for this year's 10k - that's slower than 6 minutes a mile.

2 Are the averages that exist pretty poor for clubs?

Personally, I think 38 minutes for 10k is a mediocre average for senior runners competing on behalf of their clubs in a national championship? Others might disagree. However, as a 50 year old, I am now finishing in similar places in many races as I was 20 years ago (I am running much slower - and I have never considered myself better than average). This suggests to me that the average is now mediocre.

Bear in mind that the athletic clubs are the equivalent of FAI premier league teams or GAA Inter County teams - they are the top tier of running in the country. At the very worst, they should be at the same relative level as a top local Senior GAA club or AUL soccer club. If the average is 38 and the best is 30, then the other end is 46 minutes. I don't think that a GAA player or soccer player that was a 46 minute equivalent (if such a thing exists) would live at the top level and get to represent a senior club.

This is not about elitism. Everyone can get great satisfaction from running and achieve their own PB - its all relative. If I was elitist, I should have given up years ago instead of getting out there 7 days a week. The thread is about the standard of club running - not about running in general.

However,if the average becomes mediocre, then the best will become average. I question the attitude of some posters who, for fear of offense or a charge of elitism, don't want to recognise poor times by Club runners competing for their club at the top level available in the country.

oldrunner

RayCun wrote: »

That's not the average club runner. That's the average time of those who competed in a national championship. Only the better runners at that distance are going to show up. If you pick a 'normal' local race - Raheny, Sportsworld, Rathfarnham... - you could pick out the club runners from the results and work out their averages. Just scanning the Jingle Bells 5k results from last year, there are about 50 men finishing under 17.30, but the average for senior men club runners is significantly slower than 17.30.

So, you are saying that I have over-estimated the average - that 38 minutes for 10k is actually well above average. If that's the case, It would appear to support my argument that the average is now mediocre.

YFlyer

RayCun wrote: »

No, sorry, confusing usage on my part, I'll go back and change it.

The Jingle Bells results would seem to indicate that the average club runner is significantly slower than 17.30.

People seem to be using 'average' when they mean 'unimpressive'.

I was guessing that you used the wrong word there.

RayCun

oldrunner wrote: »

So, you are saying that I have over-estimated the average - that 38 minutes for 10k is actually well above average. If that's the case, It would appear to support my argument that the average is now mediocre.

Well, the problem with using the national championships to work out an average is one of selection - runners in a national championship aren't a representative sample of club runners.
But if you're saying that 38 minutes is mediocre, it must be mediocre compared to something else, so there's another selection problem - what are you comparing it to?

ecoli

RayCun wrote: »

Well, the problem with using the national championships to work out an average is one of selection - runners in a national championship aren't a representative sample of club runners.
But if you're saying that 38 minutes is mediocre, it must be mediocre compared to something else, so there's another selection problem - what are you comparing it to?

Think the times are being compared to previous standards set in previous generations

RayCun

ecoli wrote: »

Think the times are being compared to previous standards set in previous generations

But are these standards being recalled through the hazy pink glow that accrues to memories of youth? Has anyone worked out what the average times were in national championships 20 years ago, or are people remembering the winning times? Was the profile of competitors the same 20 years ago or not? (Same number of entrants? more/less selection by clubs? were the championships more or less important in the running calendar? so how many possible entrants treated it like an A race for the year?)

And if we're talking about your actual average club runner of today, compared to 1990 or 1980, are the clubs bigger or smaller than they were then? How many club runners then and now were involved in the sport from their schooldays?

(Maybe standards are declining, I have no stake in it being otherwise. The 'common sense' explanations for why standards are declining seem reasonable to me, but sometimes the decline seems to be assumed so that everyone can move speedily on to the fun bit - complaining about the youth of today! )

Gringo78

From what I can see, athletics Ireland website only has results back to 2000. The only difference between 2010 & 2000 is there was a higher participation 2010, but this probably all down to the fact that it was combined with the Great Ireland 10k Run. Apart from that, wining time, top 20 time and top 50 time are similar in 2000 & 2010.

Looking at the results of 2010, it looks like very few runners travelled up from Cork for it...probably if you're not going to place it in, not much point in making the trip to Dublin. I wonder was that the same for other parts of the country. hence, national championships are really poor for statistical analysis as they are not a reflection of the depth of runners from say 32 to 36min who probably put a lot of time into their training but wouldn't do a round trip of 5 hours drive to finish 70th in a race at which their club wouldn't have the numbers for a team entry anyway.

There were about 90 runners under 36min in 2010 national 10k - prob over 60 different runners in Cork area have broken 36min over last 3-4 years so if all those showed up for the national 10k the results would look well different. Again, this would be repeated around the country.