2:30 is nowhere near pro level...
I ran 2h24'53'' in 1996. this is more than 9' off the pace of the fastest woman!!!
actually some years back you could get an elite status under 2h27'.
now it is adjusted to below 2h20' for most marathons. and at 2h20' you can't even pace the fastest women...
the fastest guys have amazing speed...just unreal to me...ok, they are "just" runners, but the pace is just fantastic.

I'd say

pro level: sub2h15'
great: 2h15' to 2h20'
very good: 2h20' to 2h30'
good:2h30' to 3h

but this is very subjective...
in kenya sub 3h is good only if you're under 10yo :-)

2:05 to 2:07 are easily within the special category of "freak of nature." I'd say 2:08 t0 2:12 is what I consider "pro level" as these people are in their own world also, 2:13-2:20 would be great, 2:20-2:35 is pretty damn good and 2:35 - 3:00 is a "good" marathon time.

When I think about how fast I run compared to how fast the elites run, it makes me happy there is a "multisport category." Same with when I watch Ullrich, Millar, and Armstrong TT, makes me happy we have "multisport" when you see how fast they really go.

I guess I should have been a little more explicit - first off lets get one thing straight - anything under 2:15 is freakish - I was however refering to us mere mortals and (mainly) age group triathletes....thanks for putting things in perspective though

---

http://www.endurancesports.ca
Coaching and Training Camps

Ok, if you're talking male age-group triathletes, I'd say:

sub 2:45 - excellent

2:45 - 3:00 very good

3:00 - 3:15 good

3:15 - 3:30 above average

Just a guess. Obviously age is also a factor.

My favorite.............

Pro has to be under 2.10 other wise you could be beaten by a girl :)

I love PR

So male competitive Pro sub 2.07

Male mediocre pro 2.07-2.10

Male decent runner but no star sub 2.22

General Population

Sub 2.30 outstanding

2.30-2.45 Rocking

2.45-3.00 Very good over 26.2

3 a very good runner

If you mention to most runners today that you have run under 3:00, they think you are a God! I am serious. Yet in my mind this time is still quite "slow", but I come from a high performance run back-gound with some solid PB's and credentials. However, I came of age in high-school and university when distance running in US/Canada was very deep ( Late 70's early 80's) and believe it or not a 15:15 5K time did not get you very far. Indeed, I was only 3rd man on my high school xc running team in my senior year!

It's a weird time in long distance running, marathoning in particular. More people are running marathons than ever before, yet the average finish time at just about all big marathons is getting slower and slower each year. Here's an interseting point: My straight marathon PB is 2:40. It has always been my goal to finish in the top 100 at either Boston, NYC or Chicago Marathons( I have never done any of these races). Every year for the past 15 or so I have always checked to see what time I would need to do to finish in 100th place in each of these races. For the past 10 years the time for the 100th place runner has hovered around the 2:37 - 2:40( about 6:00 min/mile pace) in each of these great races. Which says something. Race fields have doubled, but in that time range there is about the same number of what I would consider very good rec-runners.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Thanks Guys - you have place my 3:22 at Seattle last week in perspective - got a lot more running to do this winter!!!

---

http://www.endurancesports.ca
Coaching and Training Camps

Well a 3:22 marathon time sounds pretty damn good to me. I'm embarrassed to even ask where they'd rank my first marathon time!! Let's just say that I entertained the BOP'ers. :)

I really want my next one to be sub-4 and then the one after that a BQ. I'm working hard at it, but I think it's going to take a few more years. One of these days I'd also like to meet the male BQ standard, but that might take me until I'm 70!!

Dawn

Dawn never ever be embarressed to say you have finished a Marathon - 26.2 miles is a damn fine achievement in any time. I my misguided youth I used to run a 10k in 32 mins - then like a lot of us on this forum spent 10 odd years putting on pounds - saw the light about 5 years ago and started doing a few tris which graducated to IM - Seattle was an attempt to improve my run using tri training - ran 4 days a week and cycled 3 per week - the cycling being the recover sessions. In short I was pretty happy with my time although would love to be sub 3 at some point...

---

http://www.endurancesports.ca
Coaching and Training Camps

If you ran 32 minutes for 10K at some point and you are not too far past 40 years now, I would say that you can definately get down below 3:00. It may take a bit of time, but it's doable. You have the credentials.

- Lot's of hills

- slowly and steadily increase the volume of miles and time spent running between 6:00 - 7:00 min/mile

- Race a 1/2 marathon at every opportunity

- Make the long run (1.5 to 2.5 hours) a weekly staple

- Good luck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Thanks Fleck

Your advice makes a lot of sense - started the hills thing around 3 months ago - not necessarily repeats as opposed to some tough climbing and it has made a huge difference. Got the long run between 90 and 2 and a half 3 out of 4 times a month. Probably could use more time in the 6 to 7 min per mile range though and would need to run 5 to 6 times a week as opposed to my current 4 - with cycling as recovery days. Oh almost forgot I am 37 and always remember a certain Carlos Lopez winning the Olympic Gold and breaking the world record at 39 - so the way I see it I am 2 years shy of my peak!!

---

http://www.endurancesports.ca
Coaching and Training Camps

2:24:53 you are sick my friend!! I think I'm going to have to call you Francois The Fleet!!

Brother that is outstanding running! How much running volumn/frequency a week did it take you to build up to that endurance level?

I can't imagine pushing that hard for that long, you must have been totaled after that one! bravo

avg about 120km per week in the 12 weeks going to it. running 6 times per week.

that said I never felt fleet feeted...I have some power but not a very gifted runner.
I train a lot with Olaf Sabatschus who is a gifted runner. natural light strides, really nice to see, just frequency and light impact on the ground. he ran a 63' + half marathon.
when I run with Olaf I have the impression that it's Simon Whitfield running next to Jurgen Zack (style wise)...that's how it feels...

that only shows how thin the level is at the "front". cracking top 100 with 2:40 is a shame, considering just how many people run. marathon is a fitness thing and not a professional sport nowadays. just some countries are different. in berlin with its 30.000 runners, it's just as it is in NY (sub 2:40 equals top100). in italy, in my case milan, my 2:39h was good for top100 also. but the field was only 5.000 runners thick!

and I came still 30 mins. short of the winner - imagine. that's approx. 20% slower. be 20% slower in an ironman with 5.000 startes - you'd guess the outcome.

cheers,

u

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

In Portugal, the country of Carlos Lopes and Rosa Mota, you have to be under 3 hours AT LEAST to be considered a marathonist.

That's why I was so happy after doing a 2:59:49 last sunday :-)))



Paulo

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

I can confess that my big goal is to run a Boston qualifying time. That's 3:20 in my AG. While that pace is a jog for many folks, it is a pace that is still quite out of reach for me. I'm running a few halfs late this winter, and may give a marathon a go this summer. First step is to do a half in 1:40. That is still a daunting goal, as my current training paces seem slightly shy of that. But, onward and upward...

See Fleck's advice above - it is excellent if looking to improve Marathon times

---

http://www.endurancesports.ca
Coaching and Training Camps

ya took the numbers right out of my mouth.... anyone wanting a humbling run assesment..check out "Running With The Buffalos" those CU guys running 20 mile RECOVERY runs at 6 minute pace...most cant run that for 5k race.

When you get a group of fast guys together, you never run slower than 6 min pace it seems, especially in the age range of 18-24 or so. I remember in college that 6 min pace was conversational pace, and you are young enough that it probably does not catch up to you (as quickly).

noticed the same thing in ultras - I'd always had top 100 at a race called 2 Oceans as a goal, 3:45 for the 35 miles would have been good enough through most of my competitive career. That held true even as the field increased from 1200 in 1979 to 8000+ in 1990. Last year, 100th place was 03:43:11, although this was on a different course to the one I ran. The best I ever did was 3:47 and 101st, dangnabbit.

Oddly enough my marathon PR is 2:40 too..

In my one run at Boston I ran 2:51 and 787th. They really pack in after 2:40 I guess..

---

"It is a good feeling for old men who have begun to fear failure, any sort of failure, to set a schedule for exercise and stick to it. If an aging man can run a distance of three miles, for instance, he knows that whatever his other failures may be, he is not completely wasted away." Romain Gary, SI interview

Doug - where you based these days? That's a pretty useful Oceans time - I gather on the old Chapmans peak route?

---

http://www.endurancesports.ca
Coaching and Training Camps

You were saying uli??? :-)

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

Zulu - Well done on a 3:22 at Seattle! I did a 3:29 at Northern Central Traill (much easier course than Seattle, I believe) two weeks ago, and I've been thrilled with it - until reading some of these posts! I guess we need a bit of perspective here, and maybe that needs to be expressed by age. I'm just shy of turning 55, so that 3:29 got me into Boston with plenty of room to spare (turning 55 in six weeks meant I needed a 3:45). For my first marathon since fall '99, I like to think I did a "good" time. Pulling off a 3:00 marathon would make me feel like an "excellent" marathoner...... although to do that I would have to give up triathlon and make running my sole focus, likely risking any number of debilitating injuries along the way. Really, though, isn't a 3:00 marathon "excellent" for most of us age-groupers -- regardless of whether we're 55 or 35? Anyhow, I think we're all on some kind of sliding scale here, wherein the Quest for Eternal Improvement requires that what was maybe "good" somewhere in the past isn't quite so good any longer? So, for those of you who maybe think 3:00 is "average" and want to feel "good" at 2:45, then all power to you and I hope you get that time. For all of us, though, let's keep it individualized, make our goals realistic, and find the "good" time whenever a goal is attained and it, uh, actually makes us feel good.