A Good 10k time?

21 to 40 of 63 messages
08/05/2012 at 11:39

as above - depends on your perception of "good" really. to joe bloggs it's probably under 50mins, to most half decent runners the bench mark is sub 40. i recently ran just under 36mins but to me that's "OK", i'm the slowest runner in my group, the quickest has run (JUST!) sub 30 which is seriously good. for me, i'd say sub 35.


but it's all relative you're out there running, that's the main thing.

08/05/2012 at 12:52

Good time for a 10k is a relative and changeable feast.

No doubt when you start out sub 40 is a big benchmark. Often by sheer convenience of it simply being a big number.

For your average small town event, your 200-300 field race, you'll be pretty competitive in the mid 30s. To win one of these level races you probably need to be in the 33-34 domain.

If you can get sub 33 or quicker, you can basically become a professional race winning hustler

Power of 10 used to hold up sub 36mins as the benchmark to get a UK ranking, and perhaps 1,500 would hit that each year.

However, unfortunately they've extended the barrier to 40 which just takes a little away I think, as you suddenly get 5,000 or so in the rankings 1/3 of the way through the year!

09/05/2012 at 08:31

For club runner - Sub 35 I would call outstanding, sub 36 very good, sub 38 pretty good, sub 40 good, sub 42 competetive (These are all male times)

09/05/2012 at 08:44

Not sure that sub 33 makes you a professional race winning hustler!

Local 10K (Yeovil Easter Bunny) - just under 400 finishers - winner did 30:19. 32:30 only got you 5th!!

09/05/2012 at 09:05

I imagine Stevie specifically used the word "hustler" because being a 33 mins 10k runner is about the level where you can start to pick and choose soft races to try and go prize bagging.  Not that you'd make much money out of it cos if they're particularly low-key events you'll probably just make your entry fee back in vouchers! 

09/05/2012 at 09:07

Yes - you'd definitely be in with a chance of getting prizes if you picked and chose your races carefully. Not sure you'd be able to make a living out of it though. Not that I will have to spend time worrying about that!

Cheerful Dave    pirate
09/05/2012 at 10:04

Oh, I don't know about that Phil.  I once won a new bike running 35 mins at the local 10k.  not a Colnago unfortunately, but it made a change from vouchers.  Mind you, I run it most years and the winning time is usually a bit quicker than that

09/05/2012 at 11:55

It's completely the luck of the draw who turns up. That Yeovil race sounds a super quality race.

In my experience down south, I've found ever since I went 38:30 in 2008, I've come top 10 in every race with less than 400 runners.

You get so many 10k events, that the really top runners are diffused between races. The vast majority of 10ks I've seen have been won in the mid 33 to 34s. Exceptions have been the big local races, where winning times can sink to the 30s.

Phil, I'd say 37-38mins 10k is the time you can start to pick and choose soft races to win  I'd say if you're a low 33min man you'd have a pretty excellent chance of winning most races that are 200-300 strong fields.

 I won 3 ultra low key races when I was in that 37-38 time slot, not to mention a stack of 2nd and 3rds, none of them fun runs. First year events, not put on by a running club, where there's a longer distance race on at the same time are classics

However, the most bootleg race I won was some 4.7miler in Gloucestershire. That was a race that also featured a 2.9mile run as well. A ruddy faced portly chap heard my winning time for the 4.7miler, realised he'd run his (shorter) race slightly quicker, and actually told the organisers he'd won. The fact they even listened to him for a few seconds, even though they'd seen me win, and him not even win the 2.9miler, showed how low standard the whole set up was!!

For now, i'd much prefer to do a higher quality race and try and get a pb, then win some pony affair...how things change!

Edited: 09/05/2012 at 11:58
31/05/2012 at 20:00

I began running about 3 weeks ago and it takes me like 55 minutes. I'm about 6'5" 265 pounds, use to play in NFL and prior to starting to run 3 weeks ago I have not done any physical exersice sence my career ended about 4 years ago and this is my first time running long distance also. I would like to get my speed down, so I was wondering in training for a 10k is it better to work more on conditioning my legs to run 10k by running 10 mile runs or better to do 400's and 1600's as fast as I can. Which is better in actually getting my time better? I've kind of done a combination of both but I'm about 2 weeks from the race and was wondering what would be more effective.

31/05/2012 at 20:21

IMO there's relative for age, and absolute for time to cross the line. Since I'm older, I like to stick to good for age For this I use my WAVA. When my WAVA for a 10 km and 5 km passed 70% I was particularly chuffed. Still struggling to get half and mara times into the 70s.

The guidelines for WAVA comparisons are pretty sketchy, but I've read that 60s can be considered local level and 70s start to get to county level. Do any of the relativists have a clear opinion on this?

31/05/2012 at 21:35

My wava was just over 80% last year. I run mostly off road and hilly races. These races always appear to be won by us oldun's. If the really good runners show up then I'm about 10th (female) if they stay home then I can place (1-3). There is usually no vet categories as it's the vets that win the races. I'm not sure why the hilly off road races favour or are favoured by vets. It does appear to be the case though.

I've run a couple of 'bootleg' races. Very poorly marked, no time keeping, one had three distances yet all the runners finished together so no one knew what race you had just run. Didn't help that a number of runners took a long cut, another group a short cut - complete shambles really. Like Dr. Foster, I didn't go there again.

I pick my races based on terrain. Some have large fields, other small, I never know which. I do like doing first running of events though. Just because it's something different.

I'd love to run a sub 36 min 10k, I hate to resign myself to being a plodder.  OK, got to get the zimmer oiled and go training.

I was just thinking that for me wava appears to be generous.

Edited: 31/05/2012 at 21:37
31/05/2012 at 22:17

I was always under the impression that a sub 40 min 10km was of a decent standard. Ive only ever ran three 10k races, one which was around 2005 in preston and i ran 40.11 and came around 40th. My second was in February this year where i ran 36.16 and finished 9th and just recently i ran one in Blackpool in 34.47 (flat course) and came third!!!!

I'm not affiliated with any club and between the years of 2005 and now ive just ran to keep fit and noticed i was getting quicker. Thought i could maybe get a sub 38, and when i hit that and realised how close to a sub 36 i was i was hooked on breaking 36 mins. I shocked myself when i got a 34.47 as i never thought id get anywhere near that in my lifetime (thought i was going to die after my first 10km). Hoping to join a club soon and hopefully i can further improve.


01/06/2012 at 08:23
Steve C. wrote (see)

The guidelines for WAVA comparisons are pretty sketchy, but I've read that 60s can be considered local level and 70s start to get to county level. Do any of the relativists have a clear opinion on this?

I don't think that can be right. The WAVA thing on Fetch shows me at just over 60% for two recent events, which were 50 mins for a 10K and 4:24 for a marathon. Neither of which can be anywhere near local level, seeing as I'm not quite 40 yet...



01/06/2012 at 10:19

I refer you to the World Masters Association FAQ:

"What’s an age-graded percentage?
It’s a measure of how high you rank in your own age group — a formula often used in major meets. If you’re classified over 90% — you are world class in your age group. Marks over 80% are national class. Over 70% is regional class. Over 60% is local class. Marks below 60% are for the sainted masters who just love to compete..."

Give yourself credit where credit is due

02/06/2012 at 08:23

I agree with the others...10k times are relative to how serious you are about running, your age, your training etc. Generally I'd say between 40-45 minutes is a good 10k time for the general runner with sub-40 being classed as a real achievement.

18/11/2012 at 18:41

How do these times vary for men/women?  I'm assuming most of the above posts are referring to times for men - does anyone know what a "good" female time would be?

18/11/2012 at 20:11

Im 15 and am proud with my 38 minutes!

22/11/2012 at 23:26
Cat in the hat - that all depends on your age etc.

Harry, that's a good time for a lad of your age IMO. I wish I'd stuck with the running while at school instead of smoking and drinking. I'm making amends now though.
22/11/2012 at 23:52
The 'good' chicks at my club all run sub 42. A couple of extremely good ones run 35-36. One excellent one has a sub 33 PB from a few years ago now.

I'd be ecstatic to just get below 45 mins...
17/12/2012 at 19:09

A lady running sub 33?  Top 7 in the country this year territory that.

21 to 40 of 63 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums