What is a good/average time for a 3K, 5K and 10K?

21 to 40 of 72 messages
10/09/2005 at 17:15
Lol Swerve, maybe I should tell people to have a look at tritalk where that guy classified "good" as a 2.20 marathon!

I'm quite happy to take Bob Glover's times for what is good - on his account I am on my own I miss the cut.
10/09/2005 at 17:17
DG, I'm sure getting under 3hrs would be very nice, but are sure you meant 3hrs?:o)

10/09/2005 at 17:32
Depends who you talk to. If you talk to the vets at my club 34.xx is `nothing special' and 33.xx is `ok but you should be doing better than that'.

That's for a 10k btw.

I agree with Popsider and Bryn. A male aged under 35 willing to train properly with no particular medical or life issues should be targeting...

5k - 17:30
10k - 36 mins
10miles - 60 mins
HM- sub 1:20
Marathon - sub 3hrs.
10/09/2005 at 17:49
(still think a 5 hour marathon is an achievement though)
10/09/2005 at 18:52
Top V60s are looking for sub-40 for 10k. Good ones are doing 40 minutes.

JJ
10/09/2005 at 18:57
As usual this thread has got way off the point. It's about 'average' times. I suspect average is about 44/45 mins for 10k and 20/22 minutes for 5k.

At V60 it's probably 46/48 mins
JJ
10/09/2005 at 19:03
The original question was about good / average times.

I think those times I've posted are `good' for a senior male after a few years' decent training.
10/09/2005 at 19:09
Does this mean the time of an average runner, or the average finishing time in races ...

... two different things I reckon (putting glasses and stats hat on). And "average" is a contentious term anyway.

At the middle of the mid-pack I'd guess that it's 45 mins (perhaps more) for a 10K. Really wouldn't know for a 5, maybe 22 mins?

10/09/2005 at 19:12
And if you want to know what is "good" (how do you define that?) then I'd say ...

low thirteens for a 5, and 27 something for a 10K. How many here have done that?

Probably what the geezer wanted to know is what he should aspire to. But, without knowing his background, who could tell, and anyway, he should be the judge of that himself ... few more races should give him an idea.
10/09/2005 at 19:34
Thanks for the support Biff - i'm a beginner and just wondered what I should be aiming for time wise so that I'm not embarassingly last in my first race in October!

And by the way, this 'geezer' is a girl!!lol
10/09/2005 at 19:39
Apologies, if you were stood in front of me I'm sure I'd know you were a girly. (Blush.)

if you use google I'm sure you'd be able to find last year's results for whatever race you're doing.
10/09/2005 at 19:40
Good point Biff. It does depend on the race. By your definition, we have no `good' 5k or 10k runners (or maybe just Jon Brown) which is probably correct in world terms.

For a local club HM 1hr 45 is probably mid-pack. For the GNR you're looking at 2hrs plus.

I think a lot of people (myself included) define good as a little bit slower than they are with very good being their current limit and average being where they were last year.

As you say, there's no real answer to that question.

What's a good cricket score? Depends on the circumstances.

If it's your first 10k then any time is a good time as you will have pushed yourself as hard as you can over a new distance. My first 10k was 53 mins and I was over the moon to have finished it in less than an hour, which was my target.

Just enjoy it, get a time and then start thinking about what would be a `good' improvement.
10/09/2005 at 19:52
An intuitive measure, based upon assessment of training quality, how you "feel" on the day, degree of effort you put in etc? And also progressive, based on racing history?

Any time is a good time if I beat people from my old club. Haha!

If I've done a race where I couldn't have put one more ounce of effort in then I'm happy. Although possibly that mindset is bad because you fight your way home, muscles tie up, and you get slower.
10/09/2005 at 19:59
Biff/BR
Those times aren't for a good athlete. There's lots of good ones. The times you quote are for exceptionally fast and talented runners.
JJ
10/09/2005 at 20:03
JJ - I don't know of a senior male club runner who puts in his regular 70mpw who can't do those times I posted.
10/09/2005 at 20:14
I think the difference is between the old idea of a "club runner" who is now viewed as a quite talented club runner whilst in the old days it was the norm. and the new club runners who are the (sorry for using the terms but it works well and you guys know what I mean) fun runners, joggers and i suppose the best term is recreational runners who are now joining up and creating clubs that are less "serious athletes" and more people doing it for enjoyment. Hence the reversal in times for a "club runner", despite both sorts still existing with the "old sort" either being normal in an old club or one of the top guys in a newer club
10/09/2005 at 20:18
Exceptionally fast and talented is "good" in a sense.

"Good" is now a devalued word due to the trendy insistence on intensifiers to modify an adjective. I blame football commentators and mangers of the David Brent ilk myself.

I'm reclaiming the language.

Pele was a good footballer. :-)
10/09/2005 at 20:19
Yes Bryn, standards used to be higher (as I hear every week:-))

Our `fast group' down at the club consists of me, two V45s (one of whom is over a minte quicker than me over 10k) and a 53 year old who I am seriously worried about next time I race him as there won't be more than 10 seconds between us.
10/09/2005 at 20:20
What a great post, Biff...:-)
10/09/2005 at 20:26
ask 100 people the same question and you will get 100 different answers
21 to 40 of 72 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