Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly ..
![[Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/635fc415b75a53e282d6c92c332b2f8a_100.png)
I was wondering ... There are very good runners, good ones, average ones and the hopeless 
How do you define (based on a result) a good running standard? For example, national class standard sub 30 for a 10k.
Any thoughts?
How do you define (based on a result) a good running standard? For example, national class standard sub 30 for a 10k.
Any thoughts?
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Very good - sub 30 mins
Good - 30-40 mins
Average - 40+ mins
Hopeless - non-triers
the difference in ability between a 31 minute 10Ker or a 39 minute one is enormous.
Sub 1:30 1/2m, Sub 40 10k, Sub 20 5k
Sub 80 1/2m, Sub 36 10k, Sub 18 5k
Sub 75 1/2m, Sub 24 10k, Sub 17 5k
Top 10% Very Good
Next 50% Good
Next 40% Average
Non Tries Poor
Sub 24 10k???
Only the top 2% are very good
Then I think 18% is good
Then 60% is normal mass
Then you have the 18 % poor
and finally 2% very poor
So an all applying "how good was I on the day relative to the rest of the field" would look something like this maybe?
Top 10% - very good
11% to 30% - good
31% to 40% - above average
41% to 60% - average
61% to 80% - below average
81% to 90% - poor
91% to 100% - very poor
There are tables to find the equivalent standards for vets and females.
But i would never say that anyone that did the race was very poor
I remember running a race or two with age adjusted positioning (the grizzly?) so I guess their must be some sort of standardised formula to decide an age related handicap?
Some one that is capable of a a 30min 10k does it in 34mins but Mr 45min runs a PB by 4mins and so on
http://jick.net/~jess/track/mtf/agt.html
http://www.pinebeltpacers.org/AgeGrade/newwava.html
Sasjeh - Maybe something like:
80 mins half / sub 38 10k / sub 19 5k
90 mins half / sub 43 10k / sub 21 5k
100 mins half / sub 45 10k / sub 22 5k
Remember when I was a kid just about to learn swimming. The main motivation was to get a bronze standard, which was 200 meters in 8 mins in whatever style and a dive from the 1m board, silver was 400m in 16 mins, gold was 600m in 24 and included more variety, like a 15 meter dive, jump from 3m platform etc. Maybe something like that would be cool in Athletics. A lot of people get motivated by status symbols (mobile phones etc.) why not a basic standard?
good: Area or County Vest
average: everyone else
ugly: Me
Thats a really good idea. Something schools should adopt, fighting obesity etc.
The Athletics Associations and Sports Council should take note. Look at the publicity Jamie Oliver has got for school diners.
I think there had to be a throw, jump and run plus a couple of floaters. I scored highly for the running and poorly for the rest.
Is it still around?
Kids
- 3 fun runs
- relay
Bronze
- Finish a 10k
Silver
- Finish distances up to 1/2 marathon
- Sub 60 mins 10k
Gold
- Finish 5k/5m/10k/10m/Half and marathon within a year
- Run a 1/2 marathon sub 2hrs
Likely if you managed a gold standard you would possibly lookig for joinging in a club. Then the next scheme applies, with more ambitious times.
Grumpity- when I was at primary school about 8 years back the system was the "ten step scheme" where you got points for each fun activity you did, I got "7 Step" lowest one in my class, most demoralising for a year 4. Year 5 and year 6 they had "5 Star" where you actually did all the different athletics events (furthest they'd let you run was 400m though, bit of an emphasis for the fast twitchers there) and got points for performance. Got "2 star" for this the first year and had to go and collect it in assembly which was very embarrasing as everyone else had done a lot better. Then the next year I got 3 Star which was a little better as not quite as embarrasing as some others had got it.
School sport at a primary level is very discouraging as it's either in athletics over short distances, games over a very short times or swimming again over a short distance. Total focus on fast twitch with complete ignorance for slow twitch. I was in a class of 30 in primary school, joined with the class of 30 for the year below. Out of the 60 or so who did it (and those who would have been wrose than me just managed to find excuses) I was the worst in the class. First year secondary school in a year of 150 I was on the athletics team and a county champion by year 11. By the second year of secondary school no-one else from my year was even competing at district athletics as they couldn't get into the school teams. In short- a lot of the time these systems don't work, encourage talent rather than hard work and have too much of a speed-focus.
URR's ideas are sounding a lot better. More focus on participation and less on performance. Those who turn up each week to train should be the priority for teams, not those who are the best, because let's face it, those who are the best aged 5-11 are hardly likely to be the best when we're looking for people to compete in the olympics are they?
As far as standards go you can't group together all runners from 30 minutes (e.g. potential international) to 40 minutes (good but not great).
sub 29- elite
29-32- semi-elite
32-35- Local champion
35-38 Club Runner (in the old sense)
38-42 Advanced Competitor
42-46 Competitor
46-55 Basic Competitor
55+ Intermediate
Some of the terms I've borrowed from Bob Glovers books, don't think it's quite his boundaries though. Every one who manages to finish a race is a success though, the real "average" is the people who do nothing and you lot are all stars
Your story is one of dedication and endeavour and you make a great role model for younger kids who enjoy taking part but think they'll never be any good.
(Which sub 35 did make you a local champion though)!