Is a 2:39 marathon sub elite

2:20 is slow

Its not national class at all, especially with the supershoes

i haven’t run it yet but it’s not impressive

this is the only correct answer. People who call themselves "sub-elite" need to get over themselves.

Hobby elite

I think you're many years too late with these.

a sub-2:10 (say Stephen Scullion of Ireland or Richard Ringer of Germany) is nowhere near a medal contender on an international stage. Taking Eliud out of the occasion, how many 203 & 204 guys are there nowadays? loads

2:10 isn't even that assured of doing well within European Champs:
Ringer, GER, 208
Scullion, IRE, 209
Abdi, BEL, 203
Nageeye, NED, 204
Amdouni, FRA, 205
Abraham, SWI, 206
Petros, GER, 206
Teferi, ISR, 206
and that's just off the top of my head. 2:10 isn't threatening those folks

Secondly, 2:15 is not world class - it doesn't even qualify you for the Commonwealth Games [2:14:00], unfortunately it's a real dead zone between the big guys and the club runners

And then 2:30 is not National Class by a long shot. I know guys running 2:24 who haven't broken 15:00, to even enter into British National Champs you have to be 13:55 I think. 2:30 is just for a dedicated club runner.

Just because you can win your local Marathon doesn't make that person a certain standard of athlete, heck I know local 10K's won in 36mins, it's a bad measure to go by

To OP's original question I think 2:39 for women is really testing the limit of being defined as 'sub-elite', I think 2:35-36 is more the limit. On the Men's side it seems 2:20 is the sub-elite standard. National Class starts somewhere around <2:12-13

From the events themselves guaranteed entry (men/women under 45 full marathon although these only differ to 18-34 where stated):
London: 2:40/3:14
Berlin: 2:45/3:00
Valencia: Can't find any
Tokyo: 2:32/3:19
Boston: 2:19/2:45
New York: 2:58 (2:53 for 18-34)/3:26 (3:13 for 18-34)
Chicago: 3:20 for 40-49 (3:05 for 16-29)/3:50 for 40-49 (3:35 for 16-29)

Based on the above 2:40 for men would be sub-elite pretty much anywhere except for Tokyo and Boston. Not sure why Chicago has a much easier time criteria.

My take is that sub-elite means you get your name on your bib at major races, but nobody expects you to win. Guaranteed entry is different than getting into a sub-elite corral.

I wish there was some sort of race between the Trials and Boston marathon to shoot for qualifying. Trials seem like they’ll become more difficult to get into every cycle especially if USATF keeps making it a financial burden on the host city. Boston is too easy to qualify for. How awesome would it be if there was a race for all the 2:35 to fringe trials qualifiers to get after it together. CIM or Chicago are probably the closest we’ve got. Boston and New York aren’t really a great setting if you’re not getting special treatment before the race. I’m thinking club cross but it’s a marathon instead of a 10k

Look up the 2022 CIM marathon results...

It's definitely not sub-elite. I'd say sub 2:27, or at least sub 5:40 pace...maybe sub 5:30 pace

You aren't clever.

I'm assuming you've spoken to a human being before, and so you'll know that phrases have meanings beyond their literal definitions.

You complain that the trials standard keeps getting more difficult? Heck yes and it should be. Needs to be 2:14:30 otherwise you’re just clogging up the road. It’s to qualify for the Olympics, it should r be a fund raiser.

2:39 can't be considered elite.

You need some combination of training and talent to run that, but not necessarily a high level of either. I ran 2:39 back in the day with no training run longer than 8 miles, and am far from super-talented. Never broke 14:40 for 5K.

Ya 2:30-2:45 is definitely not sub elite. Don’t get in the mindset of ’medals to everyone’. sub elite is definitely sub 2:30 but to me I’d even go as far to say sub 2:20.

No kidding. My PR in college were 15:20 and 32:00 and I got in a 2:33 at Chicago the next year. I didn't consider myself "sub-elite." I was roughly 10km behind the winner.

And let's be clear. My best mile PR was ~4:30. Someone running 2:04 is pacing a 4:44? Maybe I could keep up for 2-3k?

A 2:39 is a fine time - but particularly in these days of super shoes, it's far from elite even in the US. Not a bad masters time though.

That is exactly not what the OP asked.

I agree. The gap between 2:18 (OTQ) and 3:00-3:05 (BQ) is just too big. There is nothing "official" that runners in that gap can shoot for in the marathon, is there?

When I was young, I was waaay too slow to hit an OTQ but getting a BQ meant nothing to me because it was "so easy." It sort of sapped my motivation to train hard for the marathon. I regret not racing more marathons in my 30s (after I was done running 5km PRs but before I became an old, injured masters runner).

I am in the camp of a bigger race at the trials. Doesn’t have to be billed strictly as a competition to see who goes to the Olympics. You keep way more people in the sport if 2:25 unlocks a higher level of race. If we’re being honest, there isn’t much difference between being a 2:18 marathoner and a 2:21 marathoner other than having more time to train…and plenty of 2:18 marathoners will run 2:21 or slower in half their marathons given the variability of the event. No need to pay the hotels/travel for the 2:20-2:25 guys.

Not even. You are just a fast hobby jogger. 2:15-2:20 is probably sub elite

I'd agree with this.

At 2:23 I would consider myself sub-sub elite/competitive for my state/region. I can't win my local marathon (Columbus) and can't even get a comped bib for CIM with my personal best. I'd say sub 2:20 would be the cut off for sub elite.

So when Ed Whitlock or Gene Dykes ran sub 3, it was nothing to write home about...