What's a good marathon time for the general population?

not a troll wrote:

I run marathons in the 2:35-2:45 range as a 40 year old male. I'm not that good myself, maybe decent. I think of myself as slightly above average even though "average" is probably 4:00 for males and 4:30 for females. But those are embarrassingly slow times. If someone tells me that I'm like sure.

But what times should I be impressed with? or feign it? (yeah I'm just a jackass who only thinks times faster than mine are impressive). If someone says they ran a 2:5x I'm thinking that's decent though I'd hate that myself. When they say 3:0X my ears close off and at 3:3x I'm like so you even trying bro (or gal). I think most ppl I know who train seriously/semi seriously run from 2:18 - 2:5x so my perspective is a bit warped.

My family always thinks my times are like record breaking but to me they're just good but okay.

WhatABunchOfJerkOffs wrote:

I want to punch every poster here so far. Trolling, smug, toxic bros, and/or arrogant are all of you, especially you OP. So, for you, 0/10.

Look at any marathon and the average time is likely close to four hours, maybe slower. A runner at 2:45 or under is WAY in the upper tier. Among reasonable, normal, non-as-hole types, it breaks down like this:

4:00-Healthy, interested runner who trained with some long runs; older runners

3:30-Trained runner using a plan; plenty of runners will never hit this time

3:15-Serious hobbyist; most runners will never achieve this time

3:00-Serious runner, well-trained with some talent; few will achieve this time

2:45-Serious runner, well-trained, quite talented; getting into rare air here

Any times under 2:45-most runners cannot connect with what it would be to be able to run this fast for that long.

For any of you jerk0ffs snarking at the slower runners in the marathon, there would be NO RACE without them. Also remember that age will get you and, assuming you stay with it, YOU TOO will be the codger working your as$ off to hit four hours in the marathon some day.

anothermarathoner wrote:

My friend ran 2:36 at the Boston marathon, and he thinks he’s the best in the world for some reason (lol, one of those types), but he literally packed up and moved to Boulder to pursue running. Barely broke 17 in college. His life revolves around his running. Literally obsessed with strava and spends his entire day trying to get as many followers as possible haha. My other friend (female) ran 2:38 on a difficult course last year. Both are early 20s. But she’s in med school. Has a job. Her life does not revolve around the sport. My point is, I’m much more impressed with her time because of the fact that she has other demanding things going on in her life and wasn't able to give it 100% (and also she’s a woman, so it’s a much better time in comparatively).

I’m much more impressed with someone who has a family, who has a full time job, who can’t plan their life around their runs. So, for the general public, if a guy runs sub 3 or a woman runs sub 3:30 I’m super impressed. But if someone who ran 4 years in college moves to Boulder to train and gives it their full time and commitment, I think it would take a sub 2:22 for guys and sub 2:40 for women for me to be impressed.

not a troll wrote:

WhatABunchOfJerkOffs wrote:

I want to punch every poster here so far. Trolling, smug, toxic bros, and/or arrogant are all of you, especially you OP. So, for you, 0/10.

Look at any marathon and the average time is likely close to four hours, maybe slower. A runner at 2:45 or under is WAY in the upper tier. Among reasonable, normal, non-as-hole types, it breaks down like this:

4:00-Healthy, interested runner who trained with some long runs; older runners

3:30-Trained runner using a plan; plenty of runners will never hit this time

3:15-Serious hobbyist; most runners will never achieve this time

3:00-Serious runner, well-trained with some talent; few will achieve this time

2:45-Serious runner, well-trained, quite talented; getting into rare air here

Any times under 2:45-most runners cannot connect with what it would be to be able to run this fast for that long.

For any of you jerk0ffs snarking at the slower runners in the marathon, there would be NO RACE without them. Also remember that age will get you and, assuming you stay with it, YOU TOO will be the codger working your as$ off to hit four hours in the marathon some day.

Didn't say I wasn't arrogant. But I want to understand. I have a lot of local people who follow my strava and give me encouraging comments. So I look at their stuff and give kudos too.

When someone runs a 5k TT and their pace is like 8-9 min/mi is that normal? good for a 45 year old? I'm seriously not trolling. The people I run with at my age will drop 15-16' for men and 16-17' for women.

I'm running like 70-90 mpw and people think it's extreme. Idk. I guess should I be impressed with 50 mpw? or 62 (100k?).

No Dude wrote:

anothermarathoner wrote:

My friend ran 2:36 at the Boston marathon, and he thinks he’s the best in the world for some reason (lol, one of those types), but he literally packed up and moved to Boulder to pursue running. Barely broke 17 in college. His life revolves around his running. Literally obsessed with strava and spends his entire day trying to get as many followers as possible haha. My other friend (female) ran 2:38 on a difficult course last year. Both are early 20s. But she’s in med school. Has a job. Her life does not revolve around the sport. My point is, I’m much more impressed with her time because of the fact that she has other demanding things going on in her life and wasn't able to give it 100% (and also she’s a woman, so it’s a much better time in comparatively).

I’m much more impressed with someone who has a family, who has a full time job, who can’t plan their life around their runs. So, for the general public, if a guy runs sub 3 or a woman runs sub 3:30 I’m super impressed. But if someone who ran 4 years in college moves to Boulder to train and gives it their full time and commitment, I think it would take a sub 2:22 for guys and sub 2:40 for women for me to be impressed.

Reminds me of a guy I know as well, but sort of different circumstances. The guy was was 41 and ran 2:38 and trained his butt off running 90-100 mile weeks, always on the verge of injury. It was impressive to me because he worked full time as an engineer and with a lot of extra-curriculars. However, he told me one day that the 100 mile weeks weren't worth it anymore because the juice was not worth the squeeze. While most people think 2:38 is amazing, for him it was just a realization that he was a nobody in the world of running and nobody really cared but him. He was still getting beat in mid-sized races by at least 10-15 runners (sometimes 300-400 in a big race) and certainly wasn't getting paid.

He felt if he had ran 2:13-2:16 and got into the trials....maybe it was worth that sacrifice. And then he told me if he would have just been fine with a 2:50 marathon his life would have been just as good. It seemed like he had some regrets about the time he spent doing something so inconsequential. Today, he still puts in 30 mile weeks but has no desire to compete.

WhatABunchOfJerkOffs wrote:

I want to punch every poster here so far. Trolling, smug, toxic bros, and/or arrogant are all of you, especially you OP. So, for you, 0/10.

Look at any marathon and the average time is likely close to four hours, maybe slower. A runner at 2:45 or under is WAY in the upper tier. Among reasonable, normal, non-as-hole types, it breaks down like this:

4:00-Healthy, interested runner who trained with some long runs; older runners

3:30-Trained runner using a plan; plenty of runners will never hit this time

3:15-Serious hobbyist; most runners will never achieve this time

3:00-Serious runner, well-trained with some talent; few will achieve this time

2:45-Serious runner, well-trained, quite talented; getting into rare air here

Any times under 2:45-most runners cannot connect with what it would be to be able to run this fast for that long.

For any of you jerk0ffs snarking at the slower runners in the marathon, there would be NO RACE without them. Also remember that age will get you and, assuming you stay with it, YOU TOO will be the codger working your as$ off to hit four hours in the marathon some day.

longtime runner wrote:

This is always a fun question to answer because there are so many ways to answer it.

Your 2:35 Marathon time is excellent and sucks at the same time. It sucks compared to world class and it's excellent for 99% of the Marathon runners out there. I am not even talking about the average person.

If you can manage to run 5k without stopping you are already so much fitter than most of the population.

I think they can be decent Marathon times for different people.
For the average Joe with a family and two kids, started late in life with running a 4:15 might be excellent.
For some others it's 3:30.
The Letsrun standard developed over the last couple of years says the sweet spot is around 3:07.

I personally think everything below 3 hours (for men) is excellent. You have to put in quite some effort to get there unless you are really talented like you are with your 2:35.

anothermarathoner wrote:

My friend ran 2:36 at the Boston marathon, and he thinks he’s the best in the world for some reason (lol, one of those types), but he literally packed up and moved to Boulder to pursue running. Barely broke 17 in college. His life revolves around his running. Literally obsessed with strava and spends his entire day trying to get as many followers as possible haha. My other friend (female) ran 2:38 on a difficult course last year. Both are early 20s. But she’s in med school. Has a job. Her life does not revolve around the sport. My point is, I’m much more impressed with her time because of the fact that she has other demanding things going on in her life and wasn't able to give it 100% (and also she’s a woman, so it’s a much better time in comparatively).

I’m much more impressed with someone who has a family, who has a full time job, who can’t plan their life around their runs. So, for the general public, if a guy runs sub 3 or a woman runs sub 3:30 I’m super impressed. But if someone who ran 4 years in college moves to Boulder to train and gives it their full time and commitment, I think it would take a sub 2:22 for guys and sub 2:40 for women for me to be impressed.