A Psychological Observation

We all seem to have different definitions of "fast" and "slow." Why? Because we all are at different abilities. Nearly everyone seems to think that "fast" is a time just slower than their PRs or running ability.

This is evident when people like SourWorms glorify themselves as "fast," yet everyone else is slower until they run times almost or better than his (He made the sub 4:30 mile club and congratulated RWS on getting a legit time for 5 miles).

I have noticed this with myself also. When training for outdoor, a season where I was hoping to go around 4:50, I decided that "fast" for a freshmen was sub 5. I kept this belief when I finally broke 5 in May.

I've seen this in others (in general) on this forum and am confident that it occurs in a good chunk of the population here at least.

Maybe it is a balance of confidence and motivation, or a self-conscious need for attention and praise, but whatever it is, I think it is clearly behind our definitions of "fast" and "slow."

This also makes people like SourWorms no different from anyone else. They're the same as the slow HS marathoner who thinks it's great if you can break 4 hours. In fact, I am willing to bet that if SW had a PR of 4:44, his definition of "fast" would be 4:45 or 4:50.

Not true at all.

The fast/slow line is a 4:48 mile. No faster no slower.

ProtestTheZero wrote:Not true at all.

The fast/slow line is a 4:48 mile. No faster no slower.

Thats pretty much right haha. The top region runner who scored points in are region ran a 4:46 for the past 3 years its been like that.

I guess that could be said for all facets of life, not just running. For example, some people think they're "smart", but upon meeting a genius, they could actually be considered dumb. They're still considered smart compared to others. It's all relative.
A 4:40 marathoner would think a 3:30 marathoner was "fast", and a 3:30 marathoner would think a 2:20 marathoner was really fast.

I see that in me as well. As I get faster the line between slow and fast gets faster. Of course this is all in my head.

of course its relative. bernard legat could run my times with two broken feet backwards.

Definition of fast is based on the area u live more than what u can run like here in the city fast for a sophmore is like 4:45 4:50 but for FK in upstate that time would be mediocre.

It has been a long long time since I thought any times near mine are fast. I would say that I usually think of my goal times as fast. After I reach my goals I see myself as fast for about a week until I set new goals. I'm never content with my PRs for more than a few days.

I guess it's not a lot of people then.

funrunner wrote:It has been a long long time since I thought any times near mine are fast. I would say that I usually think of my goal times as fast. After I reach my goals I see myself as fast for about a week until I set new goals. I'm never content with my PRs for more than a few days.

That's about what happens with me. I set a goal that to me is fast but then after I get it it is no longer fast but just the norm.

My goal is always to be "decent." When I first started, I said "when i run a 6 minute mile, i'll be decent." Then I needed a 5 minute mile and a 20 minute 5k. Now I am saying to myself "When I break 4:35 and 10:00, I'll be decent." I find myself constantly changing my standards of decency.

RawBeginner wrote:My goal is always to be "decent." When I first started, I said "when i run a 6 minute mile, i'll be decent." Then I needed a 5 minute mile and a 20 minute 5k. Now I am saying to myself "When I break 4:35 and 10:00, I'll be decent." I find myself constantly changing my standards of decency.

lol thats kind of like how i think.

SourWorms wrote:of course its relative. bernard legat could run my times with two broken feet backwards.

if youre so smart about running how come you cant spell LAGAT right?

RawBeginner wrote:My goal is always to be "decent." When I first started, I said "when i run a 6 minute mile, i'll be decent." Then I needed a 5 minute mile and a 20 minute 5k. Now I am saying to myself "When I break 4:35 and 10:00, I'll be decent." I find myself constantly changing my standards of decency.

when you went on RW you said you ran like a 4:57 in the first race of your life....

i don't think that is true with everybody. i'm pretty sure i was in one of the hardest areas for freshman runners, so a 4:52 mile/10:17 2 mile don't really even put me near some of the people my same age. but i mean if there's a freshman that breaks 5 and breaks 10:40, IMO, that's pretty good.

i try not to put people in categories like "oh that kid is fast because he beat me" or "oh that kid is slow because i beat him", because if i consider people in a faster category then that kind of discourages me in later races to beat them, and i consider people in a slower category, they could always beat me at a later race. did that mak a lick of sense?

P2 wrote:

SourWorms wrote:of course its relative. bernard legat could run my times with two broken feet backwards.

if youre so smart about running how come you cant spell LAGAT right?

because i don't care about bernard lagat. my apologies.

SourWorms wrote:

P2 wrote:

SourWorms wrote:of course its relative. bernard legat could run my times with two broken feet backwards.

if youre so smart about running how come you cant spell LAGAT right?

because i don't care about bernard lagat. my apologies.

why?

everyone lies about their times, I mean even greg called that out ages ago

CT Track wrote:everyone lies about their times, I mean even greg called that out ages ago

what does that have to do with anything?

AudienceOfOne wrote:

RawBeginner wrote:My goal is always to be "decent." When I first started, I said "when i run a 6 minute mile, i'll be decent." Then I needed a 5 minute mile and a 20 minute 5k. Now I am saying to myself "When I break 4:35 and 10:00, I'll be decent." I find myself constantly changing my standards of decency.

when you went on RW you said you ran like a 4:57 in the first race of your life....

+1, I think most people consider themselves decent... so I basically agree w/ what FK said, but I would change the word fast to decent.

AudienceOfOne wrote:

RawBeginner wrote:My goal is always to be "decent." When I first started, I said "when i run a 6 minute mile, i'll be decent." Then I needed a 5 minute mile and a 20 minute 5k. Now I am saying to myself "When I break 4:35 and 10:00, I'll be decent." I find myself constantly changing my standards of decency.

when you went on RW you said you ran like a 4:57 in the first race of your life....

at my school in middle school you could do winter track. and it wasn't competitive, there were no races. so I did running for winter track before I ever competed. we didn't really train but in 8th grade winter track i was trying to break 6 lol. but if I wrote that I ran 4:57 last year, when I was a freshman, that's definitely true.

alex-likes-running wrote:

RawBeginner wrote:My goal is always to be "decent." When I first started, I said "when i run a 6 minute mile, i'll be decent." Then I needed a 5 minute mile and a 20 minute 5k. Now I am saying to myself "When I break 4:35 and 10:00, I'll be decent." I find myself constantly changing my standards of decency.

lol thats kind of like how i think.

That's what I'm saying!

and this is really bugging me: Psychological

Oops.

when you went on RW you said you ran like a 4:57 in the first race of your life....

That's what I'm talking about. Nothing else in this thread is interesting so I just thought I'd bring it up.