SBR Challenge 2012 & training log links

tunney · 03-12-2012 11:12am

Ingrid Whining Backstop wrote: »

I like what Mike has proposed on the targets and second it, it makes it challenging.
Golds should be hard to achieve were as at the moment they are set too low and are easy to hit.

+1 as someone who has failed miserably to achieve them

MrCreosote · 03-12-2012 11:17am

I like those targets. Ideally they'd be set so only one person would hit gold in all 3.

Won't get close to any of them myself mind you. And keep commuting in- it's most of my cycling!

RacoonQueen · 03-12-2012 11:22am

Can see a challenge in MCOS's swim and run golds which I'd like - bike gold seems like a huge stretch but 153km is doable off two spins so it's really not that huge if you spend time in the saddle(which I don't)

Can understand the reservations from people who won't hit or don't see themselves hitting the golds. The enjoyment of the challenge is in hitting the golds, there is no enjoyment if the golds are unachieveable for you - obviously there is also no enjoyment if the golds are too easy for you.

Tough crowd...

couerdelion · 03-12-2012 11:46am

tunney wrote: »

400km swimming : 7.7km a week (2-3 sessions a week)
8000km biking : 153km a week (this will be the one I struggle with, but the most rewarding one if I worked hard)
3000km running : 57km running a week

Yes they are tough but if everyone is just going to hit them then lets save the time and effort, all agree we are going to be awesomein 2013 and have one big reach around now.

Yeah ok , I rounded up but those are averages over 52 weeks. Take out the couple of weeks holidays / tapering/ sickness and they become pretty much unreachable for the majority of OD/SD triathletes.

I aren't a proponent of "Everyones a winner" so rather than have a reach around we just rename it the "Those who are doing iron distance SBR challenge"?

tunney · 03-12-2012 11:51am

couerdelion wrote: »

Yeah ok , I rounded up but those are averages over 52 weeks. Take out the couple of weeks holidays / tapering/ sickness and they become pretty much unreachable for the majority of OD/SD triathletes.

I aren't a proponent of "Everyones a winner" so rather than have a reach around we just rename it the "Those who are doing iron distance SBR challenge"?

There is nothing "iron distance" about those distances. Particularly the swim and bike. The run is a little more admittedly.

shotgunmcos · 03-12-2012 12:52pm

couerdelion wrote: »

Yeah ok , I rounded up but those are averages over 52 weeks. Take out the couple of weeks holidays / tapering/ sickness and they become pretty much unreachable for the majority of OD/SD triathletes.

I aren't a proponent of "Everyones a winner" so rather than have a reach around we just rename it the "Those who are doing iron distance SBR challenge"?

Then how do you make it a rewarding single challenge for the experienced IMer and novice alike? Many of the SD/OD on the 2010 SBR signed up for HIM or more this year.
I will do well to hit the swim next year but with a wedding instead of tri focus I will just do what I can on the bike and watch others climb over each other to stretch for lofty targets. Like I said earlier get 3 bronze and I can assure you will see Silver and Gold marks ranked lower than you. I know 3 Golds is out of reach for most but Id like those who get them or get close to remain engaged with the challenge.

Also notice not just the lofty targets to keep endurance junkies engaged but the lower run entry target to get more in the game.

sconhome · 03-12-2012 2:02pm

Is there a way of scoring bonus points without making the table too cumbersome?

I'm thinking along the lines of depending on your target distance for the year that there is a weighting to the points scored.

So leaving the bronze, silver, gold targets as currently proposed (and I agree with the proposal). Lets say for someone doing IM in 2013 their points are factored by x1, HIM get a factor of x1.5, Standard x 2 and Sprint x 2.5. (or similar). The factoring won't affect the allocation of the bronze, silver or gold but will affect the SBR Points system and overall points table.

I think to be fair, commuting distances should be counted as part of the overall total but should also be split out under the relevant discipline to give a fair indication of training.

BTH · 03-12-2012 2:03pm

amphkingwest wrote: »

Is there a way of scoring bonus points without making the table too cumbersome?

I'm thinking along the lines of depending on your target distance for the year that there is a weighting to the points scored.

So leaving the bronze, silver, gold targets as currently proposed (and I agree with the proposal). Lets say for someone doing IM in 2013 their points are factored by x1, HIM get a factor of x1.5, Standard x 2 and Sprint x 2.5. (or similar). The factoring won't affect the allocation of the bronze, silver or gold but will affect the SBR Points system and overall points table.

I think to be fair, commuting distances should be counted as part of the overall total but should also be split out under the relevant discipline to give a fair indication of training.

The real question is whether lawn mowing counts under cross training?

sconhome · 03-12-2012 2:18pm

BTH wrote: »

The real question is whether lawn mowing counts under cross training?

SSSHHH!! Don't be giving away me secrets!!!

pgibbo · 03-12-2012 2:21pm

BTH wrote: »

The real question is whether lawn mowing counts under cross training?

If it is then I'll have to add a lot more miles!!!!

bryangiggsy · 03-12-2012 2:59pm

tunney wrote: »

Does the whole "everyone is a winner" belong in sports? #SpecialOlympics

Some people are slow, some people won't do the work.

I know for me the attraction will be *having* to do work, not getting a clap on the back for a making an effort.

Having and doing are 2 different things eh champ. Your right some people wont do the work.

tunney · 03-12-2012 3:37pm

bryangiggsy wrote: »

Having and doing are 2 different things eh champ. Your right some people wont do the work.

Yip, I've not done it, but I'm fine with being faced with the reality that I didn't work, that my failures are my own making.

tunney · 03-12-2012 3:42pm

tunney wrote: »

Yip, I've not done it, but I'm fine with being faced with the reality that I didn't work, that my failures are my own making.

What I mean by this is everything was/is achieviable in 2012 for me I just sat on my ar$e, I cannot expect rewards and/or pats on the back for not trying.

shotgunmcos · 03-12-2012 9:53pm

Ok so Bronze, Silver, Gold it is with the targets mentioned. I have the template ready.

I'll apply the existing scoring mechanism too.

Next up is what extra junk info columns do people want? Vertical mts?
What bonuses etc have ye in mind?

Bonus for the kms you convince your OH to do?!
Bonus for every 10km of kayaking or rowing...?

Is it worth introducing a scoring multiplier so that those pesky IMers don't have all the fun

? Like 1 for IM, x 1.15 for HIM, x 1.3 for OD, x 1.5 for SD, x 1.6 for AR etc... (obviously more scientific than that :rolleyes:)

Even x 1.15 for OW, x 1.05 for turbo, x -2.0 for treadmill

Ideas ideas, pour them on, we will make it a real "messing" fun SBR for 2013

NO lawn mowing will not count BTH et al... :cool:

Edit: Just saw the jogging forum have a bronze silver gold type situation too. Top there nearly 6,500km!!

MrCreosote · 04-12-2012 9:03am

Maybe a bonus for other triathlon related activities like transition practice, leg and chest shaving, posing with espressos etc

Oryx · 04-12-2012 9:30am

MrCreosote wrote: »

Maybe a bonus for other triathlon related activities like transition practice, leg and chest shaving, posing with espressos etc

Are you inferring us hoochies have chest hair?

Tho I have been thinking that if anyone reaches just run gold then they need redirecting back to the jogging forum.

RacoonQueen · 04-12-2012 9:36am

Oryx wrote: »

Are you inferring us hoochies have chest hair?

Tho I have been thinking that if anyone reaches just run gold then they need redirecting back to the jogging forum.

Discrimination

MrCreosote · 04-12-2012 9:37am

Oryx wrote: »

Are you inferring us hoochies have chest hair?

"Triathlon- it puts hair on your chest...which you then shave off"

Solobally8 · 04-12-2012 12:54pm

MrCreosote wrote: »

"Triathlon- it puts hair on your chest...which you then shave off"

Ohh that explains it

Solobally8 · 04-12-2012 9:11pm

My 2cents on the SBR challenge as one of those down the bottom. I think the green targets are fine as they are. 2012 was my first year in triathlon and I only did a few Sprint distance races. I would have hit all 3 green if it wasnt for a niggly injury which stopped me getting anywhere near the 1000k run target (well that and my lazy phase earlier on in the year

). I dont think the targets should be lowered for the bronze. I will probably get 800k ran this year but dont really deserve any recognition for it as I really didnt push myself for it.

As for the silver and gold targets- I can only look on in amazement

Fazz · 04-12-2012 9:52pm

As a relatively close runner near the front, I think the figures and targets for 2012 were fine, but perhaps a bit easy to hit gold's in Swim and Bike.

I'd probably be classed as one of the more dedicated trainers, and am still short of the run gold and it will be touch and go as to whether that's hit really before y/e.

If the Run Gold goes up another 1,000k as proposed, then it's really just for the ironmen or marathon runners to aim for.
I do agree swim and bike needs increasing relative to the others though.

Realistically, Most athletes get say 48 weeks of training a year - allowing 2-3 for time out and another 1 for days off/missed/injuries/holidays/etc.
Race weeks tend to drop the overall volume also.

So if Run is 3,000km for Gold, then that's 62.5km per week for 48 weeks avg!
The leader for 2012 is at what 2,430km so far, so likely to finish around 2,600 give or take.

Here's my suggestion:
- take the top 5 in each discipline overall for 2012 and take their average as the target for Gold in 2013.
Or even average of the top 3 if you want it to be extra hard.

What I mean is the Top 3 or 5 in swim this year, average their volume and that's your Swim gold target for 2013 etc.

As for all the bonus points and transition and all that, not gonna happen let's be honest and it's a non runner imo. Not relevant or easily tracked either.

shotgunmcos · 04-12-2012 11:55pm

Fazz wrote: »

As a relatively close runner near the front, I think the figures and targets for 2012 were fine, but perhaps a bit easy to hit gold's in Swim and Bike.

I'd probably be classed as one of the more dedicated trainers, and am still short of the run gold and it will be touch and go as to whether that's hit really before y/e.

If the Run Gold goes up another 1,000k as proposed, then it's really just for the ironmen or marathon runners to aim for.
I do agree swim and bike needs increasing relative to the others though.

Realistically, Most athletes get say 48 weeks of training a year - allowinig 2-3 for time out and another 1 for days off/missed/injuries/holidays/etc.
Race weeks tend to drop the overall volume also.

So if Run is 3,000km for Gold, then that's 62.5km per week for 48 weeks avg!
The leader for 2012 is at what 2,430km so far, so likely to finish around 2,600 give or take.

Here's my suggestion:
- take the top 5 in each discipline overall for 2012 and take their average as the target for Gold in 2013.
Or even average of the top 3 if you want it to be extra hard.

What I mean is the Top 3 or 5 in swim this year, average their volume and that's your Swim gold target for 2013 etc.

As for all the bonus points and transition and all that, not gonna happen let's be honest and it's a non runner imo. Not relevant or easily tracked either.

the average of top 3 would be circa 440/9400/2700. highest totals over the 3 challenges so far swim circa 500 bike circa 10000-12500 run 4100. Given that top 3 runs are close enough to 3000 that would be a real stretch.

Id like more opinions on the run target. I proposed 800/1500/3000 knowing 3000 is a step too far for me unless I really go for it. Probably at the expense of the other 2. Perhaps we can deviate from the rounds numbers? 800/1800/2800. Personally I like MrCreosote's point that only the winner would hit 3 golds. Unless it was huff n puff who would sow up the 3 golds by the time Killed rolls around!

zico10 · 05-12-2012 2:51am

I think people are taking this challenge thingy way too seriously. Way back in January I initially thought the SBR challenge was only meant to be a bit of fun. Should people not be more concerned with how they perform in races, than how they fare against anonymous posters on an Irish Internet site?

Given all that I think comparing people training for IM against those training for Olympic or even sprint distance races is also a waste of time. Had Huff n' Puff logged anything I'm sure he would have shown everybody what training is all about. I devote a lot of time to training, but I don't for one second think it compares to guys who are right up there when it comes to being top of the NS rankings.

I don't know how well I'm putting my case forward, but what I'm trying to say is that heavy training volumes at Olympic distance are going to be just as beneficial as heavy training volumes at IM distance.

It doesn't have to be the case and at the risk of being conceited, I think the more devoted athletes on boards tend to gravitate towards the longer distances. Should they penalised for this? When all is said and done I honestly don't care, but I really don't deem it necessary to give more weight to miles covered by athletes concentrating on shorter distances.

BennyMul · 05-12-2012 10:41am

is there any benefit in letting each person set their "gold"numbers based on the end of year totals + x%, silver and bronze could be 75%& 50%.

This would\should even the playing field, andallow fairer competition across the difference race lengths.

Izoard · 05-12-2012 11:08am

My 2 cents...

1) Gold/silver/bronze for each is good and gives everyone something to aim for.
2) Weighting by tri-type is over-kill - there is a good mix of IM/HIM at the top of the leaderboard - we are logging volume, nothing else.
3) Different opinions on how the challenge is used - the targets don't mean that much to me - I use it as a loose indicator of how I'm doing against my peers (i.e. those at roundabout the same level of performance).

Oryx · 05-12-2012 11:10am

High targets will mean a lot of junk miles.

Izoard · 05-12-2012 11:12am

Oryx wrote: »

High targets will mean a lot of junk miles.

It is purely a fun measure of volume, so there are plenty of junk miles in there already.
If we are looking for a qualitative measure, this ain't it...

Oryx · 05-12-2012 11:22am

Izoard wrote: »

It is purely a fun measure of volume, so there are plenty of junk miles in there already.
If we are looking for a qualitative measure, this ain't it...

I agree, and Im as guilty of racking up junk as the next person.

I suppose Im just pointing out that size isnt everything, its what you do with it!

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 05-12-2012 11:22am

I agree with Fazz. All the talk of additional measurements allowing for the race distance you do is nonsense. A km swam,cycled or ran is a km swam,cyled or ran whatever way you look at it, simple really. Or should we start allowing for kids, busy jobs etc. In that case i propose for every km i do it should count as 3:rolleyes:.

Let's not lose the "fun" element of the challenge by making things too serious. I would be surprised if people are actually treating this more than a bit of fun and if they are not they are doing things wrong imo.

RacoonQueen · 05-12-2012 11:24am

No such thing as junk miles in endurance training.

SBR Challenge 2012 & training log links

Comments