The "Big 8" Challenge 2011

donothoponpop

A couple of years back, a great poster by the name of Racing Flat came up with what he considered race times the average club runner should be able to hit. These were:
1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 10 mins
5k - 20 mins
5miles - 30 mins
10k - 40 mins
10miles - 1 hour
Half Marathon - 90 mins
Marathon - 3 hours

There's a load of fast runners on these pages, so it might be a bit of fun to see who can hit all of these times in 2011, and use this thread to discuss training, racing, nutrition, etc., in an effort to get a bit of focus onto the faster end of domestic races. Rules are up for discussion, don't know if people think these times should be exclusively got in races rather than including self-timed runs. Two things I believe should be mandatory:
1) you can only take one time out of each race, ie. no ticking the half-marathon box on your way to a sub3. IAAF rules, you can run the 5k time as the first half on the way to the 10k time so long as there is chipped split timing (ie no garmin self-time, no "fastest 5k" coming between 2-7kms.
2) You only stick your name (and date hit) into the table once you've hit one of the targets in 2011, so this challenge is being limited to those who actually hit the times rather than aspire to hit them.

There's a month's heads-up, we'll try and get a prize for the winner, whether that's first to tick all, or lowest cumulative time, any questions on rules or whatever, fire away:)

Name|1 mile<5 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<30min|10k<40m|10miles<1hr|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3hrs
Senor Example||||||||||
AN Other||||||||

GoHardOrGoHome

Great idea! Some are more easily achieved than others and that's part of the appeal. I know I can hit 5k, 10k and half marathon. The 10 mile looks the hardest to me (even more so than the sub3 marathon). I actually have no concept of the shorter distances. No idea how hard a 5 minute mile or a 10 minute 3k is. This won't be my main aim of 2011 but it looks like fun!

donothoponpop

GoHardOrGoHome wrote: »

Great idea! Some are more easily achieved than others and that's part of the appeal. I know I can hit 5k, 10k and half marathon. The 10 mile looks the hardest to me (even more so than the sub3 marathon). I actually have no concept of the shorter distances. No idea how hard a 5 minute mile or a 10 minute 3k is. This won't be my main aim of 2011 but it looks like fun!

Yeah, some of them are a bit alien to me too. I think that 3k in 10 mins would be a killer too. Part of the fun will be in trying to work out when to go for each target- no point in trying to run a sub 3 marathon a week after you've peaked in mile training. (Also the logistics of trying to fit the schedule into a racing calendar might be troublesome, so perhaps self timing for some of the marks would suffice?)

Woddle

Mcmillan calculator would rate them in the following order, hardest first.

10 miles in 59'59
1 mile in 4'59
3k in 9'59
5 mile in 29'59
marathon in 2'59'59
1/2 marathon in 1'29'59
10k in 39'59
5k in 19'59

I'll knock the easiest on the head in Jan (5k) and then I'll spend the next few months working on 10k and 1/2 marathon. I can also see myself getting closer to a 5 minute mile than a sub 3hr marathon, got to about the equivelant of 5'30 last year.

liamo123

Great Thread..

I ran sub 3hrs in Dublin yet my 10mile Pb is 68.08...There's no way I will ever run sub 60mins for it..( probably will b lucky 2 break 65mins )..

menoscemo

Woddle wrote: »

I'll knock the easiest on the head in Jan (5k) and then I'll spend the next few months working on 10k and 1/2 marathon. I can also see myself getting closer to a 5 minute mile than a sub 3hr marathon, got to about the equivelant of 5'30 last year.

I thought you are in training for Barcelona in March? Don't get distracted!!

To my mind I think some are much easier than others. 10 miles in under 60 and a sub 3 marathon stand out as the hardest.
I always thought a sub 1:30 half sounded more achievable than a sub 40 10k.

meathcountysec

Race times only should be included, to avoid mis-underestimated distances.

donothoponpop

meathcountysec wrote: »

Race times only should be included, to avoid mis-underestimated distances.

Good point, too much temptation to set garmin pb's otherwise:)

Track times might be ok though? (Might be handy to try for the shorter ones a few times on tartan- if allowing this doing a mile on a 400m track should start 9.34 meters before the finish line, and then run 4 laps)

shels4ever

menoscemo wrote: »

I thought you are in training for Barcelona in March? Don't get distracted!!

To my mind I think some are much easier than others. 10 miles in under 60 and a sub 3 marathon stand out as the hardest.
I always thought a sub 1:30 half sounded more achievable than a sub 40 10k.

I think the 3k is prob the hardest on that list with the 10mile not far after that. 5k time is the easy one(need to run it now)

PaudieMac

Hi all. If you fancy trying for the 60 min 10 mile why not give the Mallow 10 a go.
There will be a 60 minute pacer there. <snipped links>

<mod>
Hi PaudieMac, all races and events get discussed or promoted in the Events subforum, please limit promoting your race to that section, cheers;)/<mod>

Sosa

A sub 60 pacer......Hmmmmm Very interesting

Art of Noise

I would see a sub 1:30 half marathon as easier to achieve than a sub 40 10k. It took me a good bit longer to achieve the latter anyway.

In any case those two along with the sub 20 5k are considerably easier to achieve than the other five in my opinion. The fact that the sub 3 hour marathon is probably the next easiest just goes to prove that.

Sosa

Nice one pops.
I have been ticking these off since RF posted them a few years back.
I only have the 3k and 10m to do...both of which will be sorted early next year ( hopefully )
I have a 60:36 and 60:10 to my name,so next step is sub 60.
As for the 3k,i will have to get the lads on the track to organise that

RacoonQueen

There was also a females list. Although I think these are mostly fairly soft to be honest.

1 mile - 6 mins
3k - 12 mins
5k - 25 mins
5miles - 40 mins
10k - 50 mins
10miles - 80 mins
Half Marathon - 2 hours
Marathon - 4 hours

Woddle

RacoonQueen wrote: »

There was also a females list. Although I think these are mostly fairly soft to be honest.

1 mile - 6 mins
3k - 12 mins
5k - 25 mins
5miles - 40 mins
10k - 50 mins
10miles - 80 mins
Half Marathon - 2 hours
Marathon - 4 hours

Very soft, maybe someone in the know could alter them or we could just get seres to fill in her PBs

donothoponpop

RacoonQueen wrote: »

There was also a females list. Although I think these are mostly fairly soft to be honest.

1 mile - 6 mins
3k - 12 mins
5k - 25 mins
5miles - 40 mins
10k - 50 mins
10miles - 80 mins
Half Marathon - 2 hours
Marathon - 4 hours

Waaaay too soft! Those figures are from 20-33% on top of the mens times, off the top of my head they should be closer to 10-15% extra. I know the spirit of the original RF figures was "round numbers", and round numbers are kept in those ladies times, but shouldn't it be closer to

1 mile - 5.30 mins
3k - 11:15 mins
5k - 23 mins
5miles - 35 mins
10k - 44 mins
10miles - 70 mins
Half Marathon - 1:45 hours
Marathon - 3:30 hours

(those figures off the top of my head, someone with a better understanding of female club athlete averages could do better). (ecoli often goes to the track to look at girls, he might know)

This challenge is all about pushing the boundries a bit for a lot of posters on the forum, guy's and gals.

*edit, saw Woddle's response, Sere's pb's would do the job nicely *

menoscemo

donothoponpop wrote: »

1 mile - 5.30 mins
3k - 11:15 mins
5k - 23 mins
5miles - 35 mins
10k - 44 mins
10miles - 70 mins
Half Marathon - 1:45 hours
Marathon - 3:30 hours

Hmmm, 5k 23 min and 10k 44 min....something is not quite right there :pac:

RacoonQueen

I think there's a broad range of abilities on here. A lot of the male posters would probably prefer to aim for the 'womens' times while the majority of the girls wouldn't even bother taking part with the 'mens' times.

IMO a more appropriate womens list, off the top of my head and to give me something to aim for as I'm selfish, would be.


1 mile - 5:30 mins
3k - 12 mins
5k - 20 mins
5miles - 35 mins
10k - 43 mins
10miles - 73 mins
Half Marathon - 1:40 hours
Marathon - 3:40 hours

That being said. We could always do three groups and people could slot into whatever their level is without splitting it into male and female groupings.

tunney

donothoponpop wrote: »

A couple of years back, a great poster by the name of Racing Flat came up with what he considered race times the average club runner should be able to hit. These were:
1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 10 mins
5k - 20 mins
5miles - 30 mins
10k - 40 mins
10miles - 1 hour
Half Marathon - 90 mins
Marathon - 3 hours

There's a load of fast runners on these pages, so it might be a bit of fun to see who can hit all of these times in 2011, and use this thread to discuss training, racing, nutrition, etc., in an effort to get a bit of focus onto the faster end of domestic races. Rules are up for discussion, don't know if people think these times should be exclusively got in races rather than including self-timed runs. Two things I believe should be mandatory:
1) you can only take one time out of each race, ie. no ticking the half-marathon box on your way to a sub3.
2) You only stick your name (and date hit) into the table once you've hit one of the targets in 2011, so this challenge is being limited to those who actually hit the times rather than aspire to hit them.

There's a month's heads-up, we'll try and get a prize for the winner, whether that's first to tick all, or lowest cumulative time, any questions on rules or whatever, fire away:)

Name|1 mile<5 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<30min|10k<40m|10miles<1hr|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3hrs
Senor Example||||||||||
AN Other||||||||

Can we get a version for people that run?

donothoponpop

RacoonQueen wrote: »

That being said. We could always do three groups and people could slot into whatever their level is without splitting it into male and female groupings.

I see where you're coming from, but the foot is coming down on this one:cool:. The purpose of this challenge is to give posters here something decent to aspire to and achieve. It's purposefully hard, as it should be at a standard of an average club runner in Ireland. There's a whole heap of threads on the forum which are inclusive to everybody (of differing times and abilities), this one is being kept exclusive, to cater for those on our forum who are to the sharper end of races around the country. Yes, its elitist, for the reason that if you can't hit those times, you can't join the challenge, so (for this thread at least), there won't be any different levels. I realize that makes me sound like a despot, but I strongly believe there should be something exclusive towards those faster runners on the forum, rather than being a catch-all for everyone who posts here. It's a standard. (Nothing to stop anybody here from training hard to reach that standard)

However, finding a table of comparable ladies times is a different matter, once its of a similar average club standard.

donothoponpop

tunney wrote: »

Can we get a version for people that run?

See my reply to Racoon Queen above. This is a standard for average club athletes, using rounded figures. Nothing to stop you running faster, once you hit those targets- that's what the < symbol is there for.

tunney

donothoponpop wrote: »

See my reply to Racoon Queen above. This is a standard for average club athletes, using rounded figures. Nothing to stop you running faster, once you hit those targets- that's what the < symbol is there for.

Okay, but I think they should be faster times.

donothoponpop wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, but the foot is coming down on this one:cool:. The purpose of this challenge is to give posters here something decent to aspire to and achieve. It's purposefully hard, as it should be at a standard of an average club runner in Ireland. There's a whole heap of threads on the forum which are inclusive to everybody (of differing times and abilities), this one is being kept exclusive, to cater for those on our forum who are to the sharper end of races around the country. Yes, its elitist, for the reason that if you can't hit those times, you can't join the challenge, so (for this thread at least), there won't be any different levels. I realize that makes me sound like a despot, but I strongly believe there should be something exclusive towards those faster runners on the forum, rather than being a catch-all for everyone who posts here. It's a standard. (Nothing to stop anybody here from training hard to reach that standard)

However, finding a table of comparable ladies times is a different matter, once its of a similar average club standard.

While I disagree with the times (I think they are too slow) I do think that the general thrust of the thread is a good one. There has been a little too much group hugging and back slapping. Time for less talking and more respectable times.

I personally am going to sign up for this challenge - albeit as goals for me off the bike runs

RacoonQueen

donothoponpop wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, but the foot is coming down on this one:cool:. The purpose of this challenge is to give posters here something decent to aspire to and achieve. It's purposefully hard, as it should be at a standard of an average club runner in Ireland. There's a whole heap of threads on the forum which are inclusive to everybody (of differing times and abilities), this one is being kept exclusive, to cater for those on our forum who are to the sharper end of races around the country. Yes, its elitist, for the reason that if you can't hit those times, you can't join the challenge, so (for this thread at least), there won't be any different levels. I realize that makes me sound like a despot, but I strongly believe there should be something exclusive towards those faster runners on the forum, rather than being a catch-all for everyone who posts here. It's a standard. (Nothing to stop anybody here from training hard to reach that standard)

However, finding a table of comparable ladies times is a different matter, once its of a similar average club standard.

Fair enough. Maybe tunney can set out the womens standard for us! :pac:

Emer911

Great idea d'pop. I'm soooo far away from getting anywhere near these (slow) times that it's totally laughable, but I like the thrust of it and might set myself some relative goals...

Coming off a 04:24 marathon, 25+ min 5K and 54 min 10K this year, the really slow girlie times look about the right level of challenge for me. :P

1 mile - 6 mins
3k - 12 mins
5k - 25 mins
5miles - 40 mins
10k - 50 mins
10miles - 80 mins
Half Marathon - 2 hours
Marathon - 4 hours

tunney

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Fair enough. Maybe tunney can set out the womens standard for us! :pac:

I thought donothoponpop had done that?

RacoonQueen

tunney wrote: »

I thought donothoponpop had done that?

They're a bit all over the place IMO.

No offence boss! :pac:

Sere's PBs by the way, taken from her log are;
5k : 18.40
5 miles : 36 min
10k : 39min 50 sec

They'd have the women trying to run faster than the men in some cases...

donothoponpop

RacoonQueen wrote: »

They're a bit all over the place IMO.

No offence boss! :pac:

Yeah mine are just put there with little thought. As meno pointed out, the 5k time is slower than the 5k+5k=10k time. Better to leave them to someone with an understanding of average club female times, I think.

BeepBeep67

Good idea.
I think most of these are achieveable (maybe not in a calendar year), the 10M would be the big challenge for me.
HM, 10k and 5k times are too soft compared to that 10M target (would suit the female targets), and should probably look like 82, 36, and 17:30 or something.
Are you putting in Age weighting

Woddle

Consider them stepping stones, the 5k is your entry exam.

donothoponpop

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I think most of these are achieveable (maybe not in a calendar year), the 10M would be the big challenge for me.
HM, 10k and 5k times are too soft compared to that 10M target (would suit the female targets), and should probably look like 82, 36, and 17:30 or something.
Are you putting in Age weighting

This variance between difficulties came up when RF first posted the times- his answer was something along the lines that while they were very "round" figures, they were times a club athlete would like to tick at some stage. Of course, many would go on to run a lot faster, but they all represented "round" goals. A lot of runners remember their first sub 40 10k, or sub3 marathon, etc, because they are boxes to tick that represent a certain halfway decent standard...

Some might be softer than others, but aiming for them all in a year will give runners a chance to train upwards from the softer ones to the harder.

And no age weighting... you should know better to ask, running those superfast auld fella wicklow races that you do:)

TheRoadRunner

tunney wrote: »

Okay, but I think they should be faster times.



While I disagree with the times (I think they are too slow) I do think that the general thrust of the thread is a good one. There has been a little too much group hugging and back slapping. Time for less talking and more respectable times.

I personally am going to sign up for this challenge - albeit as goals for me off the bike runs

My dick is bigger than yours. I'll sign up and hit all* these times in training in the month of January. I'll do them with a hangover if it gets me more kudos.

*except for the marathon. That would be a waste of 2hrs 59 mins of my precious hours.

TheRoadRunner

OT what ever happened to RF. Is he still posting under a new name? Ditto tingle. Please come back and talk sense

Ps forget smiley faces and winkeys in my post above

ecoli

My interpretation of standards would be as follows

Mens
1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 10 mins
5k - 19 mins
5miles - 30 mins
10k - 40 mins
10miles - 60 mins
Half Marathon - 1:30 hours
Marathon - 3 hours

Womens (i resent donothoponpops remark:D)
1 mile - 5.30 mins
3k - 11:15 mins
5k - 21 mins
5miles - 33 mins
10k - 42 mins
10miles - 70 mins
Half Marathon - 1:45 hours
Marathon - 3:30 hours


I think these would be reasonable standards to aspire to.

We could also possibly organize Boards races/ time trials through the year to give people a chance to aim for the targets (could even get very professional and line up pacers:D)

I would also be willing to put up the prizes myself. Two catefories one for completing the Big 8 and the second would be lowest cumulative time (must run atleast five of the 8 to count on this one)

Again just a few ideas to be bounced out regarding this to generate more interest

donothoponpop

ecoli wrote: »

My interpretation of standards would be as follows

Mens
1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 10 mins
5k - 19 mins
5miles - 30 mins
10k - 40 mins
10miles - 60 mins
Half Marathon - 1:30 hours
Marathon - 3 hours

Womens (i resent donothoponpops remark:D)
1 mile - 5.30 mins
3k - 11:15 mins
5k - 21 mins
5miles - 33 mins
10k - 42 mins
10miles - 70 mins
Half Marathon - 1:45 hours
Marathon - 3:30 hours


I think these would be reasonable standards to aspire to.

We could also possibly organize Boards races/ time trials through the year to give people a chance to aim for the targets (could even get very professional and line up pacers:D)

I would also be willing to put up the prizes myself. Two catefories one for completing the Big 8 and the second would be lowest cumulative time (must run atleast five of the 8 to count on this one)

Again just a few ideas to be bounced out regarding this to generate more interest

Love the times Luke for the ladies, and I would just say that the 5k for men should stay at 20 mins since thats what RF had it at (round figures). I know it stands out from the rest a bit alright.

If cumulative time, 5 from 8 won't work or you'd be done the shortest five in 1:45.

Great to see the interest in this though, will be interesting to see how people work the plan into their year.

ecoli

donothoponpop wrote: »

Love the times Luke for the ladies, and I would just say that the 5k for men should stay at 20 mins since thats what RF had it at (round figures). I know it stands out from the rest a bit alright.

If cumulative time, 5 from 8 won't work or you'd be done the shortest five in 1:45.

Great to see the interest in this though, will be interesting to see how people work the plan into their year.

Again just bouncing ideas out there regarding the times was just my imput from everyones opinions we can compile definitive figures.

I get your point regarding times. Perhaps using the IAAF scoring tables or something as a way of balancing it out?

emerald007

BHAA Standards maybe?

--amadeus--

I must be getting cranky in my old age because I'm agreeing more and more with Tunney. Never a good sign...

Anyhoo if the intention is to have a tough set of challenges for faster runners then I think they are (mostly) too slow and far too wide ranging. A 20min 5k and a 60 min 10 miler are not in teh same ballpark and if you are setting aspirational targets then they should be tough but consistent, round numbers are a nice bonus.

Using a 60 min 10 mile as the benchmark you would get a 2:45 mara / 1:20 half / 60 min 10 mile / 36 min 10k / 17:30 5k. Very tough targets but much more consistent and more in line with the "sharp end"

ecoli

emerald007 wrote: »

BHAA Standards maybe?

Dunno how they would hold up 5.04 mile in same grade as a sub 2.30 marathon. Likewise a sub 3 hour only equates to a sub 6 mile think the shorter distances there are too soft compared to the longer distances

Regarding the standards being too soft i can see where Amadeus and Tunney are coming from but i think the idea is to promote a higher performance discussion among the forum.

The problem is its a catch twenty two set it two high and you have maybe 3-4 people hitting the targets defeating the purpose by eliminating too many people. Set it too low and we are in the same position as many of the existing threads this is designed to be different.

@ RR: yes it does seem like a bit of a d$%k measuring contest alright but if it gets some high level training talk going i dont mind a little ego stroking on some peoples parts as long as they arent putting other people down as a result of it.
Would rather see people hitting the targets through a varieties of methods and sharing and comparing of methods rather than just "i hit the target go me"
And regarding your call for sanity i think one or both they may lurk still from time to time;)

shels4ever

tunney wrote: »

Can we get a version for people that run?

There would be some who would say your pb's wouldn't be real running either

shels4ever

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I must be getting cranky in my old age because I'm agreeing more and more with Tunney. Never a good sign...

Anyhoo if the intention is to have a tough set of challenges for faster runners then I think they are (mostly) too slow and far too wide ranging. A 20min 5k and a 60 min 10 miler are not in teh same ballpark and if you are setting aspirational targets then they should be tough but consistent, round numbers are a nice bonus.

Using a 60 min 10 mile as the benchmark you would get a 2:45 mara / 1:20 half / 60 min 10 mile / 36 min 10k / 17:30 5k. Very tough targets but much more consistent and more in line with the "sharp end"

Yep better targets but the thread woudl die a death as no pats on the back for most people here.... I still think that some of the times are actually ok,Say take the 5k out or drop it to 18 mins.

dapope

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I must be getting cranky in my old age because I'm agreeing more and more with Tunney. Never a good sign...

Anyhoo if the intention is to have a tough set of challenges for faster runners then I think they are (mostly) too slow and far too wide ranging. A 20min 5k and a 60 min 10 miler are not in teh same ballpark and if you are setting aspirational targets then they should be tough but consistent, round numbers are a nice bonus.

Using a 60 min 10 mile as the benchmark you would get a 2:45 mara / 1:20 half / 60 min 10 mile / 36 min 10k / 17:30 5k. Very tough targets but much more consistent and more in line with the "sharp end"

I agree. I think some of original times (not all) are in line with what an "average club runner" would aspire e.g. 40min 10k but this is in no way consistent with a 60min 10mile. An average runner who improves over the course of their running career may achieve all these times but I don't see this happening within the course of a year as set by this challenge.

If the 10km time were 36mins I think it might be more consistent but that may not "fit" with everyones definition of "average club runner"

At the "sharp end" I think the times you give are very consistent and in line with what I would consider a "good club runner". Why be average when you can be so much more

dna_leri

donothoponpop wrote: »

This variance between difficulties came up when RF first posted the times- his answer was something along the lines that while they were very "round" figures, they were times a club athlete would like to tick at some stage. Of course, many would go on to run a lot faster, but they all represented "round" goals. A lot of runners remember their first sub 40 10k, or sub3 marathon, etc, because they are boxes to tick that represent a certain halfway decent standard...

Some might be softer than others, but aiming for them all in a year will give runners a chance to train upwards from the softer ones to the harder.

And no age weighting... you should know better to ask, running those superfast auld fella wicklow races that you do:)

Good initiative, stick with the original targets. If one is a bit soft, great it gives everyone a chance to hit it, and isn't participation what it's all about ! You can't please all of the people, any of the time, especially on an internet forum.

RayCun

ecoli wrote: »

Mens
1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 10 mins
5k - 19 mins
5miles - 30 mins
10k - 40 mins
10miles - 60 mins
Half Marathon - 1:30 hours
Marathon - 3 hours

Oh great, find the only one I might possibly hit and make it harder :rolleyes:
Don't think I'll be posting too often in this thread

tunney

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

My dick is bigger than yours. I'll sign up and hit all* these times in training in the month of January. I'll do them with a hangover if it gets me more kudos.

*except for the marathon. That would be a waste of 2hrs 59 mins of my precious hours.

There has been serious discussion out-of-band on the diminishing standard of content on ART over the last year. This was/is an attempt to stimulate discussion on topics more aimed at the pointer end of things in Fun Running.

shels4ever wrote: »

There would be some who would say your pb's wouldn't be real running either

Probably because I'm not a serious athlete - but I remember when there were some that posted here.

robinph

ecoli wrote: »

I would also be willing to put up the prizes myself. Two catefories one for completing the Big 8 and the second would be lowest cumulative time (must run atleast five of the 8 to count on this one)

Again just a few ideas to be bounced out regarding this to generate more interest

Would have to be done on percentages under the target times.

If someone nails a 4 minute mile and a 2:59 marathon then they would get beaten by someone with a 4:59 mile and a 2:57 marathon which is wrong.

shels4ever

tunney wrote: »

There has been serious discussion out-of-band on the diminishing standard of content on ART over the last year. This was/is an attempt to stimulate discussion on topics more aimed at the pointer end of things in Fun Running.



Probably because I'm not a serious athlete - but I remember when there were some that posted here.

Some are still lurking here.

ecoli

shels4ever wrote: »

Some are still lurking here.

That is why we need to get them back contibuting to the forum. ART tries to be welcoming to all and through this we have in some incidences alienated some of the higher performers. This should be a forum for discussing the sport and training of all levels from top to bottom

menoscemo

I vote to keep the mens standards the same as RF's original list. I know some of the targets are way softer than others but for me personally, knocking one of them on the head this year (sub 20 min 5k) was a big goal of mine. As a result I can aspire to some of the others next year (sub 40 10k, sun 1:30 HM) while others are years off (sub 60 10m). I see the targets as a stepping stone- achieve one and go for another. I do not agree with changing the goal posts now.

As for the womens standards, I still think you are off Ecoli

ecoli wrote: »

Womens
1 mile - 5.30 mins
3k - 11:15 mins
5k - 21 mins
5miles - 33 mins
10k - 42 mins
10miles - 70 mins
Half Marathon - 1:45 hours
Marathon - 3:30 hours

Why is the womens 5 and 10k target only 5% slower than the mens while the HM and Marathon times are neary 20% slower? I thought women are supposed to perform better over longer distances? :pac:

I think the easiest way to set womens standards is just add 10% to the mens standards. That way 'easy targets' such as the 5k and HM stay easy while tough ones (10 mile, marathon etc) stay tough. I suggest the following:

Womens
1 mile - 5.30 mins
3k - 11:00 mins
5k - 22 mins
5miles - 33 mins
10k - 44 mins
10miles - 66 mins
Half Marathon - 1:40 hours
Marathon - 3:20 hours

TheRoadRunner

tunney wrote: »

There has been serious discussion out-of-band on the diminishing standard of content on ART over the last year. This was/is an attempt to stimulate discussion on topics more aimed at the pointer end of things in Fun Running.

I was only pulling your chain tunney.

Back to the standards. I think the majority of them are ok. The 5k is the softest of them all but going sub 20 minutes is a target of a lot of posters on this forum. The 10 mile and 3k are probably the toughest. Nothing wrong with having an array of targets some soft, some hard. I suppose people could tick off the soft ones early in the year and hopefully improve and attack the tougher ones later in the year.

From my knowledge of posters on this forum these standards are reasonable. There is nothing stopping people running faster if they want.

nomadic

There all great targets for me and hopefully I'll tick most of them off next year. Where do you find 1 mile/3k races?

tunney

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

I was only pulling your chain tunney.

Back to the standards. I think the majority of them are ok. The 5k is the softest of them all but going sub 20 minutes is a target of a lot of posters on this forum. The 10 mile and 3k are probably the toughest. Nothing wrong with having an array of targets some soft, some hard. I suppose people could tick off the soft ones early in the year and hopefully improve and attack the tougher ones later in the year.

From my knowledge of posters on this forum these standards are reasonable. There is nothing stopping people running faster if they want.

Ahhhh took you up wrong.

I thought that the times were meant to be inspirational for all rather than achieveable by all?