The "Big 8" Challenge 2011

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?

TheRoadRunner

tunney wrote: »

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

I think there is a mixture, people need to be able to hit a couple to keep them interested. I think the targets need to be relative to the majority of posters. If we were having this discussion (via the newspaper:)) 30 years ago the targets would be much tougher as the standard was way higher then.

ecoli

menoscemo wrote: »

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



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

The longer distances were taking as a parallel to the drop off between men and women on the AAI site for their top lists with regards to the HM and Marathon standards.

http://www.athleticsireland.ie/content/?page_id=6210


Not perfect granted but a starting point. Again so many figures have been batted around i am not sure what exactly we are going with

nomadic

You could set up a league system. 3 different challenges. Complete all in one year and get promoted? 1 easy, the current challenge and an uber challenge. Everyone gets a chance to be involved.

tunney

nomadic wrote: »

You could set up a league system. 3 different challenges. Complete all in one year and get promoted? 1 easy, the current challenge and an uber challenge. Everyone gets a chance to be involved.

I hope there will be group hugs at the ART christmas drinks?

shels4ever

I'm not sure that the idea of the list was to target them all in one year, Just what is a ok time for an event. If people are having a crack at them all over the year i'd really like to see the training plans followed .

nomadic

tunney wrote: »

I hope there will be group hugs at the ART christmas drinks?

Surely its going to be one long group hug? "You go home first, no you go home first".

Fine, its an olympic qualification or your crap challenge.

Gringo78

tunney wrote: »

Not to be too harsh but club runners don't aspire to those targets. Way too slow, at least the male ones. More realistic targets for club runners are

1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 9:30 mins
5k - 17:30 mins
5miles - 27:30 mins
10k - 36 mins
10miles - 55 minutes
Half Marathon - 1:14 mins
Marathon - 2:45 hours

Quote above was from the original discussion on Racing Flats times where some of the times were considered too soft (you should be able to follow the link via the quotes). Tunney put forward some more difficult times. I'd put forward following myself:

1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 10 mins
5k - 17:30 mins
5miles - 29 mins
10k - 36 mins
10miles - 60 minutes
Half Marathon - 1:20 mins
Marathon - 2:50 hours

I think if you could run Tunneys 10mile or HM time, the rest are very easy.

Maybe have a Gold / Silver / Bronze standard?

I understand fully where Tunney is coming from....we lower the standards and then wonder why times aren't as good as they were in the 80's when the lads ran 2:30 marathons on their rest days. When Ballycotton comes around, the discussion usually starts about how once upon a time 200 runners would break 60 whereas last year less than 70 did. However, I disagree with the terms 'average club runner'. The average club runner does not run sub 60 and never did. From what I can make out, the heyday of Ballycotton was 1993 when 200 broke 60min but this was made up of athletes from over 80 different clubs so apart from a couple of the bigger clubs sub 60 would still have had you in the top 3 in your club.

donothoponpop

Great to see such a response. On the subject of difficulty, ease, or separate challenges set to different standards, the idea behind this challenge is to start something on the forum that is not a catch-all, that focus's attention a bit more on the higher end of the field. Anyone who wants to run faster, will finish higher up the table (using ecoli's idea of IAAF ranking points to sort seems a logical idea). Anyone who runs slower, needs to up their training, and following this thread for training tips will hopefully be a good starting point.

The times could of course be more standardized, but as they are they offer a good compromise between entry level (20 min 5k), and completion (probably the 60min 10miler). Pitch it too high, and numbers drop off. All times to be completed in 2011, which should foster improvement.

Having three different challenges to suit the differing standards on the forum is of course an obvious suggestion, and while it has some merit, I'd prefer that the forum had at least one area that was solely focussed on the sharper end of the field. In all other area's the forum is all-embracing, this would be one area that would be specific to faster running (my opinion is that catering to slower times would dilute its exclusivity).

So, long story short, anyone who wants to run faster please do, you'll still be competing against peers, discussing with peers, etc. Anyone slower, up your game and your training until you hit the first target, and move upwards from there. If this works, we'll hopefully have more focus on higher-performance, and can move on from there, for the moment its a decent compromise.

oldrunner

How about making the starting date immediate so as to include the Aware 10k on 11 December and re-arranged Jingle Bells 5k on 18 December?

TFBubendorfer

How do you rank people that do not achieve all 8 targets (i.e. most of us) ?