The "Big 8" Challenge 2011

Gringo78

donothoponpop wrote: »

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.

Whats wrong with taking 2 times out of a race or even 3 times? I mean, if you run Sub 3 marathon, I thinks that fair enough to tick off sub 1:30 HM otherwise the challenge becomes who can partake in a big wide range of races from 1 mile up to marathon which is a challenge in itself of a different sort. I ran only 5 races in 2010, if I get to run 8 in 2011 I'd be delighted but theres no way those 8 will be spread over all the distances. If you run 10mile in 60min you should be allowed to tick of 5 miles in 30min and 5km in 20min cos I don't think its possible to not cover those distances in those times over the course of a 10 mile race in 60min. I'd even go so far as to say its not possible to run 10 miles in sub 60 without covering 10km at some point in less than 40min.

So run Sub 3 - tick off sub 90 HM also
Run sub 60 10 mile - tick off 5k, 5m & 10k also

If you want to go and race the other distances, fair enough, you will get more IAAF points for the times and thus rank higher up the challenge list.

shels4ever

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

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

Fat joggers I guess

ecoli

Gringo78 wrote: »

Whats wrong with taking 2 times out of a race or even 3 times? I mean, if you run Sub 3 marathon, I thinks that fair enough to tick off sub 1:30 HM otherwise the challenge becomes who can partake in a big wide range of races from 1 mile up to marathon which is a challenge in itself of a different sort. I ran only 5 races in 2010, if I get to run 8 in 2011 I'd be delighted but theres no way those 8 will be spread over all the distances. If you run 10mile in 60min you should be allowed to tick of 5 miles in 30min and 5km in 20min cos I don't think its possible to not cover those distances in those times over the course of a 10 mile race in 60min. I'd even go so far as to say its not possible to run 10 miles in sub 60 without covering 10km at some point in less than 40min.

So run Sub 3 - tick off sub 90 HM also
Run sub 60 10 mile - tick off 5k, 5m & 10k also

If you want to go and race the other distances, fair enough, you will get more IAAF points for the times and thus rank higher up the challenge list.

That then gives a bias to those who race the longer distances.

After talking it through we are gonna adopt the marathon majors format of a two year time frame with an over lapping year so as to not exclude anyone who does not partake in the first year. So there will be a 2011/12 as well as a 2012/13 this will allow people to not be under as much pressure to race

The idea for this is not to create a divide amongs boardsies but rather promote higher performance training talk which can benefit everyone even those who do not take part in the challenge.

The standards for men are going to remain as RF s originals. Again these are not the end goal but rather than standards set in order to try and facilitate higher discussions of performance. Hopefully it will prove to be beneficial to all regarding training talk

tunney

shels4ever wrote: »

Fat joggers I guess

You called?

meathcountysec

shels4ever wrote: »

Fat joggers I guess

:eek::eek:

How dare you :mad:

I'm just pleasingly plump

shels4ever

meathcountysec wrote: »

:eek::eek:

How dare you :mad:

I'm just pleasingly plump

I'm big boned

Gringo78

ecoli wrote: »

That then gives a bias to those who race the longer distances.

There has to be some reward for running a longer distance!!

shels4ever

Gringo78 wrote: »

There has to be some reward for running a longer distance!!

why?

Gringo78

shels4ever wrote: »

why?

To maintain the bias towards longer distances traditional in this forum

I mean, we have already assumed no club runner aspires to run anything shorter than the mile distance or to jump or throw anything so why not?

tunney

Gringo78 wrote: »

There has to be some reward for running a longer distance!!

I agree if someone runs a five minute mile that shouldn't be treated as equal to 26.2 five minute miles.

Running longer is not an achievement in itself. Running longer fast is.

dapope

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.

I don't consider myself a serious athlete either and I have to agree with tunney. I've been lurking around the ART forum for the last two years and I have to say I have a massive problem with some of the content. I think standards have hit rock bottom if 40 mins is considered acceptable for an "average club runner". I remember when something around 36mins would have been considered average. My other pet hate has been the obsession with things like chip timing, quality of goodie bags, t-shirts etc.

I expect to run somewhere in the region of 40-42 mins for my next 10k over the next few months. If I break 40mins I won't be celebrating. I hope to break 3hrs for the Marathon next year. I'll be happy if I do but I still want to achieve sub 2:45 before calling myself anything more than average.

ecoli

tunney wrote: »

I agree if someone runs a five minute mile that shouldn't be treated as equal to 26.2 five minute miles.

Running longer is not an achievement in itself. Running longer fast is.

Thats where the IAAF scoring comes in someone running 2.11 is obviously gonna get alot more points that a 5 min mile:D

I know its not perfect but its a start

And regarding the discrimination against the field events or shorter distances i have no problem adding them however given time of the year and the lack of participants of them events on the site i dont think it would stimulate much training talk.
Maybe coming closer to indoors or coming into track season we can set up a similar thread for them? (Cant please everyone but I doing my best;))

shels4ever

Gringo78 wrote: »

To maintain the bias towards longer distances traditional in this forum

I mean, we have already assumed no club runner aspires to run anything shorter than the mile distance or to jump or throw anything so why not?

Then we need to put in an ultra and a 24 hour race (@20 min mile pace)too

shels4ever

ecoli wrote: »

Thats where the IAAF scoring comes in someone running 2.11 is obviously gonna get alot more points that a 5 min mile:D

I know its not perfect but its a start

And regarding the discrimination against the field events or shorter distances i have no problem adding them however given time of the year and the lack of participants of them events on the site i dont think it would stimulate much training talk.
Maybe coming closer to indoors or coming into track season we can set up a similar thread for them? (Cant please everyone but I doing my best;))

So why not have a thread of your IAAF ranking point ? Think there was someting on racepix before with something along the lines.

shotgunmcos

tunney wrote: »

.
Running longer is not an achievement in itself. Running longer fast is.

I'm biting my lip on this... :rolleyes:


Back OT. I think its a good idea for a challenge but would agree that limiting it to separate race performances in one year is ridiculous. Ok so some might plan 8 or more races in a year but who does everything from 5k to the marathon chasing times for all? I'm with the knock off the sub 90 HM on a sub3 marathon run side of things. Hell tunney can head out in a mood and knock em all off in one go if need be

As for the 3km in 10 mins, probably the hardest of the lot but would this not more than likely be a fitness track test than an organised race?

Also, is it not kind of akin to the 'best of..' thread already?

robinph

You only need to do a marathon in 2:10:30 and you've got them all in one race. Can't be that tough if you only need to do the one race.

robinph

How do the IAAF ranking points stack up between the marathon time and the mile time?

Bit mad for all but the daftest people on here to be attempting both extremes of the range of distances, but no reason that a miler wouldn't be doing other races at that end of the scale or a marathoner to be doing halves and 10milers. Even up the targets based on ranking points so they compare more fairly, each has to be done in a separate race ( so no claiming the half in a marathon). Then taking your best 4 scores at the end of the year whoever gets the better ranking points wins. Then the miler can compete against the marathoner without needing some mad training and race schedule.

This is about trying to encourage a higher standard, not break people, isn't it?

ecoli

shotgunmcos wrote: »

I'm biting my lip on this... :rolleyes:


Back OT. I think its a good idea for a challenge but would agree that limiting it to separate race performances in one year is ridiculous. Ok so some might plan 8 or more races in a year but who does everything from 5k to the marathon chasing times for all? I'm with the knock off the sub 90 HM on a sub3 marathon run side of things. Hell tunney can head out in a mood and knock em all off in one go if need be

As for the 3km in 10 mins, probably the hardest of the lot but would this not more than likely be a fitness track test than an organised race?

Also, is it not kind of akin to the 'best of..' thread already?

The idea would be this not only promote race results but sharing of training advice, nutrition, supplimentary work etc. The challenge in itself is just to try and promote this take

@ shels. The idea of the Iaaf ranking is a second part of the challenge to include those who will not do the whole 8 so that is why five standards makes you eligible for this. This was marathon runners can still be included in the chat without becoming a miler and like wise shorter distance guys dont have to step up (i know myself wont be doing a marathon for some time yet but would still like to contribute and get feedback from other people.
The reason its not its own thread is that we are trying to group together a collective knowledge of the quicker runners on the board in the hope that it will benefit both them and people who aspire to these times by what they learn without the knowledge padded on being too diluted

baza1976

robinph wrote: »

This is about trying to encourage a higher standard, not break people, isn't it?

Spot on.

RedB

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.

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:)

While these are probably achievable targets for the average club / fast runner, they're a little bit out of my league right now . How about a different version along similar lines for the lesser mortals as well?

It could be similar to the S/C/R Challenge with Green / Gold type targets or it could be entirely different threads for each 'level' or league of runner e.g. based on 6 min miler, 7 min miler, 8 min miler, 9 min miler and 10+min miler standards

BeepBeep67

With regards to training and I think this would really only work one way rather than in reverse, unless a miler had a huge aerobic capacity, but I knocked 10 secs off my 2009 1mile time, just after I finished a 16 week HM program, which only include a couple of mile pace intervals towards the end, so you'd be surprised how your shorter distance times can improve off longer race schedules.
I think hitting that 10 mile time is key, if you can hit that the majority of the others would be comfortable and with some sharpening the mile and 3k could be achieved.
BTW - there were about 5 or 6 opportunites to race 3k on the track between the graded and BHAA meets in Dublin last summer.

donothoponpop

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

With regards to training and I think this would really only work one way rather than in reverse, unless a miler had a huge aerobic capacity, but I knocked 10 secs off my 2009 1mile time, just after I finished a 16 week HM program, which only include a couple of mile pace intervals towards the end, so you'd be surprised how your shorter distance times can improve off longer race schedules.
I think hitting that 10 mile time is key, if you can hit that the majority of the others would be comfortable and with some sharpening the mile and 3k could be achieved.
BTW - there were about 5 or 6 opportunites to race 3k on the track between the graded and BHAA meets in Dublin last summer.

Training, and the order in which the races are trained for, will play a large part in this challenge, and hopefully will be discussed and learned from in the thread.:)

To address a couple of other points:
The challenge is the way it is. Hit those 8 times in 2011, fastest/first to do so wins. It's not perfect, it is a compromise, if you've an issue with the times being too slow, run them faster, you'll do better in the challenge. If you've an issue with them being too slow, train harder and then join in.

The idea behind it is to stimulate a higher level of competitiveness on the forum than the current situation. It is hoped that this starting point will lead to further discussion of faster times. There are plenty of other threads on the forum for discussing slower times. I'd love to see a T&F version in the summer, or an ultra version, or a much faster version in which you'd have to be winning domestic races to join in, but for the moment those Racing Flat numbers are a good starting point for this forum. It won't be as easy as a lot of people think to hit all those times in one year (or two years using the carryover system). Lots here can run a 5k in the given time, they're going to have to up their game if they want to hit that 60min 10 miler.

I for one am going to kick the pants off several Boardies with faster 26mile times than me, by leaving them for dead with a killer mile time. That alone will make it worthwhile;)

Gringo78

robinph wrote: »

You only need to do a marathon in 2:10:30 and you've got them all in one race. Can't be that tough if you only need to do the one race.

Do you mean 5min miles?

I actually think a 2:40 marathoner wouldn't have a whole lot of difficulty achieving all 8 within a LSR with some PMP miles thrown in. Ok, it'd be tough but well doable:

4 mile warmup at 7:00 pace, 3km at 5:22 pace, 4 mile @ 7:30 pace to recover, 10 miles @ 6:00 pace (PMP)...at that point you'd have ticked off 3km, 5km, 5 mile, 10k, 10 mile & HM targets. 5 miles then at 8:00 pace with fast finish of 1 mile in 5:00 pace....to tick everything off with plenty to spare.

So, will anyone try that as a session in 2011?

donothoponpop

Gringo78 wrote: »

Do you mean 5min miles?

I actually think a 2:40 marathoner wouldn't have a whole lot of difficulty achieving all 8 within a LSR with some PMP miles thrown in. Ok, it'd be tough but well doable:

4 mile warmup at 7:00 pace, 3km at 5:22 pace, 4 mile @ 7:30 pace to recover, 10 miles @ 6:00 pace (PMP)...at that point you'd have ticked off 1mile, 5km, 5 mile, 10k, 10 mile & HM targets. 5 miles then at 8:00 pace with fast finish of 1 mile in 5:00 pace....to tick everything off with plenty to spare.

So, will anyone try that as a session in 2011?

I guess since IAAF WR allow for fast times set during longer distances to be ratified, we should do the same in this challenge (that's only fair to the IAAF;)). There'd have to be some sort of verifiable timing system (chip I suppose), otherwise we'll be using garmin times which will be inaccurate.

Brucie Bonus points for anyone who hits all 8 in the one race though, now that's a challenge!

BeepBeep67

Gringo78 wrote: »

Do you mean 5min miles?

I actually think a 2:40 marathoner wouldn't have a whole lot of difficulty achieving all 8 within a LSR with some PMP miles thrown in. Ok, it'd be tough but well doable:

4 mile warmup at 7:00 pace, 3km at 5:22 pace, 4 mile @ 7:30 pace to recover, 10 miles @ 6:00 pace (PMP)...at that point you'd have ticked off 3km, 5km, 5 mile, 10k, 10 mile & HM targets. 5 miles then at 8:00 pace with fast finish of 1 mile in 5:00 pace....to tick everything off with plenty to spare.

So, will anyone try that as a session in 2011?

I'm up for sections 1, 3 and 5!

Gringo78

donothoponpop wrote: »

I guess since IAAF WR allow for fast times set during longer distances to be ratified, we should do the same in this challenge (that's only fair to the IAAF;)). There'd have to be some sort of verifiable timing system (chip I suppose), otherwise we'll be using garmin times which will be inaccurate.

Brucie Bonus points for anyone who hits all 8 in the one race though, now that's a challenge!

I think to make an attempt on all 8 in one go, it should be allowable to do it in training rather than in a race and to use Garmin measured distance plus 1.5% to account for potential garmin in-accuracies. I doubt we'd get more than a handful of attempts but you never know.

donothoponpop

Gringo78 wrote: »

I think to make an attempt on all 8 in one go, it should be allowable to do it in training rather than in a race and to use Garmin measured distance plus 1.5% to account for potential garmin in-accuracies. I doubt we'd get more than a handful of attempts but you never know.

This challenge is all about increasing the exposure of faster running, and you've taken the spirit of it brilliantly- by all means, anyone who can do this in training, and hit all the times, using a Garmin, that should be encouraged. Go for it:D

Gringo78

donothoponpop wrote: »

This challenge is all about increasing the exposure of faster running, and you've taken the spirit of it brilliantly- by all means, anyone who can do this in training, and hit all the times, using a Garmin, that should be encouraged. Go for it:D

It reads like a session heffsarmy or Tunguska would do so my money is on one of those two to achieve it in one go first.

TFBubendorfer

Looking at some of race distance mistakes that happened this year, a Garmin might be more accurate anyway ...

tunney

shotgunmcos wrote: »

I'm biting my lip on this... :rolleyes:

What I meant was anyone can cover any distance if the pace is slow enough. It was suggested that a marathon was always going to be more of an achievement than a mile because it was longer event. A 5 minute mile and a 2:30 marathon - yes. marathon probably wins. but a 4:30 mile and a 3:00 marathon? No - just because the marathon is longer doesn't make it more of an achievement.

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Back OT. I think its a good idea for a challenge but would agree that limiting it to separate race performances in one year is ridiculous. Ok so some might plan 8 or more races in a year but who does everything from 5k to the marathon chasing times for all? I'm with the knock off the sub 90 HM on a sub3 marathon run side of things. Hell tunney can head out in a mood and knock em all off in one go if need be

As for the 3km in 10 mins, probably the hardest of the lot but would this not more than likely be a fitness track test than an organised race?

Also, is it not kind of akin to the 'best of..' thread already?

I believe the intention was not so much the challenge but to foster and encourage the dwindling number of posters for whom the challenge is not completion but competition.