IMRA season 2011

Slogger Jogger

Stumbled across details there of a race called the Calderway relay in the UK, which is a fell relay race with a difference. Its a team event with each leg being completed by a pair from each team. Sounds interesting. Probably a bitch to manage and for teams to organise recces for etc. Now where would that work in Ireland

OneColdHand

So I was thinking about the method for calculating the standings in the various leagues and championships. There may be an obvious answer to this, but would it not make sense to use the enduro points rather than the race positions to calculate the standings, given that the enduro points takes into account the difficulty of the race, as well as your position within the field?

For example, suppose I'm a really average runner (which I am!!!), with the current system, if I run poorly in a field of 40, I might finish in 30th place. But I'll still do better than if I run well in field of 100, finishing, say, 40th.

T runner

OneColdHand wrote: »

So I was thinking about the method for calculating the standings in the various leagues and championships. There may be an obvious answer to this, but would it not make sense to use the enduro points rather than the race positions to calculate the standings, given that the enduro points takes into account the difficulty of the race, as well as your position within the field?

For example, suppose I'm a really average runner (which I am!!!), with the current system, if I run poorly in a field of 40, I might finish in 30th place. But I'll still do better than if I run well in field of 100, finishing, say, 40th.

You are assuming that the race points, which enduro points are based on, are an accurate relection of the difficuly of a race. They are not. They are based on broad subjective classifications of difficuly.

Peterx

The more general point would be that tactics always come into play when there is any best x results from y races scenario and it doesn't really matter what the system is once you understand it and know how to get it to work for you.

As you're already shown picking races with fewer entrants is a good strategy, showing up to all the races can be a good strategy too assuming you don'r get too tired.

In the main, staying injury free and timing your fitness for June/July works well for himm-running in Ireland.
The early season races in May are shorter and you can get away with lower levels of fitness before ramping up both race fitness and race savvy for the longer races in June/July.

Lads like Eoin Keith and Paul Mahon could give master classes on how to quickly assimilate the rules and turn them to advantage which can be over half the battle in any given A.R. race - as opposed to the multisport one day events where starting slowly and getting faster all day tends to work well!

ElectraX

ocnoc wrote: »

Excluding John Lenhans record on Carrauntoohil, what do people think the toughest IMRA record to break would be?

Does Enduro running the whole Wicklow Way count as an IMRA record?:eek: I'd say that might be a tough one to beat!!

Enduro

T runner wrote: »

You are assuming that the race points, which enduro points are based on, are an accurate relection of the difficuly of a race. They are not. They are based on broad subjective classifications of difficuly.

They're based on 3 criteria, only 1 of which is subjective. The difficulty weighting is determined 40% by distance (Measuered, not subjective), 40% by height gain (measuered, not subjective), and 20% by Terraine (subjective). All those figures can be tuned.

On OnceColdhands broader point, Yes absolutely they could be used, and would have many advantages, in addtion the one you pointed out, over using race position. I think it would need to get broad "buy in" first though. The one huge advantage of the current system is that everybody understands it. Over in Triathalon Ireland they use a less refined points system in their main league, so there is a precedent for this kind of thing.

donothoponpop

Enduro wrote: »

They're based on 3 criteria, only 1 of which is subjective. The difficulty weighting is determined 40% by distance (Measuered, not subjective), 40% by height gain (measuered, not subjective), and 20% by Terraine (subjective). All those figures can be tuned.

I don't wish to appear pedantic, but the weighting of the weighting (40/40/20) is also subjective. I'd imagine it very difficult to get broad concensus on what direction a system like this should be tuned.

Enduro

donothoponpop wrote: »

I don't wish to appear pedantic, but the weighting of the weighting (40/40/20) is also subjective. I'd imagine it very difficult to get broad concensus on what direction a system like this should be tuned.

You're 100% correct (subjective? ), and that's why I noted that they can be tuned (and I'd love to hear any suggestions on improvements).

Stark

I think using the base points, ie: the percentile would be the thing to do here. I don't see the value in using the race points. For the purposes of league scoring, all the LL races are essentially the same in my view, there's no advantage in giving bonus points for coming top 10% in say an 8k as opposed to a 6k race. It's a different matter when you're calculating runner scores over all races where some races attract a mostly novice field and others attract a mostly experienced field.

jeffontour

donothoponpop wrote: »

I don't wish to appear pedantic, but the weighting of the weighting (40/40/20) is also subjective.

In relation to the weighting.......

On the page explaining difficulty it appears that climb, distance & terrain are weighted equally to define the difficulty as listed on the details for each event. With the exception of races of significant climb/distance which get a maximum difficulty of 10 regardless of the other criteria.

If there's a different weighting being used for the enduro points is it not a bit misleading to runners trying to pick races strictly with a view to build their points? In that the race is rated by one method and your performance by a tweaked version of the same approach?

I fully expect someone to point out some flaw in what I'm saying here as I've had two hellish days of brain deadedness!

donothoponpop

Enduro wrote: »

You're 100% correct (subjective? ), and that's why I noted that they can be tuned (and I'd love to hear any suggestions on improvements).

To be honest I can't think of any specific ways to improve. There's too much that is subjective by nature built into the model. On the surface, the way you have apportioned ratio's seems fair enough. I presume your intent is to let the system run for a while, and reviewing the results at the end of the year; that's the best way. Any major anomalies will appear then, (for instance comparing results to the less-accurate % results), and thats when you begin tinkering.

It'll take a while to get used to the enduro points system, but its more accurate than % (whether it's more accurate enough to justify replacing the simpler system remains to be seen). One thing though, I can't find a definite description of it on the imra forum, it might be an idea to put one up (apologies if I've missed it).

donothoponpop

Enduro wrote: »

You're 100% correct (subjective? )

Most definitely subjective;)

ocnoc

In terms of terrain, it is completely subjective.
As an example, IMRA says Howth is a 3, yet Bray head is a 2?!

In my opinion it should be a 2 and a 1.

Also, conditions on a given day can make a huge difference.
The running on a mountain when its dry and running on a mountain when the ferns are up and its been lashing rain for a month....

Raighne

ocnoc wrote: »

In terms of terrain, it is completely subjective.
As an example, IMRA says Howth is a 3, yet Bray head is a 2?!

In my opinion it should be a 2 and a 1.

Also, conditions on a given day can make a huge difference.
The running on a mountain when its dry and running on a mountain when the ferns are up and its been lashing rain for a month....

If I could go back in time, I would probably have suggested IMRA adopt the FRA system for rating races which is also used in the TrailGuides series of books. It is tried and tested and offers, upon reflection, a more nuanced and informative picture of a race. It is not number-based which was one thing we found desirable at the time (in hindsight, an exercise similar to what you get when turning data from analog to digital (e.g. you only get the "bleeps" in between not the full continuous picture).

On the surface it is a bit more complex (and the Committee decided to go with the TAD proposal instead for this reason among others).The TAD rating was never intended to give more than a very rough picture of what to expect on the day, however. Small deviations are inevitable in systems such as this, but we wanted a system that allowed beginners to clearly see that perhaps Carrauntoohil (or Lugnacoille as was my case) is not the best place to start your hill running.

That said, a little weather forecast widget on each race description would be neat.

On the topic of functionality, check out the very cool way clubs are treated on the Scottish Hill Runners. We had this on our long list of functionality for Justin back in the day, but sadly it did not make it high enough up the priorities to be "appropriated" by IMRA: http://www.scottishhillracing.co.uk/Clubs.aspx

T runner

Enduro wrote: »

They're based on 3 criteria, only 1 of which is subjective. The difficulty weighting is determined 40% by distance (Measuered, not subjective), 40% by height gain (measuered, not subjective), and 20% by Terraine (subjective). All those figures can be tuned.

On OnceColdhands broader point, Yes absolutely they could be used, and would have many advantages, in addtion the one you pointed out, over using race position. I think it would need to get broad "buy in" first though. The one huge advantage of the current system is that everybody understands it. Over in Triathalon Ireland they use a less refined points system in their main league, so there is a precedent for this kind of thing.

The method of deciding which factors affect the difficulty of the race and the grading is subjective. Your deciding that race difficulty increases with distance is subjective. A 20 minute race involves averaging near amximum heatrate. A 45 minute race doesnt average that. Therefore considering heartrate to reflect perceived avaerage pain, you could argue that a 5k race is more difficult than a 10k race.



Also Deciding that distance, height gain and, terrain are the only factors relevant to difficulty is subjective. Can you explain why these are the only categories relevant to difficulty?

Also, You are not using an exact objective measurement to decide that factor. You are using broad parameters.

You cant possibly get anything but a misleading result from thsi exercise.

For example I pointed out previously that the race points for the Winner
of Maulin Winter got teh same race points as a person who finsihed in the 30's position for Caurantoohil.

You said taht you tweaked it as a result of this. How could the race points have been so wrong and how can you guarantee that your tweaking can make it right?

I just dont think its working.

To be honest, is see some value in the base points system but only using the thirtieth percentile. There are big avaerage swings obvious for runners from race to race. Foe example runners who ran both trooperstown and Maulin had an average swing of atleast 3 points. The thirtieth percentile would ahve cut out most of thsi anomaly i believe.

I would reintroduce the percentage score. People liek to know how close they got to the actual winner of the race.

With taht and base points they can get an accurate reflection and perspective on their performance

I dont think the calculations for race points and enduro points are accurate or objective enough. The opposite TBH.

Enduro

ocnoc wrote: »

In terms of terrain, it is completely subjective.
As an example, IMRA says Howth is a 3, yet Bray head is a 2?!

In my opinion it should be a 2 and a 1.

Also, conditions on a given day can make a huge difference.
The running on a mountain when its dry and running on a mountain when the ferns are up and its been lashing rain for a month....

I agree its subjective. And I agree about the weather, and the possibility of factoring it in (it was considered). The reason the current ratings for terrain are leveraged by the points system is that they are already in the database. No new information needs to be added, so n additional work needs to be done to support it. Personally I'd like to bump up the terrain to a 5-step measure at least, but thats one for the future.

Enduro

Raighne wrote: »

If I could go back in time, I would probably have suggested IMRA adopt the FRA system for rating races which is also used in the TrailGuides series of books.
The TAD rating was never intended to give more than a very rough picture of what to expect on the day, however. Small deviations are inevitable in systems such as this, but we wanted a system that allowed beginners to clearly see that perhaps Carrauntoohil (or Lugnacoille as was my case) is not the best place to start your hill running.

That said, a little weather forecast widget on each race description would be neat.

On the topic of functionality, check out the very cool way clubs are treated on the Scottish Hill Runners. We had this on our long list of functionality for Justin back in the day, but sadly it did not make it high enough up the priorities to be "appropriated" by IMRA: http://www.scottishhillracing.co.uk/Clubs.aspx

Do you have any links for the FRA system. I haven't come accross it. The TAD system does the job it was intended to do perfectly well. We do have more detailed information on the AD parts though, which is used to calculate race difficulty.

That Scottish hillrunning website is interesting. We're flattered by such obvious immitation. It really is amazing how it is almost a direct copy of the IMRA site with some graphic design reworking.

Enduro

T runner wrote: »

The method of deciding which factors affect the difficulty of the race and the grading is subjective. Your deciding that race difficulty increases with distance is subjective. A 20 minute race involves averaging near amximum heatrate. A 45 minute race doesnt average that. Therefore considering heartrate to reflect perceived avaerage pain, you could argue that a 5k race is more difficult than a 10k race.

All technically true. Difficulty level could be argued in all sorts of directions. However I've yet to hear any IMRA runner compare the hard trail league races to the easy Irish Champs races, or warn beginners off doing the trail league to try an easier race in the Irish champs instead.

T runner wrote: »

Also Deciding that distance, height gain and, terrain are the only factors relevant to difficulty is subjective. Can you explain why these are the only categories relevant to difficulty?

These are the measures that are in the database for each race. If we had more, they could be used. So the available date decided it.

T runner wrote: »

Also, You are not using an exact objective measurement to decide that factor. You are using broad parameters.

Not correct. We are using the measure for distance and height in the database, not the TAD ratings.

T runner wrote: »

You cant possibly get anything but a misleading result from thsi exercise.

I don't see why, and would genuinely like to hear of any suggestions you would have to improve the measures.

T runner wrote: »

For example I pointed out previously that the race points for the Winner
of Maulin Winter got teh same race points as a person who finsihed in the 30's position for Caurantoohil.

You said taht you tweaked it as a result of this. How could the race points have been so wrong and how can you guarantee that your tweaking can make it right?

There is no right and wrong. Your opinion that the winner of Maulin is not equivalent to a 30th finisher in Carauntoohil is as subjective as an opinion that they are. In that particular case my opinion is that you are more correct, so I tuned the race points calcs to try to adjust for that. It's still just my subjective opinion aligning with yours though, and no more. Who exactly should decide what is right, or is there a measure you could define for it?

T runner wrote: »

To be honest, is see some value in the base points system but only using the thirtieth percentile. There are big avaerage swings obvious for runners from race to race. Foe example runners who ran both trooperstown and Maulin had an average swing of atleast 3 points. The thirtieth percentile would ahve cut out most of thsi anomaly i believe.

Interesting point. I believe the opposite. It should be testable though. I'll have to run a test on it to see how the two systems compare for those races.

T runner wrote: »

I would reintroduce the percentage score. People liek to know how close they got to the actual winner of the race.

With taht and base points they can get an accurate reflection and perspective on their performance

That makes sense in the context of a race results page alright. As it happens, it's on the to-do list.

T runner

Enduro wrote: »

All technically true. Difficulty level could be argued in all sorts of directions. However I've yet to hear any IMRA runner compare the hard trail league races to the easy Irish Champs races, or warn beginners off doing the trail league to try an easier race in the Irish champs instead.

But I have heard a multi Leinster League winner state that the 2-3 races he ran on the Scalp were amongst the very hardest he ran in his Leinster League career.

(I was talking specifically about the distance grade already being used.)

It seems that distance does not proportionately affect the difficulty of a race as the Race point system suggests. This means it is inaccurate and therefore should not be used.

These are the measures that are in the database for each race. If we had more, they could be used. So the available date decided it.

But your unwritten assumption here is that a race/enduro point system had to be used. The 3 grades are not sufficient, are inaccurate, are subjective.
Why didnt we conclude that not having sufficient criteria on the database for an accurate difficulty based points system meant we shouldnt go ahead with one?

I don't see why, and would genuinely like to hear of any suggestions you would have to improve the measures.

Winner Maulin = 36th place finish Carrauntoohil.

Event difficulty Ticknock winter would be equal to event difficulty of Knockdu.


Other factors: Number of ascents, ave ascent/descent gradient, positioning of certain climbs on the route, average race intensity, underfoot conditions (dry, snow, muddy, wind effect, temperature, etc etc.

You cant take everything into account, and you must to get an accurate reflection of the race difficulty.

There is no right and wrong. Your opinion that the winner of Maulin is not equivalent to a 30th finisher in Carauntoohil is as subjective as an opinion that they are. In that particular case my opinion is that you are more correct, so I tuned the race points calcs to try to adjust for that. It's still just my subjective opinion aligning with yours though, and no more. Who exactly should decide what is right, or is there a measure you could define for it?

Nobody should decide who is right. The system is subjective, inaccurate and should not be used at all.
Again your underlining assumption is that we must have a difficulty based system.

How can a system which equates a 37th place result on Caurantoohil with a win on Maulin winner be taken seriously by anyone?

This system is supposed to be for the benefit of IMRA runners. Is it benefitting them?

Interesting point. I believe the opposite. It should be testable though. I'll have to run a test on it to see how the two systems compare for those races.

Ive done it and posted it earlier on this thread.



TBH I think this needs debating on the IMRA forum amongst the wider general community.

I understand that these systems need time for testing, but they are subjective as you ahve admitted and ultimately inaccurate (for the majority of subjective opinions).

T runner

Enduro wrote: »

Do you have any links for the FRA system. I haven't come accross it. The TAD system does the job it was intended to do perfectly well. We do have more detailed information on the AD parts though, which is used to calculate race difficulty.

That Scottish hillrunning website is interesting. We're flattered by such obvious immitation. It really is amazing how it is almost a direct copy of the IMRA site with some graphic design reworking.

One massive feature that was lost to the imra site during teh various upgrades was the ability to browse seamlessly through results.

For me (and many people i would argue) the huge strenght of the site was the browseability of the results database. You could hit a runner, see all his/her results, click a race, up pops the results immediately, oh theres a runner who interests me, up come results immediately.

Now it seems that a race defaults to the event details. No problem with this for future events, for past ones it makes no sense. Results are most important.

People usually browse runners of similar ability. They do this to see tehir results primarily. How good are they? Their time ina particular race should indicate my time..etec..etc..


I just thought a large baby was thrown out with the bathwater by losing that instant access to a huge results database.

ocnoc

Race I got pushed the hardest in was by far Maulin '10.. ended up on my hands and knee's in the carpark trying to throw my guts up.

Easiest* race was probably Circuit of Avonbeg. Points for Avoinbeg were ~700 higher.


But on the other hand, I pushed harder at the College Champs last year verses this year... (Race points 158.6 V 142.8). But I was faster by 2mins this year...

*Note: easiest as in the race I least wanted to curl into a ball and die after... It was a nice run in the mountains

Peterx

ocnoc wrote: »

Race I got pushed the hardest in was by far Maulin '10.. ended up on my hands and knee's in the carpark trying to throw my guts up.

Easiest* race was probably Circuit of Avonbeg. Points for Avoinbeg were ~700 higher.


But on the other hand, I pushed harder at the College Champs last year verses this year... (Race points 158.6 V 142.8). But I was faster by 2mins this year...

*Note: easiest as in the race I least wanted to curl into a ball and die after... It was a nice run in the mountains

The joys of selective quoting...

"I had run completely empty! I looked down and it was bang on 19km. I was gutted. I looked down at my map where I had cunningly written lots of stuff to keep me going. Choice pieces were
Relax, HTFU
Everyones hurting, stay strong
Focus, SFYA
Never give up
but the one that got my eye the most was "they'll come back to you, they always do". Heading for Lugduff I was hurting"

Colm Hill - Circuit of Avonbeg 2010

It's hard to be objective about subjective things, At least I think that's T runner's point..

ocnoc

There is a difference between running empty and death

But i get your point :P

Slogger Jogger

In the event of a tie the winner shall be that person who had volunteered more during the season Maybe that should be a criteria for trialists too :rolleyes:

PositiveNegativ

Pesky Race Directors coming on here looking for Volunteers.

Two summit marshals are needed for the Avonbeg race to go ahead this year.
http://www.imra.ie/events/view/id/834/

Given the broad church of hill running opinions expressed on this thread there's bound to be one or two not that interested in flagellating themselves on the hills for 3+ hours who would be much happier to poke fun at those who do. Where better to do it than on a hill top. Think of the power you'll wheedle as the cut off approaches.

Form an orderly queue.

donothoponpop

PositiveNegativ wrote: »

Pesky Race Directors coming on here looking for Volunteers.

Two summit marshals are needed for the Avonbeg race to go ahead this year.
http://www.imra.ie/events/view/id/834/

Given the broad church of hill running opinions expressed on this thread there's bound to be one or two not that interested in flagellating themselves on the hills for 3+ hours who would be much happier to poke fun at those who do. Where better to do it than on a hill top. Think of the power you'll wheedle as the cut off approaches.

Form an orderly queue.

There's a man with his head screwed on, if you want something, put up a list on Boards, sign up below...

Yes! I want to be a Summit Marshall for Circuit of Avonbeg!

donothoponpop (head over heart decision)

ocnoc

PositiveNegativ wrote: »

3+ hours

Speak for yourself :P

Currently am in two minds if I'll run it or not... I'll get back to you

Slogger Jogger

Yes! I want to be a Summit Marshall for Circuit of Avonbeg!

donothoponpop (head over heart decision)
Slogger Jogger (not sure about want, but hey..)

donothoponpop

ocnoc wrote: »

... I'll get back to you

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

Yes! I want to be a Summit Marshall for Circuit of Avonbeg!

donothoponpop (head over heart decision)
Slogger Jogger (not sure about want, but hey..)

Zing! Too slow ocnoc!:D

Slogger Jogger

Cue a discussion about KotM, King of the Marshalls. Should take into account the gradient, distance, weather, terrain and the amount of pints that the RD has put our way after the race.