What are your strongest and weakest PB's?

Pisco Sour

Just for a bit of fun, and for the stat geeks among us (i.e. anybody who uses a Garmin ), here's the latest edition of the IAAF Scoring Tables, revised this year.

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/33/41/20110124082825_httppostedfile_IAAF_Scoring_Tables_of_Athletics_2011_23299.pdf

So according to the tables what is your strongest PB and what is your weakest?

For me, my strongest is my 400m at 1:03.90 which scores 265 points on these tables (200m time is 266 points but I had a bit of a wind at my back).

Weakest is the marathon of 4:07:35 which manages to score just 10 points on these tables :eek:

wgtomblin

Cripes, that document is a statto's dream. :eek:

For me, strongest would be 10miles: 750pts. Weakest 1mile: 404pts.

Pherekydes

761 (11.44) for 100m, then it just goes downhill from there, to 359 (85:42) for half marathon, though I've 699 (15:16) for 3k Walk! :eek:

566 (4:48) for the mile.

Pisco Sour

Pherekydes wrote: »

761 (11.44) for 100m, then it just goes downhill from there, to 359 (85:42) for half marathon, though I've 699 (15:16) for 3k Walk! :eek:

566 (4:48) for the mile.

I can only assume you did the walk in school?

I actually left out my 100m time due to people having natural speed over such a short distance and because I don't know what my exact PB is. Around 13.2 but only as a time trial. So that's 355 points for that event.

Actually forgot to check out the field events and am amazed that my 4.50m for long jump gives me 409 points, which equates to 12.93 100m and a 59.78 400m :eek::eek::eek:

Can that be right? I wouldn't have thought jumping 4.50m would be of the same level as going sub 1 minute for the 400m. Personally I'd rather have the sub 60!

Woddle

The shortest distances I've raced are 800m and 1500m and both score 204pts, I also have never trained for those events.

I have however trained specifically for the marathon but I only get 123pts for my time.

I think there could be a message there.


221pts for the 10 mile
210 for 5k

rainbow kirby

Strongest: Marathon 3:59:00 (425 points)

Weakest: 10 mile 1:27:36 (300 points), my 10k and half-marathon aren't too far ahead of this.

Surprising: Long jump (from Santry in 2001 when I got roped into doing it because my school was short on people, this was the one jump I didn't foul) 3.22m (405 points)

Pisco Sour

Woddle wrote: »

The shortest distances I've raced are 800m and 1500m and both score 204pts, I also have never trained for those events.

I have however trained specifically for the marathon but I only get 123pts for my time.

I think there could be a message there.


221pts for the 10 mile
210 for 5k

You're a fast twitcher

shels4ever

best 800m @627 worst Marathon @ a big fat 0 points :eek:

Burgman

04072511 wrote: »

Just for a bit of fun, and for the stat geeks among us (i.e. anybody who uses a Garmin ), here's the latest edition of the IAAF Scoring Tables, revised this year.

Thanks - but damn you - there goes my Saturday!

I have 545 for half marathon, 510 for 10 miles, 457 marathon. Must do a search for the age-adjusted version of this. (Although that would really mess up my weekend.)

TheRoadRunner

Hmm interesting and adds to the debate whether completing a marathon (or other distances listed) is an achievement! The IAAF obviously don't think so, a big fat 0 points for 4.17 or slower. Must get onto them to add an appendix for charity runners and those with an "inspirational" story. The elitist bastards!

rainbow kirby

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Hmm interesting and adds to the debate whether completing a marathon (or other distances listed) is an achievement! The IAAF obviously don't think so, a big fat 0 points for 4.17 or slower. Must get onto them to add an appendix for charity runners and those with an "inspirational" story. The elitist bastards!

The women's table gives one point for a 6:13:10 marathon. :eek:

TheRoadRunner

Pfffff womens tables sure why would I be looking at them obviously the IAAF have taken into consideration all the housework women have/should be doing so no need for an appendix for them.

RacoonQueen

My 10 mile time is the best with my HM time a tiny bit behind. Won't look at the others - too depressing. :pac:

ecoli

Did up my PBs and was suprised with the results

Events|Points
2000m S/C|711
1 Mile|625
1500m|614
3000 S/C|590
400mH|580
10km| 575
HM|584
5km|557
800m|552


Knew my 800m was my weakest (due to not running one in years) but didnt think I would look more middle distance based

Brianderunner

Events|Points
200m|662
400m|668
800m|572
Mile|464
5k|360
10miles|390
HM|376
Marathon|318
Triple Jump|603


Bit of a trend there, yet i continue to train for marathons :rolleyes:

Pisco Sour

Hehe, the IAAF value a 4:16 marathon the same as throwing a shot putt a massive 98 centimetres :)

Art of Noise

10km: 355 pts
10 Miles: 342 pts
Marathon: 285 pts
Half Marathon: 280 pts
5km: 250 pts

I have never raced anything under 5km and my points totals from anything under one mile distance would be less than 100 i'd say.

shels4ever

04072511 wrote: »

Hehe, the IAAF value a 4:16 marathon the same as throwing a shot putt a massive 98 centimetres :)

I am sure I coudl do better then that, and will need to at least get rated in marathon this year.

Pisco Sour

I love the way the IAAF deem my banter attempt at the shot putt, which resulted in 5.67m, worthy of 274 points :D

TFBubendorfer

Events|Points
5k|345
10k|378
10m|438
HM|370
M|444


Interesting. Every calculator I've ever used rated my 10 mile PB far higher than my marathon one. In fact, according to MacMillan, my marathon PB is a bit weak.

The IAAF tables, on the other hand, are giving my marathon time the most points. Makes me wonder how they calculated these tables.

PhoenixParker

Remember that thread where everyone was arguing about a set of target times for elites with some sort of league table?
This might be the way to do it. Top 5 results in the last 12 months, 1 to be from each of short, middle and long distance, other two of your choosing. Most points wins.

robinph

Events|Points
10k|482
800m|470
M|452
5k|446
HM|410
2M|398
10M|355
1M|349
1500m|304


Think I manage to completely mess up any theory's over being better at one end of the distance spectrum than the other with 10k, 800m and marathon being at the top of my list.

Woddle

robinph wrote: »

Events|Points
10k|482
800m|470
M|452
5k|446
HM|410
2M|398
10M|355
1M|349
1500m|304


Think I manage to completely mess up any theory's over being better at one end of the distance spectrum than the other with 10k, 800m and marathon being at the top of my list.

Don't know about that, my take on your figures is that the 800m was a fluke

Pisco Sour

Woddle wrote: »

Don't know about that, my take on your figures is that the 800m was a fluke

His 800m was probably off zero training and the marathon off intense training. If he focused on track his 800m score would be much higher. He is probably fast twitch as well as a fair few others who still do marathons regardless.

robinph

04072511 wrote: »

His 800m was probably off zero training and the marathon off intense training. If he focused on track his 800m score would be much higher. He is probably fast twitch as well as a fair few others who still do marathons regardless.

There was probably as much training appropriate for the 800m as there was for the marathon, both were flukes. The 10km wasn't a fluke and I'm sure I can do better than that ranking.

The IAAF point tables are not the worst comparisons out there, but I think the McMillian ones actually show a better line of relation between the various distances once you don't try and compare 100m to marathon times.

A particularly bad set of relative standards is Power Of 10 where they have 3hr marathon, 58minute for 10mile and 4:30 for 1 mile. That is admittedly more about the times for inclusion in their listings than for comparing standards though.