So what does make a good performance?

--amadeus--

In light of the debate in the other thread what is a good performance that is worthy of praise and singling out? Does it have to be of a world class standard? Or just a good performance by that person's standards? Is it quantifiable? Does age / gender / condition / event have anything to do with it?

To put another way what is the better performance - person A who has a history of athletic achievement, who trains diligently and prepares well before going out and delivering the expected result (be that a top club time or a performance at national or international level). Or person B who maybe lacks the background, maybe has an interrupted build up but goes out and despite all the odds manages a result that they wouldn't have been expected to?

In a soccer analogy which is better Liverpool beating Preston 6:0 playing some slick, attacking football or Preston nicking a 1:0 win against Man Utd with a scrappy 89th minute deflected goal after getting battered all match?

I know that some people get all het up that faster runners don't get the credit for stunning performances. And I can understand that. But I think it is a back handed compliment. People expect fast runners to run fast but have a natural tendency to root for the underdog. And we all associate with our peer group - we can identify with someone who works hard to run a time we can relate to but perhaps not to someone an hour faster or slower over a marathon.

FWIW I think comparing performances across vastly different ability levels and distances is impossible and what you consider a good performance is always going to be hugely subjective.

(I suppose in light of the other thread I should say I deliberately didn't mention specific posters and performances and I hope the conversation doesn't go down the "Poster A is better than Poster B because" route!)

RayCun

There's so much to it.
If someone trains for a year, hits every training target, every session exactly right then goes out and runs a great race, is that a great performance or a great year of training? Can you distinguish the two?
If the same person is tripped up and injured at the beginning of the race (suppose it's a marathon) runs slower than they'd hoped, but still guts it out to the end, is that better or worse?
Is a 15 minute 5k runner running a 14.45 PB better than someone who usually runs around 15.30 running a 14.55?
Is winning a race better than recording a fantastic time?

BeepBeep67

I think you need to try and differentiate between what makes a good performance and what makes a great performance and both are relative to the individuals current capability.
In terms of an individual training to meet a time goal a good performance might be executing a training plan for a sub 3hr Marathon and going out and running 2:59:XX, to a certain degree this is the expected result. A great performance might be getting to halfway in 1:29:XX feeling good and deciding to lay it on the line and running a 5min negative split.
Someone training to win a race and doing so by a min could be classed a good performance, where a nip and tuck race decided only in the last few strides could be classed as a great one.
All relative of course and I'm sure as many opinions as good and great performances.

thirtyfoot

IAAF Scoring Charts settles all such discussions.

tunguska

I think a great performance is a combination of heart and mind. Being clever but when it comes down to the business end of a race running it with your heart. And for me that means hanging on when Im completley shot and giving the person beside me the respect of a proper race, not being a coward and dropping back and at that crucial moment.
I think a great performance comes from being dedicated to the sport and giving it everything you have to give. Getting the absolute maximum out of yourself in training and in a race. Being brave and not just throwing the towel in when the going gets tough. Constantly striving to get to the next level and not just languish in the same zone all the time, or making excuses as to why you're not faster. Honesty of effort in training and racing.

donothoponpop

thirtyfoot wrote: »

IAAF Scoring Charts settles all such discussions.

Track-focused-mountain-hater.

ultrapercy

thirtyfoot wrote: »

IAAF Scoring Charts settles all such discussions.

Charts mean nothing. Impossible to cross compare performance. Its like comparing footballers from different eras, good craic but irrelevant.