SBR Challenge 2015 ideas: DEADLINE Tuesday 6pm!

zico10

I think the table is fine as it is. I enjoyed the monthly totals this year, so I'd like to see that stay. Updating just three numbers was enough for me, I never thought specifying between open water/pool swims, etc. was necessary. I know it wouldn't have been complicated to enter numbers in these columns, but it has to be acknowledged that there was a huge drop in people updating over the year. I don't think how 'complicated' the table was, was the reason people stopped, but making the process any more time consuming will do nothing to entice these people to stay updating.

On an earlier point I think the calendar year is a better way of of running it than as a seasonal table. We'd probably need to hear from the people who dropped out, but I honestly don't think the January-December nature of the challenge had any impact on the numbers sticking with the challenge.

Dory Dory

Per zico....and since I am one of the ones who dropped out, I only dropped out because of time. I spend a lot of time on my own log (it's my only "complete" training record - I treat it like my diary), so honestly by the time I finish typing that up and then reading others' logs, it's usually late at night and I'm pretty beat. And because I track nothing in kilometers or meters (miles and yards!), it adds a few extra strokes for me. Further, if I get behind in my updating on this thread, them I'm doomed. Too bad there isn't a way to automatically link our personal logs with the table to magically update the SBR Challenge. (hint, hint ) For me, simple is best.

To Peter's point (I think).....with my personality, it's quite easy for me to get all wrapped up in a numbers competition with the other folks on the table, and that could/would be detrimental to my training and personal goals - going off script. Valid point, and I've been guilty of it from time to time. What is the actual goal of this thread? There are probably as many answers to that question as there are participants. As long as it is a positive and fun experience with constructive motivation, then it's all good!

peter kern

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Goal? Up to you. But then you don't participate. So not up to you.

Complaint: Figs not adding up? Please expand, thanks

ok lets us jackyback from the amount of miles and training hours he should be around 4th place overall and i think he is 17 th so how ever that is caluclated it seems not right to me.

shotgunmcos

peter kern wrote: »

ok lets us jackyback from the amount of miles and training hours he should be around 4th place overall and i think he is 17 th so how ever that is caluclated it seems not right to me.

Ah got you now. The overall rank this year was based on your average monthly rank. Complicated formula. So, this year back to simpler calculation. It will be based on your overall volumes rank and will calculate as you have. The months will still rank independently


@Dory. The miles/km thing we can work for you, making it a bit shorter to update . However, updating automatically from your gleeful log of the year, not possible I'm afraid. Any clever programme sent searching your log for data would just get wrapped up in the glee

mossym

for something you describe as a pissing competition peter, you're more worried about the ranking than anyone else.


not @peter, but in general:
there is no perfect method for ranking. what was attempted last year was to reward consistency, rather than highest volume. otherwise those doing mid summer ironman end up at the top due to the volume, then the rest of the year is irrelevant anyway as they don't enter again, and those still training can't catch them anyway. the method uses this year was to to rank the most consistent training across the 12 months. surely that's the goal, motivate people to keep up the training, rather than to put in a couple of big months?

maybe we should have both ranking systems in place, most overall, and most consistent. the spreadsheet is a nice way of seeing how you rank against others, so the more way you can cut it the better you understand the effort you are putting in.

unless not having it ranked as a proper pissing competition offends some(that is @peter)

tunney

It's also interesting to see the ROI people get. Or don't get.

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

It's also interesting to see the ROI people get. Or don't get.

thats why i look at it as overall its a great meta study on training.
and not just the typical 12 weeks studies.

peter kern

for some a pissing contest is brilliant other people get lost in it.

mossym wrote: »

for something you describe as a pissing competition peter, you're more worried about the ranking than anyone else.


not @peter, but in general:
there is no perfect method for ranking. what was attempted last year was to reward consistency, rather than highest volume. otherwise those doing mid summer ironman end up at the top due to the volume, then the rest of the year is irrelevant anyway as they don't enter again, and those still training can't catch them anyway. the method uses this year was to to rank the most consistent training across the 12 months. surely that's the goal, motivate people to keep up the training, rather than to put in a couple of big months?

maybe we should have both ranking systems in place, most overall, and most consistent. the spreadsheet is a nice way of seeing how you rank against others, so the more way you can cut it the better you understand the effort you are putting in.

unless not having it ranked as a proper pissing competition offends some(that is @peter)

MrCreosote

Pretty good as it is I reckon! Thanks for keeping it up and running.

The only things I'd like would be a place for 'significant injuries' and somewhere to log relevant non-training activities. Like reading tri magazines or watching Rocky training montages on youtube, that sort of thing.

Solobally8

I'd definitely top that table!!

lopesc

Was that 6pm GMT?

mossym

lopesc wrote: »

Was that 6pm GMT?

if you have another suggestion throw it out now or forever hold your piece and your peace

RacoonQueen

lopesc wrote: »

Was that 6pm GMT?

No, it was 6pm AEST