10 Round Numbers 2016: Novice, Intermediate and Senior

Dubgal72

10 Round Numbers 2016: Novice, Intermediate and Senior

It's that time of year. Time to get the ball rolling for 2016 and pconn has kindly passed the baton to myself this year. We're going to try something different this year (see why he passed the baton?! ). Firstly, we're taking the sex out of 10 Round Numbers but wait, come back....we're adding years to you.

Yup, you heard correctly. So no sex but more years. There's a column for your age-graded result. This might even get its very own table if it grows legs. This age grading tool is probably the most accurate http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/wmalookup15.html

We're also drawing from some elements of cross country running. So you can see here that instead of being gender-based, the tables are structured along the Novice/Intermediate/Senior approach of XC. The times for the Novice table were established last year on the Graduates thread but are not set in stone yet.

This is a work in progress so any and all suggestions welcome. The three tables are on the one thread to promote visibility and also to stimulate conversation across the tables. There is talk of having the tables on a google docs sheet but my PC is buried in the spare room so any volunteers?
We could have the tables below as 'display tables', edited/times added in by admin/myself and the comments for discussion only. It would save a lot of table breaking.....

Finally, I'm suggesting that we again borrow from XC and start some sort of team competition across the 12 months. It could run along the lines of 6 per team (2 from each table?), four 'best' (most active) to score. Teams are decided in January and illness/injury just has to be sucked up....Points are awarded to each distance. I can see some heated discussion here, might need its own discussion thread until settled

Dubgal72

Name|Team|400|AG|800|AG|1 mile|AG|3k|AG|5k|AG|5m|AG|10k|AG|10mi|AG|HM|AG|M|AG
||80secs||200secs||7mins||12mins||25mins||40mins||50mins||90mins||2h||4h|
||||||||||||||||||||

Dubgal72

Name|Team|400|AG|800|AG|1 mile|AG|3k|AG|5k|AG|5m|AG|10k|AG|10mi|AG|HM|AG|M|AG
||70secs||3 mins||6 mins||12mins||20mins||35 mins||40mins||70mins||100mins||200mins|
||||||||||||||||||||

Dubgal72

Name|Team|400|AG|800|AG|1 mile|AG|3k|AG|5k|AG|5m|AG|10k|AG|10mi|AG|HM|AG|M|AG
||60secs||150 secs||5mins||10mins||20mins||30 mins||40mins||60mins||90mins||3hours|
||||||||||||||||||||

tang1

Why same 5k & 10k times in Intermediate and Senior. 20min 5k and 40min 10k SHOULD be easy times for a 5min miler or 10min 3k'er?

Dubgal72

tang1 wrote: »

Why same 5k & 10k times in Intermediate and Senior. 20min 5k and 40min 10k SHOULD be easy times for a 5min miler or 10min 3k'er?

That's the way it's always been, no change there. The tables are not incrementally harder, for example the 60 min 10 mile is probably the hardest (along with the 5 min mile) but the 10k senior time is comparatively soft, there's some crossover on the novice and intermediate tables too.

rom

RANT
The reason why the 10 was successful was for one reason and one reason only. Its hard. If its easy then its pointless. If you want to have separate tables then they need to be in different threads and not all lumped into a single thread. At the end of the day it is nice for people to be partaking in the sport but if you are going to put the achievement of a novice and someone that worked a few years to reach their goal in the same thread then this thread sums up all that is wrong with the sport. Yes it is a sport. I know the original thing was quite weighed toward male as the times would be hard for most female runners but if thats the case then leave the original one and base it off age graded values. http://www.runnersworld.com/pace-calculators/age-grade-calculator

Then you can have the best performances of the year and people will try to move up the table. Don't F up the 10 in 10.

RANT OVER

menoscemo

rom wrote: »

RANT
The reason why the 10 was successful was for one reason and one reason only. Its hard. If its easy then its pointless. If you want to have separate tables then they need to be in different threads and not all lumped into a single thread. At the end of the day it is nice for people to be partaking in the sport but if you are going to put the achievement of a novice and someone that worked a few years to reach their goal in the same thread then this thread sums up all that is wrong with the sport. Yes it is a sport. I know the original thing was quite weighed toward male as the times would be hard for most female runners but if thats the case then leave the original one and base it off age graded values. http://www.runnersworld.com/pace-calculators/age-grade-calculator

Then you can have the best performances of the year and people will try to move up the table. Don't F up the 10 in 10.

RANT OVER

+1000 I could likely do all the 'Intermediate' times in the morning yet I am far from an intermediate runner in the sense of the club system and far from in my best shape. There should also be a system for graduating from rank (novice/intermediate/senior) mid season I reckon.

The proposed system seems over complicated as someone might try for the 'novice' goals while achieving several of the upper goals. Like ROM I propose it's better to do 3 separate threads and leave the 'Big 10' alone.

Murph_D

Love the age grading. But I would say that, wouldn't I?

The Big 10 is hard but it also rewarded mediocre performances, surely? A 19:59 5k from a 30-year-old male is not a particularly wonderful achievement at only a 65% age grade. The same time from a woman the same age (or an older male) is a much better achievement.

Three tables, one thread, I don't see the problem, or at least not one that is insurmountable. I don't think having a senior table in the same thread as the novice devalues anything. If anything it motivates the novice to try to move up to senior level and gets more visibility for all three tables across all levels.

I do think the targets should be different in each table - it was always strange to have the same 5k and 10k times in the male and female tables. Dunno why that was, but "because it's always been that way" is never a great justification for anything. :P

Perhaps a Google Docs expert could even figure a way to automatically generate a unified age grade ranking from the various tables.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Change is good. But the Senior Level / Big 10 is as hard as it's ever been, so no change there really.

Gavlor

Waaaaaayyyy to complicated and way too PC imo.

It looks like we're trying to please everyone. it was one thread that was elitist to a point, only the best runners on the site get near 10 out of 10 but it's now achievable for everyone.

rom

Murph_D wrote: »

Perhaps a Google Docs expert could even figure a way to automatically generate a unified age grade ranking from the various tables.

The automatic generation of age graded times is not a simple thing. Having the person entering the value using an online calculator is a better method as WR are subject to change and the matrix (lookup table) for such times would make any google doc painfully slow to load even if it would load at all. It would need to use a real database as does the online calculators.

kit3

I gave up trying to understand that halfway through the first post :P . I thought the thing about the ten round numbers was that it was supposed to be hard, attainable by only a few. Why dumb it down ? No harm in having goals that only the very best can attain - we don't all need to be 'winners' surely ? I'd like to see it stay as it was

ger664

Agree with others on this. The times are not easy but they are achievable. I have only every once made one a sub 20 5K. For me it was the race I got the most from because I finally was able to post a time in the thread. I thinks its wrong to dilute in any way.

Murph_D

rom wrote: »

The automatic generation of age graded times is not a simple thing. Having the person entering the value using an online calculator is a better method as WR are subject to change and the matrix (lookup table) for such times would make any google doc painfully slow to load even if it would load at all. It would need to use a real database as does the online calculators.

I just meant a table that would combine the manually entered age grades from the three tables. Because sometimes an age grade in one table might be a a "better" result than those in other tables. But maybe simpler to just have a separate AG table, as suggested elsewhere and in the OP.

Pacing Mule

Who decides what level you're at. Is that self regulated or do we fill out an application form ?

Edit - Why is the M time double the HM in all 3 categories ? There's plenty of people who could easily hit one of the HM targets and not have a hope of the M.

annapr

kit3 wrote: »

I gave up trying to understand that halfway through the first post :P . I thought the thing about the ten round numbers was that it was supposed to be hard, attainable by only a few. Why dumb it down ? No harm in having goals that only the very best can attain - we don't all need to be 'winners' surely ? I'd like to see it stay as it was

ger664 wrote: »

Agree with others on this. The times are not easy but they are achievable. I have only every once made one a sub 20 5K. For me it was the race I got the most from because I finally was able to post a time in the thread. I thinks its wrong to dilute in any way.

I'm confused... the suggestion here doesn't change the 10 round numbers, or the difficulty in getting on the 'senior' table...?

The intermediate (formerly women's 10 round numbers) is still as difficult for those women who aspire to it... In some ways, the achievement here is more diluted because while it might be a great achievement for women to hit some of those times, it's less so for men (as Meno pointed out above).

So, if the numbers in those 2 tables are still the same and still as difficult, where's the dilution?

I do agree that we are losing the simplicity of those threads though. I liked reading and following those threads, as someone who could only admire from afar

RacoonQueen

I'm afraid I with everyone else on this and 100% disagree with the change. Every year we discuss changing it and every year the consensus is to leave it as it is. It is meant to be hard, the targets are meant to be difficult to achieve. In fairness all the ladies ones or the intermediate ones as you have here...aren't really that hard, they're quite soft actually.
People in their 50's could still get their name on the table for some, if not, most of these 'senior' targets (if not all).

I'm going to go right out and say it, that adding 'levels' is backslappery at it's finest. By bringing in other tables, you're going to isolate the people who normally use this thread and take away from their achievements of hitting the harder targets. If there are people who would like to participate in the 10 round numbers but are too slow for it, then they should train harder so that they can.

If it's not broke...

edit: I've chosen 'someone in their 50's' not because 50 is 'old' btw but because I know we have people in their 50's on here who could hit the targets and I'm not sure how many in their 60's we have even posting on here :pac:

kit3

annapr wrote: »

I'm confused... the suggestion here doesn't change the 10 round numbers, or the difficulty in getting on the 'senior' table...?

The intermediate (formerly women's 10 round numbers) is still as difficult for those women who aspire to it... In some ways, the achievement here is more diluted because while it might be a great achievement for women to hit some of those times, it's less so for men (as Meno pointed out above).

So, if the numbers in those 2 tables are still the same and still as difficult, where's the dilution?

I do agree that we are losing the simplicity of those threads though. I liked reading and following those threads, as someone who could only admire from afar

It seems to me that the change is designed to ensure that people who might not have had a hope of getting on a table now can. While that will suit some & lead to the inevitable happy backslapping I just think it takes from the original idea of the thread & dumbs it down (& that comes from someone who never had a hope of getting on the table ). In my opinion, it wasn't broken so why fix it ?

kit3

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I'm afraid I with everyone else on this and 100% disagree with the change. Every year we discuss changing it and every year the consensus is to leave it as it is. It is meant to be hard, the targets are meant to be difficult to achieve. In fairness all the ladies ones or the intermediate ones as you have here...aren't really that hard, they're quite soft actually.
People in their 50's could still get their name on the table for some, if not, most of these 'senior' targets (if not all).

I'm going to go right out and say it, that adding 'levels' is backslappery at it's finest. By bringing in other tables, you're going to isolate the people who normally use this thread and take away from their achievements of hitting the harder targets. If there are people who would like to participate in the 10 round numbers but are too slow for it, then they should train harder so that they can.

If it's not broke...

edit: I've chosen 'someone in their 50's' not because 50 is 'old' btw but because I know we have people in their 50's on here who could hit the targets and I'm not sure how many in their 60's we have even posting on here :pac:

Think we cross-posted there (although you got in first) Very similar sentiments though

Murph_D

This isn't going well. And Chivito hasn't even posted yet. :pac:

PaulieC

have I just been allowed back into RSP or something ?

annapr

Can't beat starting the new year with some robust discussion

Dubgal72

^^^ heehee. Well happy new year all! I'm all for consensus so am willing to scrap this. However, I disagree with the 'dilution' element, completely. I want to see the gender-free 'Intermediate' table stay and I'm also going to argue strongly for a Novice thread/table. These are not dilutions. They are stepping stones.

The 'main thing' 10 round numbers standard did not magically appear overnight. People trained towards it and the novice and intermediate (terminology can be changed :rolleyes: ) are VISIBLE stepping stones to encourage upward mobility.

Age grading is a great idea too.

The team work idea was meant to be a bit of fun and encourage a healthy competition across the standards. Accusations of complexity are spot on. If you were celebrating hard last night


Ps, the standards for the main table are NOT uniformly "hard". Maybe they should be adjusted across the board to satisfy this assumption.

Sacksian

I don’t understand what’s so wrong with backslapping.

Anyone who has ever posted about goals, training or performances on social media has benefited from backslapping. It’s not a bad thing. Just call it encouragement. And, for most people, it helps them improve.

I think more of these type of threads are a good idea, Dubgal; they provoke discussion and concentrate the mind, and people get encouraged to improve. However, I’d agree that keeping it all in one thread might be a little difficult. Would it be so bad to have three different superthreads? I would find it hard to navigate a single thread with three different tables provoking multiple discussions and, rightly or wrongly, I’d be mostly just looking for my own table each time. Also, my preference would be for Grades A-B-C (-D?) above the Novice-Intermediate-Senior categorisation though. I’d keep the A (or B!) as the original 10 as it is.

Even the original 10 numbers are relatively easy to hit for a fair few posters here and I had been thinking during the year about an alternative (in addition) to the current 10 round numbers thread too. Once you get into harder targets, you’re more likely to be specialising and, at that point, a harder target for a smaller range of distances is more meaningful. If I’m training for 800m, I have no interest in running a sub-3 marathon even if I could do it relatively easily as it would seriously dilute my main focus.

I don’t know what the higher targets would be but things like sub 9 3k or sub 4:20/4:30 mile, sub 2 800m, 15:30/16:00 5k, sub 55 10 miles, sub 2:30/2:35 marathon etc. Obviously, if you keep the ‘round’ aspect, there’d be significant enough variation. Just more thoughts...

Sacksian

Down with age-grading though. Times are times.

kit3

Dubgal72 wrote: »

^^^ heehee. Well happy new year all! I'm all for consensus so am willing to scrap this. However, I disagree with the 'dilution' element, completely. I want to see the gender-free 'Intermediate' table stay and I'm also going to argue strongly for a Novice thread/table. These are not dilutions. They are stepping stones.

The 'main thing' 10 round numbers standard did not magically appear overnight. People trained towards it and the novice and intermediate (terminology can be changed :rolleyes: ) are VISIBLE stepping stones to encourage upward mobility.

Age grading is a great idea too.

The team work idea was meant to be a bit of fun and encourage a healthy competition across the standards. Accusations of complexity are spot on. If you were celebrating hard last night


Ps, the standards for the main table are NOT uniformly "hard". Maybe they should be adjusted across the board to satisfy this assumption.

Hmm, for the record my difficulty in following your post had nothing to do with alcohol as suggested - I don't drink

I would suggest that if you want stepping stones then you could go & start something different & leave the threads that have been going successfully for a number of years be. I haven't seen any complaints anywhere about them as they were. Reckon what you are suggesting could be something akin to the marathon novice thread ??

laura_ac3

I wasn't celebrating too enthusiastically and I was confused

Just my two cents, as someone who was a million miles from the tables I personally wouldn't be enthusiastic for the changes as sometimes something simple (no teams, no age grading) is just nice without over complicating matters - just the runner and the clock!! The two tables had a bit of a mystique which was nice to follow and appreciate, and someday aspire to.

Stepping stones for people can be good, that was trialled a bit in the graduates thread last year - is that on the go again I wonder? Maybe something like that is an option. At the same time though I think that should still be relatively challenging for many of us, myself included. At the end of the day surely mobility and the visible signs of improvement should be in races, and with your PB's.

Chivito550

I'd be against putting all these standards in the one thread. Leave the 10 Round Numbers alone and have separate threads for the easier targets. Everyone is happy that way.

Sandwell

Leave the annual thread alone. It's beauty is in it's simplicity, even if some of the targets are softer than others.

hillsiderunner

Chivito, DG has bowed out of changing the classic "10 round numbers" (see her comment on the 2015 thread).

I'm too slow to even have an entry on the "ladies 10 round numbers", but was finding it good motivation despite that. I liked the separate table for women even though I usually hate that kind of thing ... though I guess it would spend more time on the front page if it was degendered :rolleyes:

RayCun

I always liked the best of the year tables, precisely because they didn't involve these arguments about too hard/too easy /too blunt /too complicated ;-)

Chivito550

hillsiderunner wrote: »

Chivito, DG has bowed out of changing the classic "10 round numbers" (see her comment on the 2015 thread).

I'm too slow to even have an entry on the "ladies 10 round numbers", but was finding it good motivation despite that. I liked the separate table for women even though I usually hate that kind of thing ... though I guess it would spend more time on the front page if it was degendered :rolleyes:

I don't think Dubgal's idea is a bad one. I just don't think it should be all on the one thread is all. A, B, C tables (rather than the cross country lingo) would work in separate threads. You could even post on multiple threads if you wish. Anything that gets others attempting a 400m is a good idea in my books. Idea is good, implementation needs adjusting.

Fully against age grading of times though. Get the head down and train harder rather than plugging numbers into a calculator. Most of the original targets are achievable for people in their 50s.

Pacing Mule

hillsiderunner wrote: »

Chivito, DG has bowed out of changing the classic "10 round numbers" (see her comment on the 2015 thread).

I'm too slow to even have an entry on the "ladies 10 round numbers", but was finding it good motivation despite that. I liked the separate table for women even though I usually hate that kind of thing ... though I guess it would spend more time on the front page if it was degendered :rolleyes:

That's a shame. There was some merit in the idea.

hillsiderunner

Chivito550 wrote: »

I don't think Dubgal's idea is a bad one. I just don't think it should be all on the one thread is all. A, B, C tables (rather than the cross country lingo) would work in separate threads. You could even post on multiple threads if you wish. Anything that gets others attempting a 400m is a good idea in my books. Idea is good, implementation needs adjusting.

Fully against age grading of times though. Get the head down and train harder rather than plugging numbers into a calculator. Most of the original targets are achievable for people in their 50s.

I agree about (not having) the age-grading ... that's maybe in contradiction with keeping the Ladies table but I guess none of us are 100% consistent.

I thought A, B, C, D seems taking it a bit far. The Novice table is a good idea to motivate the newer runners.

hillsiderunner

Pacing Mule wrote: »

That's a shame. There was some merit in the idea.

Bowed out of merging the "Classic 10" on the same thread with other tables.... I think that's the right thing, that thread has been going a long time and I think if there are new tables they would be better with their own separate threads ....

Murph_D

Just in case it's not clear to everyone, age grading is not about "softer times for old lads", which is the implication of some of the responses above. It just compares your achieved time with the world record for your age and sex. Those world records may be a little slower but are not necessarily softer. The beauty is it allows a reasonable comparison of performances regardless of age, sex, or the distance run. It's not just age-related.

I agree that the round numbers (on both tables) are achievable for people in their 50s and I know at least one runner about to enter their 60s who will likely achieve most of them in 2016. AG is just another way of noting the significance of the achievement.

I'm not surprised at the opposition tbh - it was shot down pretty quickly when I suggested it last year. It's not worth implementing an AG (or any) table without wide interest.

Chivito550

Murph_D wrote: »

Just in case it's not clear to everyone, age grading is not about "softer times for old lads", which is the implication of some of the responses above. It just compares your achieved time with the world record for your age and sex. Those world records may be a little slower but are not necessarily softer. The beauty is it allows a reasonable comparison of performances regardless of age, sex, or the distance run. It's not just age-related.

I agree that the round numbers (on both tables) are achievable for people in their 50s and I know at least one runner about to enter their 60s who will likely achieve most of them in 2016. AG is just another way of noting the significance of the achievement.

I'm not surprised at the opposition tbh - it was shot down pretty quickly when I suggested it last year. It's not worth implementing an AG (or any) table without wide interest.

Being 20% off a M50 WR is not equivalent to being 20% off a senior WR no matter how much you think it is.

Utdfan20titles

Why not just give everyone a medal for completing each distance in the table?

Dubgal72

Look, I certainly didn't intend to start the year off on such a contentious note. Let's let this thread fall off the front page eh? I should have run this more publicly, apologies. I've just had a rainy, windy 4 mile run and had a couple of ideas about the novice/inter thread which I'm going to run by the graduates on the Graduates thread later. Anybody who thinks they'd be interested, pop in.

So off you big boys go and start your solo 10 Round Numbers table You can breathe easy, you're not going to be made sit at the same table as the pre-schoolers

Gavlor

Dubgal72 wrote: »

Look, I certainly didn't intend to start the year off on such a contentious note. Let's let this thread fall off the front page eh? I should have run this more publicly, apologies. I've just had a rainy, windy 4 mile run and had a couple of ideas about the novice/inter thread which I'm going to run by the graduates on the Graduates thread later. Anybody who thinks they'd be interested, pop in.

So off you big boys go and start your solo 10 Round Numbers table You can breathe easy, you're not going to be made sit at the same table as the pre-schoolers

Ridiculous post.

Chivito550

Dubgal72 wrote: »

Look, I certainly didn't intend to start the year off on such a contentious note. Let's let this thread fall off the front page eh? I should have run this more publicly, apologies. I've just had a rainy, windy 4 mile run and had a couple of ideas about the novice/inter thread which I'm going to run by the graduates on the Graduates thread later. Anybody who thinks they'd be interested, pop in.

So off you big boys go and start your solo 10 Round Numbers table You can breathe easy, you're not going to be made sit at the same table as the pre-schoolers

As I said, it's a good idea, but have it in 3 different threads.

kit3

Dubgal72 wrote: »

Look, I certainly didn't intend to start the year off on such a contentious note. Let's let this thread fall off the front page eh? I should have run this more publicly, apologies. I've just had a rainy, windy 4 mile run and had a couple of ideas about the novice/inter thread which I'm going to run by the graduates on the Graduates thread later. Anybody who thinks they'd be interested, pop in.

So off you big boys go and start your solo 10 Round Numbers table You can breathe easy, you're not going to be made sit at the same table as the pre-schoolers

??? In fairness, the 'big boys' (by which I assume you mean those who make the table ?) haven't bothered getting involved. Certainly not a case of them being anyway elitist !

Wild Garlic

Gavlor wrote: »

Ridiculous post.

Disagree.
DG's post is spot on.

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

Being 20% off a M50 WR is not equivalent to being 20% off a senior WR no matter how much you think it is.

But equally, it is more impressive to hit one of the times in the table when in your 50s than in your 20s. The same argument was made about the women's table - none of the times on the original table are out of reach for women, but women running those times are performing at a different standard to men running them

Chivito550

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Disagree.
DG's post is spot on.

No, it's pretty unnecessary. People gave feedback to what was a poor idea to have 3 tables in one thread (clutter as much as anything). The idea of having 3 tables has a lot of merit, but is better served in separate clearly marked threads. This doesn't dilute the main thread, while serve as stepping stones for others not at that level yet. Adapting the feedback to the good aspects of the general idea is generally how things improve, rather than just running off like that. Hopefully she'll come to her senses and contribute to the 10 Round Numbers.

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

But equally, it is more impressive to hit one of the times in the table when in your 50s than in your 20s. The same argument was made about the women's table - none of the times on the original table are out of reach for women, but women running those times are performing at a different standard to men running them

Yes, but again it depends on the athletic history of the 50 year old. A 50 year old who took up running at 45 is a lot younger in running terms than a 50 year old who has been running since age 12.

We could do calculations until the cows come home, but the simplicity of the 10 round numbers is part of the appeal.

RayCun

Utdfan20titles wrote: »

Why not just give everyone a medal for completing each distance in the table?

The same medal people get for running a sub 20 5k? Sure, let's.

annapr

Chivito550 wrote: »

No, it's pretty unnecessary. People gave feedback to what was a poor idea to have 3 tables in one thread (clutter as much as anything). The idea of having 3 tables has a lot of merit, but is better served in separate clearly marked threads. This doesn't dilute the main thread, while serve as stepping stones for others not at that level yet. Adapting the feedback to the good aspects of the general idea is generally how things improve, rather than just running off like that. Hopefully she'll come to her senses and contribute to the 10 Round Numbers.

I didn't see DG say anywhere that she wouldn't contribute and I would expect her to achieve some of those 10 again this year, like she did in 2015.

I read DG's post as tongue in cheek, rather than overly serious...

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

We could do calculations until the cows come home, but the simplicity of the 10 round numbers is part of the appeal.

Easy to say when you're a thirty year old male

annapr

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yes, but again it depends on the athletic history of the 50 year old. A 50 year old who took up running at 45 is a lot younger in running terms than a 50 year old who has been running since age 12.

What are you basing that on? What does 'younger in running terms' mean?

Gavlor

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Disagree.
DG's post is spot on.

I was referring the last paragraph in particular. No need for snide comments DG.