The "Big 8" Challenge 2011

donothoponpop · 01-12-2010 07:38PM #1

A couple of years back, a great poster by the name of Racing Flat came up with what he considered race times the average club runner should be able to hit. These were:
1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 10 mins
5k - 20 mins
5miles - 30 mins
10k - 40 mins
10miles - 1 hour
Half Marathon - 90 mins
Marathon - 3 hours

There's a load of fast runners on these pages, so it might be a bit of fun to see who can hit all of these times in 2011, and use this thread to discuss training, racing, nutrition, etc., in an effort to get a bit of focus onto the faster end of domestic races. Rules are up for discussion, don't know if people think these times should be exclusively got in races rather than including self-timed runs. Two things I believe should be mandatory:
1) you can only take one time out of each race, ie. no ticking the half-marathon box on your way to a sub3. IAAF rules, you can run the 5k time as the first half on the way to the 10k time so long as there is chipped split timing (ie no garmin self-time, no "fastest 5k" coming between 2-7kms.
2) You only stick your name (and date hit) into the table once you've hit one of the targets in 2011, so this challenge is being limited to those who actually hit the times rather than aspire to hit them.

There's a month's heads-up, we'll try and get a prize for the winner, whether that's first to tick all, or lowest cumulative time, any questions on rules or whatever, fire away:)

Name|1 mile<5 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<30min|10k<40m|10miles<1hr|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3hrs
Senor Example||||||||||
AN Other||||||||

GoHardOrGoHome · 01-12-2010 08:23PM

Great idea! Some are more easily achieved than others and that's part of the appeal. I know I can hit 5k, 10k and half marathon. The 10 mile looks the hardest to me (even more so than the sub3 marathon). I actually have no concept of the shorter distances. No idea how hard a 5 minute mile or a 10 minute 3k is. This won't be my main aim of 2011 but it looks like fun!

donothoponpop · 01-12-2010 08:41PM

GoHardOrGoHome wrote: »

Great idea! Some are more easily achieved than others and that's part of the appeal. I know I can hit 5k, 10k and half marathon. The 10 mile looks the hardest to me (even more so than the sub3 marathon). I actually have no concept of the shorter distances. No idea how hard a 5 minute mile or a 10 minute 3k is. This won't be my main aim of 2011 but it looks like fun!

Yeah, some of them are a bit alien to me too. I think that 3k in 10 mins would be a killer too. Part of the fun will be in trying to work out when to go for each target- no point in trying to run a sub 3 marathon a week after you've peaked in mile training. (Also the logistics of trying to fit the schedule into a racing calendar might be troublesome, so perhaps self timing for some of the marks would suffice?)

Woddle · 01-12-2010 09:07PM

Mcmillan calculator would rate them in the following order, hardest first.

10 miles in 59'59
1 mile in 4'59
3k in 9'59
5 mile in 29'59
marathon in 2'59'59
1/2 marathon in 1'29'59
10k in 39'59
5k in 19'59

I'll knock the easiest on the head in Jan (5k) and then I'll spend the next few months working on 10k and 1/2 marathon. I can also see myself getting closer to a 5 minute mile than a sub 3hr marathon, got to about the equivelant of 5'30 last year.

liamo123 · 01-12-2010 09:19PM

Great Thread..

I ran sub 3hrs in Dublin yet my 10mile Pb is 68.08...There's no way I will ever run sub 60mins for it..( probably will b lucky 2 break 65mins )..

menoscemo · 01-12-2010 09:30PM

Woddle wrote: »

I'll knock the easiest on the head in Jan (5k) and then I'll spend the next few months working on 10k and 1/2 marathon. I can also see myself getting closer to a 5 minute mile than a sub 3hr marathon, got to about the equivelant of 5'30 last year.

I thought you are in training for Barcelona in March? Don't get distracted!!

To my mind I think some are much easier than others. 10 miles in under 60 and a sub 3 marathon stand out as the hardest.
I always thought a sub 1:30 half sounded more achievable than a sub 40 10k.

meathcountysec · 01-12-2010 09:30PM

Race times only should be included, to avoid mis-underestimated distances.

donothoponpop · 01-12-2010 09:47PM

meathcountysec wrote: »

Race times only should be included, to avoid mis-underestimated distances.

Good point, too much temptation to set garmin pb's otherwise:)

Track times might be ok though? (Might be handy to try for the shorter ones a few times on tartan- if allowing this doing a mile on a 400m track should start 9.34 meters before the finish line, and then run 4 laps)

shels4ever · 01-12-2010 10:02PM

menoscemo wrote: »

I thought you are in training for Barcelona in March? Don't get distracted!!

To my mind I think some are much easier than others. 10 miles in under 60 and a sub 3 marathon stand out as the hardest.
I always thought a sub 1:30 half sounded more achievable than a sub 40 10k.

I think the 3k is prob the hardest on that list with the 10mile not far after that. 5k time is the easy one(need to run it now)

PaudieMac · 01-12-2010 10:12PM

Hi all. If you fancy trying for the 60 min 10 mile why not give the Mallow 10 a go.
There will be a 60 minute pacer there. <snipped links>

<mod>
Hi PaudieMac, all races and events get discussed or promoted in the Events subforum, please limit promoting your race to that section, cheers;)/<mod>

Sosa · 01-12-2010 10:28PM

A sub 60 pacer......Hmmmmm Very interesting

Art of Noise · 01-12-2010 10:35PM

I would see a sub 1:30 half marathon as easier to achieve than a sub 40 10k. It took me a good bit longer to achieve the latter anyway.

In any case those two along with the sub 20 5k are considerably easier to achieve than the other five in my opinion. The fact that the sub 3 hour marathon is probably the next easiest just goes to prove that.

Sosa · 01-12-2010 10:44PM

Nice one pops.
I have been ticking these off since RF posted them a few years back.
I only have the 3k and 10m to do...both of which will be sorted early next year ( hopefully )
I have a 60:36 and 60:10 to my name,so next step is sub 60.
As for the 3k,i will have to get the lads on the track to organise that

RacoonQueen · 01-12-2010 11:09PM

There was also a females list. Although I think these are mostly fairly soft to be honest.

1 mile - 6 mins
3k - 12 mins
5k - 25 mins
5miles - 40 mins
10k - 50 mins
10miles - 80 mins
Half Marathon - 2 hours
Marathon - 4 hours

Woddle · 01-12-2010 11:20PM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

There was also a females list. Although I think these are mostly fairly soft to be honest.

1 mile - 6 mins
3k - 12 mins
5k - 25 mins
5miles - 40 mins
10k - 50 mins
10miles - 80 mins
Half Marathon - 2 hours
Marathon - 4 hours

Very soft, maybe someone in the know could alter them or we could just get seres to fill in her PBs

donothoponpop · 01-12-2010 11:21PM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

There was also a females list. Although I think these are mostly fairly soft to be honest.

1 mile - 6 mins
3k - 12 mins
5k - 25 mins
5miles - 40 mins
10k - 50 mins
10miles - 80 mins
Half Marathon - 2 hours
Marathon - 4 hours

Waaaay too soft! Those figures are from 20-33% on top of the mens times, off the top of my head they should be closer to 10-15% extra. I know the spirit of the original RF figures was "round numbers", and round numbers are kept in those ladies times, but shouldn't it be closer to

1 mile - 5.30 mins
3k - 11:15 mins
5k - 23 mins
5miles - 35 mins
10k - 44 mins
10miles - 70 mins
Half Marathon - 1:45 hours
Marathon - 3:30 hours

(those figures off the top of my head, someone with a better understanding of female club athlete averages could do better). (ecoli often goes to the track to look at girls, he might know)

This challenge is all about pushing the boundries a bit for a lot of posters on the forum, guy's and gals.

*edit, saw Woddle's response, Sere's pb's would do the job nicely

*

menoscemo · 01-12-2010 11:26PM

donothoponpop wrote: »

1 mile - 5.30 mins
3k - 11:15 mins
5k - 23 mins
5miles - 35 mins
10k - 44 mins
10miles - 70 mins
Half Marathon - 1:45 hours
Marathon - 3:30 hours

Hmmm, 5k 23 min and 10k 44 min....something is not quite right there :pac:

RacoonQueen · 01-12-2010 11:27PM

I think there's a broad range of abilities on here. A lot of the male posters would probably prefer to aim for the 'womens' times while the majority of the girls wouldn't even bother taking part with the 'mens' times.

IMO a more appropriate womens list, off the top of my head and to give me something to aim for as I'm selfish, would be.

1 mile - 5:30 mins
3k - 12 mins
5k - 20 mins
5miles - 35 mins
10k - 43 mins
10miles - 73 mins
Half Marathon - 1:40 hours
Marathon - 3:40 hours

That being said. We could always do three groups and people could slot into whatever their level is without splitting it into male and female groupings.

tunney · 01-12-2010 11:31PM

donothoponpop wrote: »

A couple of years back, a great poster by the name of Racing Flat came up with what he considered race times the average club runner should be able to hit. These were:
1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 10 mins
5k - 20 mins
5miles - 30 mins
10k - 40 mins
10miles - 1 hour
Half Marathon - 90 mins
Marathon - 3 hours

There's a load of fast runners on these pages, so it might be a bit of fun to see who can hit all of these times in 2011, and use this thread to discuss training, racing, nutrition, etc., in an effort to get a bit of focus onto the faster end of domestic races. Rules are up for discussion, don't know if people think these times should be exclusively got in races rather than including self-timed runs. Two things I believe should be mandatory:
1) you can only take one time out of each race, ie. no ticking the half-marathon box on your way to a sub3.
2) You only stick your name (and date hit) into the table once you've hit one of the targets in 2011, so this challenge is being limited to those who actually hit the times rather than aspire to hit them.

There's a month's heads-up, we'll try and get a prize for the winner, whether that's first to tick all, or lowest cumulative time, any questions on rules or whatever, fire away:)

Name|1 mile<5 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<30min|10k<40m|10miles<1hr|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3hrs
Senor Example||||||||||
AN Other||||||||

Can we get a version for people that run?

donothoponpop · 01-12-2010 11:41PM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

That being said. We could always do three groups and people could slot into whatever their level is without splitting it into male and female groupings.

I see where you're coming from, but the foot is coming down on this one:cool:. The purpose of this challenge is to give posters here something decent to aspire to and achieve. It's purposefully hard, as it should be at a standard of an average club runner in Ireland. There's a whole heap of threads on the forum which are inclusive to everybody (of differing times and abilities), this one is being kept exclusive, to cater for those on our forum who are to the sharper end of races around the country. Yes, its elitist, for the reason that if you can't hit those times, you can't join the challenge, so (for this thread at least), there won't be any different levels. I realize that makes me sound like a despot, but I strongly believe there should be something exclusive towards those faster runners on the forum, rather than being a catch-all for everyone who posts here. It's a standard. (Nothing to stop anybody here from training hard to reach that standard)

However, finding a table of comparable ladies times is a different matter, once its of a similar average club standard.

donothoponpop · 01-12-2010 11:45PM

tunney wrote: »

Can we get a version for people that run?

See my reply to Racoon Queen above. This is a standard for average club athletes, using rounded figures. Nothing to stop you running faster, once you hit those targets- that's what the < symbol is there for.

tunney · 01-12-2010 11:50PM

donothoponpop wrote: »

See my reply to Racoon Queen above. This is a standard for average club athletes, using rounded figures. Nothing to stop you running faster, once you hit those targets- that's what the < symbol is there for.

Okay, but I think they should be faster times.

donothoponpop wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, but the foot is coming down on this one:cool:. The purpose of this challenge is to give posters here something decent to aspire to and achieve. It's purposefully hard, as it should be at a standard of an average club runner in Ireland. There's a whole heap of threads on the forum which are inclusive to everybody (of differing times and abilities), this one is being kept exclusive, to cater for those on our forum who are to the sharper end of races around the country. Yes, its elitist, for the reason that if you can't hit those times, you can't join the challenge, so (for this thread at least), there won't be any different levels. I realize that makes me sound like a despot, but I strongly believe there should be something exclusive towards those faster runners on the forum, rather than being a catch-all for everyone who posts here. It's a standard. (Nothing to stop anybody here from training hard to reach that standard)

However, finding a table of comparable ladies times is a different matter, once its of a similar average club standard.

While I disagree with the times (I think they are too slow) I do think that the general thrust of the thread is a good one. There has been a little too much group hugging and back slapping. Time for less talking and more respectable times.

I personally am going to sign up for this challenge - albeit as goals for me off the bike runs

RacoonQueen · 01-12-2010 11:56PM

donothoponpop wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, but the foot is coming down on this one:cool:. The purpose of this challenge is to give posters here something decent to aspire to and achieve. It's purposefully hard, as it should be at a standard of an average club runner in Ireland. There's a whole heap of threads on the forum which are inclusive to everybody (of differing times and abilities), this one is being kept exclusive, to cater for those on our forum who are to the sharper end of races around the country. Yes, its elitist, for the reason that if you can't hit those times, you can't join the challenge, so (for this thread at least), there won't be any different levels. I realize that makes me sound like a despot, but I strongly believe there should be something exclusive towards those faster runners on the forum, rather than being a catch-all for everyone who posts here. It's a standard. (Nothing to stop anybody here from training hard to reach that standard)

However, finding a table of comparable ladies times is a different matter, once its of a similar average club standard.

Fair enough. Maybe tunney can set out the womens standard for us! :pac:

Emer911 · 01-12-2010 11:59PM

Great idea d'pop. I'm soooo far away from getting anywhere near these (slow) times that it's totally laughable, but I like the thrust of it and might set myself some relative goals...

Coming off a 04:24 marathon, 25+ min 5K and 54 min 10K this year, the really slow girlie times look about the right level of challenge for me. :P

1 mile - 6 mins
3k - 12 mins
5k - 25 mins
5miles - 40 mins
10k - 50 mins
10miles - 80 mins
Half Marathon - 2 hours
Marathon - 4 hours

tunney · 01-12-2010 11:59PM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Fair enough. Maybe tunney can set out the womens standard for us! :pac:

I thought donothoponpop had done that?

RacoonQueen · 02-12-2010 12:05AM

tunney wrote: »

I thought donothoponpop had done that?

They're a bit all over the place IMO.

No offence boss! :pac:

Sere's PBs by the way, taken from her log are;
5k : 18.40
5 miles : 36 min
10k : 39min 50 sec

They'd have the women trying to run faster than the men in some cases...

donothoponpop · 02-12-2010 12:11AM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

They're a bit all over the place IMO.

No offence boss! :pac:

Yeah mine are just put there with little thought. As meno pointed out, the 5k time is slower than the 5k+5k=10k time. Better to leave them to someone with an understanding of average club female times, I think.

BeepBeep67 · 02-12-2010 12:31AM

Good idea.
I think most of these are achieveable (maybe not in a calendar year), the 10M would be the big challenge for me.
HM, 10k and 5k times are too soft compared to that 10M target (would suit the female targets), and should probably look like 82, 36, and 17:30 or something.
Are you putting in Age weighting

Woddle · 02-12-2010 12:35AM

Consider them stepping stones, the 5k is your entry exam.

donothoponpop · 02-12-2010 12:42AM

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I think most of these are achieveable (maybe not in a calendar year), the 10M would be the big challenge for me.
HM, 10k and 5k times are too soft compared to that 10M target (would suit the female targets), and should probably look like 82, 36, and 17:30 or something.
Are you putting in Age weighting

This variance between difficulties came up when RF first posted the times- his answer was something along the lines that while they were very "round" figures, they were times a club athlete would like to tick at some stage. Of course, many would go on to run a lot faster, but they all represented "round" goals. A lot of runners remember their first sub 40 10k, or sub3 marathon, etc, because they are boxes to tick that represent a certain halfway decent standard...

Some might be softer than others, but aiming for them all in a year will give runners a chance to train upwards from the softer ones to the harder.

And no age weighting... you should know better to ask, running those superfast auld fella wicklow races that you do:)

TheRoadRunner · 02-12-2010 12:47AM

tunney wrote: »

Okay, but I think they should be faster times.

While I disagree with the times (I think they are too slow) I do think that the general thrust of the thread is a good one. There has been a little too much group hugging and back slapping. Time for less talking and more respectable times.

I personally am going to sign up for this challenge - albeit as goals for me off the bike runs

My dick is bigger than yours. I'll sign up and hit all* these times in training in the month of January. I'll do them with a hangover if it gets me more kudos.

*except for the marathon. That would be a waste of 2hrs 59 mins of my precious hours.

The "Big 8" Challenge 2011

Comments