(Men) 10 Round Numbers- how many of these can you run in 2012?

Krusty_Clown · 27-04-2012 05:33PM

04072511 wrote: »

There's no doubt that a sub 5 mile is a stronger performance than a sub 60 400m but some interesting comments on there. It really depends on the person with regard which target comes easier.

Haven't read the thread, but I'd imagine it's really a question of perspectives. Coming from a history of long distance running, the 400m target sounds a lot tougher. What does the IAAF table have to say?

*Edit* answering my own question:
Iaaf points tables say-

401 points for sub-60 400m
465 points for sub-5 MILE (recall in hs you probably ran 1600m, so 450 points for 5:01.7)

RayCun · 27-04-2012 05:50PM

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Right now, I don't have immediate plans to do a 400 or 800m, as I would be better off targeting 5k and 10k on the back of the marathon training period

I don't think you'd need much specific training, but you might need a few attempts to get used to the starts and get your pacing right. You won't have time to read your Garmin, work out your finish time, and recover from a slow start

pconn062 · 27-04-2012 05:52PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Keep an eye on the graded meets calendar Krusty.
The meet on the 23rd may has a 400m, 1 mile and 3000m.
On the 6th june there is a 400m and 800m, on the 4th July there is a 400m and 10k etc etc.

There are a good few chances for you to knock off a few targets in one go. With your mile time I honestly can't see how you wouldn't get a sub 60 400m but you'll never know unless you give it a bash.

Just in regards to that meet on the 23rd, has anyone any thoughts on doing both the 400m and the 3k in the one night. Neither would be goal races for me but I'd love to give them a go, the 3k as I think I run best around 5k so a 3k would be interesting and the 400m just to see what I could do for that distance. There's about an hour and a half between the events, good idea/bad idea?

Krusty_Clown · 27-04-2012 05:55PM

RayCun wrote: »

I don't think you'd need much specific training, but you might need a few attempts to get used to the starts and get your pacing right. You won't have time to read your Garmin, work out your finish time, and recover from a slow start

You mean I'd have to use starting blocks for the 400? :eek:
Would you use starting blocks for an 800?

Timmaay · 27-04-2012 06:05PM

Defo not for an 800! You do start in lane for the 800 though, and get to cut in at 100m. If I was to hope into a 400 now just for for a sub60 I wouldn't bother with blocks either 2bh.

Larry Brent · 27-04-2012 06:22PM

Just to clarify, not using the blocks for 400m is not an option in the graded meets. Blocks compulsory the last time I was there and a few long distance fellows wanted to just do a standing start they weren't allowed.

menoscemo · 27-04-2012 06:27PM

pconn062 wrote: »

Just in regards to that meet on the 23rd, has anyone any thoughts on doing both the 400m and the 3k in the one night. Neither would be goal races for me but I'd love to give them a go, the 3k as I think I run best around 5k so a 3k would be interesting and the 400m just to see what I could do for that distance. There's about an hour and a half between the events, good idea/bad idea?

Can't see the problem with that. Plenty of time to recover from the 400.

dna_leri · 27-04-2012 06:32PM

menoscemo wrote: »

pconn062 wrote: »

Just in regards to that meet on the 23rd, has anyone any thoughts on doing both the 400m and the 3k in the one night. Neither would be goal races for me but I'd love to give them a go, the 3k as I think I run best around 5k so a 3k would be interesting and the 400m just to see what I could do for that distance. There's about an hour and a half between the events, good idea/bad idea?

Can't see the problem with that. Plenty of time to recover from the 400.

If you give everything in the 400 you won't be able to give everything in the 3k, IMHO.

Timmaay · 27-04-2012 06:39PM

dna_leri wrote: »

If you give everything in the 400 you won't be able to give everything in the 3k, IMHO.

I was going to do one after an 800 last year, about 20mins between races, I bailed from the 3k, I felt so bad ha!

pconn062 · 27-04-2012 06:42PM

dna_leri wrote: »

If you give everything in the 400 you won't be able to give everything in the 3k, IMHO.

OK cheers, well it would be my first time racing a 400m so I don't know how much I have to give! :pac: I've done shorter sprints before, 60 80 and 100m, never longer than that. To be honest I would rather run the 400m to try it so could see how I feel after that and then see about the 3k, an hour and a half might be long enough.

HelenAnne · 28-04-2012 12:21AM

RayCun wrote: »

'Too soft' is another argument, but I agree that those times don't need to be changed for a women's table. Rather than adding 10% to each time, pick ten round numbers that are on the whole at the right level. For example

400m - 70 seconds
800m - 3 minutes
Mile - 6 minutes
3k - 12 minutes
5k - 20 minutes
5 miles - 35 minutes
10k - 40 minutes
10 miles - 70 minutes
Half - 100 minutes
Marathon - 3.20 (200 minutes)

Thanks, Ray! I haven't hit any of those times yet, but they are more achievable for me than the first set. The mile & the 5 mile times I'd hope to hit within the next year anyway. Thanks!

Pisco Sour · 28-04-2012 12:28AM

pconn062 wrote: »

Just in regards to that meet on the 23rd, has anyone any thoughts on doing both the 400m and the 3k in the one night. Neither would be goal races for me but I'd love to give them a go, the 3k as I think I run best around 5k so a 3k would be interesting and the 400m just to see what I could do for that distance. There's about an hour and a half between the events, good idea/bad idea?

Bad idea. I'm never able for very much after 400s. They have it as the last event of the day on our regular programme, and for good reason.

If it was a 100 or 200 you could do the 3000 after no bother, but after a 400 your 3K would suffer badly.

Kurt Godel · 28-04-2012 08:43AM

donothoponpop wrote: »

Name|400m<75 secs|800m<2:25|1 mile<6 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<2000secs|10k<40m|10miles<100mins|Half Marathon<100mins|Marathon<3hrs (based on 3*100min decimal clock)

Avg Boardsie||||||||||

Since everything needs to be boxed, diluted, and achievable by all, its only fair to relax more of the numbers, so more joggers don't feel left out. Now I can maybe hit a few more myself, the others were too hard! (except for the ones that I could already hit). Maybe one for the ladies too? Wouldn't want to think there are many girls faster than me, lol!

RayCun · 28-04-2012 11:46AM

The point is not 'targets for joggers', it's targets that are as average/aspirational for female club runners as the original set were for male club runners.
In Dublin last year 181 MS runners were under 3 hours, but only 14 FS runners.
At the MSB 5k 108 men were under 20 minutes, only 18 women.
And while there are women on boards who have hit some of the targets in the list above, I'd guess there are only a handful in the country who can hit all of them. No disrespect to Krusty, but any woman hitting all 12 is running at a far higher level than him.

Pisco Sour · 28-04-2012 12:37PM

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

You mean I'd have to use starting blocks for the 400? :eek:

LOL

It's not a big deal if you don't know how to use them. You can just use them as a prop. Over 400m your start is less critical than over 100m and 200m. Just rest in the blocks, wait for the gun, and run! Simple. Don't think about it. Maybe do a few practice runs of it before the race to get comfortable. But in the end of the day if you don't go under 60 it would be due to other reasons rather than losing a couple of tenths at the start.

Pisco Sour · 28-04-2012 12:39PM

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Since everything needs to be boxed, diluted, and achievable by all, its only fair to relax more of the numbers, so more joggers don't feel left out. Now I can maybe hit a few more myself, the others were too hard! (except for the ones that I could already hit). Maybe one for the ladies too? Wouldn't want to think there are many girls faster than me, lol!

Kurt Godel · 28-04-2012 01:19PM

RayCun wrote: »

The point is not 'targets for joggers', it's targets that are as average/aspirational for female club runners as the original set were for male club runners.
In Dublin last year 181 MS runners were under 3 hours, but only 14 FS runners.
At the MSB 5k 108 men were under 20 minutes, only 18 women.
And while there are women on boards who have hit some of the targets in the list above, I'd guess there are only a handful in the country who can hit all of them. No disrespect to Krusty, but any woman hitting all 12 is running at a far higher level than him.

Can we look forward to further dilution and categorization, for M40's? Same logic, there's less M40's that could hit them than M's. Ditto F50's, under12 boys, asthmatics...

Is it now acceptable for mods to change the direction of the original post and thread, without asking the original poster? Any female's, M40's, juniors, whatever, are welcome to try and hit these numbers. Ticking the box though, isn't the point of the thread, which didn't seem broken before you went tinkering.

shels4ever · 28-04-2012 01:26PM

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Can we look forward to further dilution and categorization, for M40's? Same logic, there's less M40's that could hit them than M's. Ditto F50's, under12 boys, asthmatics...

Is it now acceptable for mods to change the direction of the original post and thread, without asking the original poster? Any female's, M40's, juniors, whatever, are welcome to try and hit these numbers. Ticking the box though, isn't the point of the thread, which didn't seem broken before you went tinkering.

Maybe include some targets for people over weight also

.

RayCun · 28-04-2012 01:58PM

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Can we look forward to further dilution and categorization, for M40's? Same logic, there's less M40's that could hit them than M's. Ditto F50's, under12 boys, asthmatics...

Has anyone suggested this? Argued for this? Started a thread about it?
No.
Are you suggesting that the numbers in this thread are reasonable targets for women? As average or aspirational as they are for men?

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Is it now acceptable for mods to change the direction of the original post and thread, without asking the original poster? Any female's, M40's, juniors, whatever, are welcome to try and hit these numbers. Ticking the box though, isn't the point of the thread, which didn't seem broken before you went tinkering.

This thread hasn't changed. Another, similar thread has started. Ignore that one if you like.

And when the big 8 thread started last year the original poster seemed to be okay with having a list of targets for women

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

most of them easier than the ones I came up with.

In last year's challenge, Seres was the only woman to post times in the table. Perhaps a separate table for women will encourage female posters on here to challenge themselves by providing targets that are difficult but achievable.

Kurt Godel · 28-04-2012 02:02PM

RayCun wrote: »

This thread hasn't changed. Another, similar thread has started. Ignore that one if you like.

Perfect. If this thread hasn't changed, remove that (Men) tag you put at the front. I'll ignore the other one.

Kurt Godel · 28-04-2012 02:55PM

HelenAnne wrote: »

Are the 10 round numbers for men or women or are they unisex?

The thread was started with the intention that these goals are open to everybody, male or female, old or young. The main purpose of the thread was to focus debate on the faster runners on the forum, rather than have different classes of times that would be achievable by different abilities. No problem if someone wants to start another thread with easier targets, that's their business. But this thread was started by me (under a different name) with the intention that the times were there for everyone to hit.

I'm pretty pissed off that its been segregated, again for the reason of "everyone's a winner" on this forum. There's plenty of female runners here who could aim for those times, no reason they should be excluded. Ditto veterans or juniors- should they also be excluded and given a set of easier tasks?

Pisco Sour · 28-04-2012 03:07PM

Kurt Godel wrote: »

The thread was started with the intention that these goals are open to everybody, male or female, old or young. The main purpose of the thread was to focus debate on the faster runners on the forum, rather than have different classes of times that would be achievable by different abilities. No problem if someone wants to start another thread with easier targets, that's their business. But this thread was started by me (under a different name) with the intention that the times were there for everyone to hit.

I'm pretty pissed off that its been segregated, again for the reason of "everyone's a winner" on this forum. There's plenty of female runners here who could aim for those times, no reason they should be excluded. Ditto veterans or juniors- should they also be excluded and given a set of easier tasks?

Very good points.

Can we bring the 800m time down from 3 minutes to 2:30 or 2:20 though as it is not a fast time in a relative or an absolute sense?

pconn062 · 28-04-2012 03:21PM

Meh, to be honest I thought this was a good thread to start out with, but I'm losing interest with all the bitching and moaning going on this and the women's version. People really will argue over the stupidest of things, it's only meant to be a bit of fun lads.

ocnoc · 28-04-2012 03:28PM

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But as seen as there is a bit of debate on a "good" club time. Here's my input.

400m - 49.9 sec
1 mile - 4:10 mins
3k - 8:00 mins
5k - 14:00 mins
10k - 29 mins
10miles - 50 mins
Half Marathon - 65 mins
Marathon - 2:20 hours

Pisco Sour · 28-04-2012 03:53PM

ocnoc wrote: »

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But as seen as there is a bit of debate on a "good" club time. Here's my input.

400m - 49.9 sec
1 mile - 4:00 mins
3k - 8:00 mins
5k - 14:00 mins
10k - 29 mins
10miles - 50 mins
Half Marathon - 65 mins
Marathon - 2:20 hours.

:eek: A sub 4 minute mile is a tad better than a "good" club time. How many Irish people have achieved that in history?

ocnoc · 28-04-2012 03:56PM

An Irish athlete has gone under four minutes 40 times.
Maybe its a bit on the quick side :rolleyes:

Pisco Sour · 28-04-2012 03:57PM

ocnoc wrote: »

An Irish athlete has gone under four minutes 40 times.
Maybe its a bit on the quick side :rolleyes:

Just a smidge

Getonwithit · 28-04-2012 04:07PM

ocnoc wrote: »

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But as seen as there is a bit of debate on a "good" club time. Here's my input.

400m - 49.9 sec
1 mile - 4:00 mins
3k - 8:00 mins
5k - 14:00 mins
10k - 29 mins
10miles - 50 mins
Half Marathon - 65 mins
Marathon - 2:20 hours.

Fairly ambitious
If your club was called Olympic athletes club then these would be relevant.
The sub 8 3k and sub 50 10miler are the easiest! Most of these times would minimum get you a medal at the national championships

ocnoc · 28-04-2012 04:40PM

Is that not the point of a good club runner?
To medal at the National Championships??

Generally, the Irish Elites don't race the National Championships.

Getonwithit · 28-04-2012 04:55PM

ocnoc wrote: »

Is that not the point of a good club runner?
To medal at the National Championships??

Generally, the Irish Elites don't race the National Championships.

Yeah so your club would be only made up of internationals! I don't agree with the celebration of mediocrity so prevalent in Irish athletics but these times are not what I'd consider 'club' runner times

(Men) 10 Round Numbers- how many of these can you run in 2012?

Comments