A/R Awards 2015 - Performance of the Year Roads/Mountains/Ultra etc..

RacoonQueen · 05-12-2015 08:05PM #1

Voting will stay open until Friday December 18th

menoscemo · 05-12-2015 09:32PM

Whoever nominated me; I'll just say if you had nominated my 8:20 Beermile I would certainly be voting for myself

I am however nominated for a performance 2 minutes outside my PB and 6+ minutes outside of my goal time so I cannot accept.

I'll be voting for Krusty's 2:33 in Frankfurt, a fantastic performance from the hardest working poster on the A/R forum.

ger664 · 06-12-2015 02:54AM

Torn between TFB in Greece and smmore in oslo or that clown in frankfurt ??

Firedance · 06-12-2015 08:02AM

This is a tough one & going to require my re-reading each of them - pity there's no podcast version to bring on a run!

RacoonQueen · 06-12-2015 01:20PM

This is a ridiculously hard one between Krusty, smmoore and jebuz

Chivito550 · 06-12-2015 01:28PM

Can somebody post up the times of each marathon performance above? Whoever was fastest gets my vote.

Clearlier · 06-12-2015 03:02PM

I know that it's not really in the spirit of these awards to mention a performance that isn't in the list but as I forgot about it until just now I'd regret not mentioning Enduro's performance at 'The Spine' race early in the year. It was a phenomenal feat - the only thing missing was a race report!

RacoonQueen · 06-12-2015 03:30PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

Can somebody post up the times of each marathon performance above? Whoever was fastest gets my vote.

Smmoore was fastest. Sub 2.30 afaik.

aero2k · 07-12-2015 09:58AM

Chivito550 wrote: »

Can somebody post up the times of each marathon performance above? Whoever was fastest gets my vote.

Can somebody post up the ages - oldest gets my vote:).

Chivito550 · 07-12-2015 10:16AM

aero2k wrote: »

Can somebody post up the ages - oldest gets my vote:).

Haha, nah the old man card should never be played. Not for long distance runners anyway.

TFBubendorfer · 07-12-2015 10:25AM

aero2k wrote: »

Can somebody post up the ages - oldest gets my vote:).

I'm 45

Chivito550 wrote: »

Haha, nah the old man card should never be played. Not for long distance runners anyway.

Boo! Hiss!

Notwork Error · 07-12-2015 11:15AM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Smmoore was fastest. Sub 2.30 afaik.

Smmoore was 2:32 which gets my vote, another tough one again to vote for between all the above, KC's splits in Frankfurt were incredible in how he progressed throughout the race and it was a top-notch run from him but Smmoore takes my vote because of finishing so high up and battling for places in Oslo, savage running from him.

Murph_D · 07-12-2015 01:08PM

Even though I nominated PM in this category, due to his phenomenal improvement at the 5k distance from 28:xx to 21:xx in slightly over 18 months, (and even though smmoore is a club mate

) I have to go for Krusty.

You can call it the old man card, call it whatever you like. As far as I'm concerned the relationship between your time and the world record for your age is valid for comparing performances (in a similar, but slightly more quantitative way than Chivito's male club-runner vs. female Olympian metric). The only thing that might invalidate the age grade method would be if the world record holder was some sort of ringer, but I'm guessing such records are pretty well policed, and that the holders are likely to be superb athletes in the midst of long running careers. At a rough guess of people's ages based on results and/or info posted on their logs, using this age-grade calculator, I'm estimating the related performances as follows:

Runner|Age|Distance|Time|Age Grade|Eq. Time
Krusty|43?|Marathon|2:33:07|84.5|2:25:xx
Jebuz|32?|Marathon|2:36:57|78.4|2:36:xx
Meno|38?|Marathon|3:06:35|67.0|3:03:xx
smmoore|36?|Marathon|2:32:57|81.03|2:31:xx
PM|38?|5 km|21:35|63|20:44
Thomas|45|245 km|33:29:04|?|?

Unfortunately the calculator doesn't seem to work properly for Spartathlon-type distances so can't compare Thomas's performance.

All wonderful performances, but Krusty's is the best for me, even if he didn't rate it very highly himself.

aquinn · 07-12-2015 01:19PM

Ouch for guess at meno age. Oh D.

Meno I nominated your London report as it was the first race report I'd read by you and thought it was a great and very brave performance on the day.

Chivito550 · 07-12-2015 01:20PM

Murph_D wrote: »

Even though I nominated PM in this category, due to his phenomenal improvement at the 5k distance from 28:xx to 21:xx in slightly over 18 months, (and even though smmoore is a club mate ) I have to go for Krusty.

You can call it the old man card, call it whatever you like. As far as I'm concerned the relationship between your time and the world record for your age is valid for comparing performances (in a similar, but slightly more quantitative way than Chivito's male club-runner vs. female Olympian metric). The only thing that might invalidate the age grade method would be if the world record holder was some sort of ringer, but I'm guessing such records are pretty well policed, and that the holders are likely to be superb athletes in the midst of long running careers. At a rough guess of people's ages based on results and/or info posted on their logs, using this age-grade calculator, I'm estimating the relate performances as follows:

Runner|Age|Distance|Time|Age Grade|Eq. Time
Krusty|43?|Marathon|2:33:07|84.5|2:25:xx
Jebuz|32?|Marathon|2:36:57|78.4|2:36:xx
Meno|42?|Marathon|3:06:35|68.7|2:58:xx
smmoore|36?|Marathon|2:32:57|81.03|2:31:xx
PM|38?|5 km|21:35|63|20:44
Thomas|45|245 km|33:29:04|?|?

Unfortunately the calculator doesn't seem to work properly for Spartathlon-type distances so can't compare Thomas's performance.

All wonderful performances, but Krusty's is the best for me, even if he didn't rate it very highly himself.

The problem with grading based on world records is that people in the senior category get punished the worst, as there are considerably less world class athletes competing in masters age groups, as most world class seniors have retired, and don't attempt masters. For that reason I'm going to vote based solely on time and go with smmoore. It's not a perfect measure either as course profile comes into it too. I know nothing about the Oslo course, but I can't imagine it being lightning quick, as I never hear anybody talk about it.

Worth noting that I recall Ultrapercy running around 2:31 (?) but wasn't nominated. It's very easy for performances to get missed to be honest. Happens all the time.

EDIT: Though 10 seconds difference between smmoore and Krusty will make me think a bit more before voting. Didn't realise that's all that was in it. 10 seconds is nothing really over such a long distance.

menoscemo · 07-12-2015 02:05PM

aquinn wrote: »

Ouch for guess at meno age. Oh D.

Meno I nominated your London report as it was the first race report I'd read by you and thought it was a great and very brave performance on the day.

Ah Cheers A, but you should have put me in for race report of the year then. I definitely would have voted for myself then

P.S. Murph got my age bang on. Kudos!!

Murph_D · 07-12-2015 02:08PM

aquinn wrote: »

Ouch for guess at meno age. Oh D.

Meno I nominated your London report as it was the first race report I'd read by you and thought it was a great and very brave performance on the day.

Oops, sorry Meno. I based my calculations (prior to my edit) on your older namesake from Dunleer. I was thinking to myself, Meno's older than I thought, although let's face it, nearly everyone seems pretty young to me. Except TbL of course. :P

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Chivito550 wrote: »

The problem with grading based on world records is that people in the senior category get punished the worst, as there are considerably less world class athletes competing in masters age groups, as most world class seniors have retired, and don't attempt masters.

Yes, I'm aware of your objections to this metric, which you've mentioned once or twice before. I simply don't agree - it's not a percentile measure, it's a ratio. I'm accepting that the world records on which the categories are based are, by and large, valid indicators of a comparable standard of excellence between categories. So in my case, comparing my own against Piet Van Alpen's 2:26:xx, gives me a certain figure regardless of how many people are in the group. I'm happy to compete against Piet rather than Dennis Kimetto, thank you very much. Maybe Piet would have run a faster time at 54 if he'd had more competition, we'll never know. :pac:

aquinn · 07-12-2015 02:08PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Ah Cheers A, but you should have put me in for race report of the year then. I definitely would have voted for myself then

P.S. Murph got my age bang on. Kudos!!

Really? That means that you lied on the beer mile thread at the time

menoscemo · 07-12-2015 02:10PM

aquinn wrote: »

Really? That means that you lied on the beer mile thread at the time

I'm getting the felling that murph had me down for a different age before I saw it? :mad:

Murph_D · 07-12-2015 02:16PM

menoscemo wrote: »

I'm getting the felling that murph had me down for a different age before I saw it? :mad:

On the plus side it gave you a better grade!

Chivito550 · 07-12-2015 02:19PM

Murph_D wrote: »

Oops, sorry Meno. I based my calculations (prior to my edit) on your older namesake from Dunleer. I was thinking to myself, Meno's older than I thought, although let's face it, nearly everyone seems pretty young to me. Except TbL of course. :P

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Yes, I'm aware of your objections to this metric, which you've mentioned once or twice before. I simply don't agree - it's not a percentile measure, it's a ratio. I'm accepting that the world records on which the categories are based are, by and large, valid indicators of a comparable standard of excellence between categories. So in my case, comparing my own against Piet Van Alpen's 2:26:xx, gives me a certain figure regardless of how many people are in the group. I'm happy to compete against Piet rather than Dennis Kimetto, thank you very much. Maybe Piet would have run a faster time at 54 if he'd had more competition, we'll never know. :pac:

There was a lad in my old club in Australia, around 50 years of age. He was pretty decent over a range of distances, and would jump into races against younger people all the time. On the start line of races he'd mention his age. Mind games. He's very competitive person (good thing) and would always try get one over on the younger folk. But when he lost, he'd just pull the age card. Win-win situation really. Beat somebody, fantastic. Lose the race, you should be beating me anyway, so no big deal. I just believe if somebody races people younger than them, then everybody is even for the purposes of that race.

Don't know anything about Piet Van Alpen's, but did he run that time in a masters only race? If so, you're point is valid. If not, then it's fairly irrelevant as he'd have had plenty of faster people to chase during the race.

Also real age doesn't necessarily equate to athletics age. Somebody who took up running at 35 for example, is going to be a lot fresher at 42, than somebody who has been running since their teens.

Murph_D · 07-12-2015 02:31PM

Ah yes, that lad in Australia. Yes, you mentioned him before. He sounds like a bit of an ass, but he probably wasn't fooling anyone!

Van Alphen set his time at Rotterdam. Most of the single-age records are set at big city marathons as far as I can see. You can check them out yourself here: http://www.arrs.net

"Real age" is a valid point, I agree. I'm assuming most of these record holders haven't just taken up the sport, but could be wrong.

Chivito550 · 07-12-2015 02:36PM

Murph_D wrote: »

Ah yes, that lad in Australia. Yes, you mentioned him before. He sounds like a bit of an ass, but he probably wasn't fooling anyone!

Van Alphen set his time at Rotterdam. Most of the single-age records are set at big city marathons as far as I can see. You can check them out yourself here: http://www.arrs.net

"Real age" is a valid point, I agree. I'm assuming most of these record holders haven't just taken up the sport, but could be wrong.

Ah no, he's a good lad. All a bit of banter really.

Another lad in my old club picked up a couple of medals in World Masters Games for over 65 a few years ago. One of the other auld lads, who has known him for years, told me the key to being a good master is to not kill yourself as a senior, so your body can still hack it at an older age. He told me, while he has trained since being a youngster, he never TRAINED. He never pushed himself to his ability when younger, and it has paid dividends since. Trade off I guess.

Murph_D · 07-12-2015 03:05PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

Don't know anything about Piet Van Alpen's, but did he run that time in a masters only race? If so, you're point is valid. If not, then it's fairly irrelevant as he'd have had plenty of faster people to chase during the race.

Not following you here at all. For age grading to be valid, we want his time to be as LOW as possible, so the more people (of any age) he has to chase, the better.

Chivito550 · 07-12-2015 03:13PM

Murph_D wrote: »

Not following you here at all. For age grading to be valid, we want his time to be as LOW as possible, so the more people (of any age) he has to chase, the better.

You said that perhaps he could have gone quicker if he had more competition around at the time. I said that this statement is only valid if he is running in a masters only race (where he’d be out in front). The fact he ran it in Rotterdam, with plenty of faster people (from other age groups) ahead of him, means it is irrelevant if there was nobody pushing him on in his own category, as he had plenty of others to chase in the race itself. Sorry, should have quoted the exact part of your post to be honest.

Murph_D · 07-12-2015 03:40PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

You said that perhaps he could have gone quicker if he had more competition around at the time. I said that this statement is only valid if he is running in a masters only race (where he’d be out in front). The fact he ran it in Rotterdam, with plenty of faster people (from other age groups) ahead of him, means it is irrelevant if there was nobody pushing him on in his own category, as he had plenty of others to chase in the race itself. Sorry, should have quoted the exact part of your post to be honest.

I meant more age category competition. The more the better as it is a significant motivator and no doubt can lead to lower age category world records.

Pacing Mule · 07-12-2015 03:47PM

Murph_D wrote: »

Even though I nominated PM in this category, due to his phenomenal improvement at the 5k distance from 28:xx to 21:xx in slightly over 18 months, (and even though smmoore is a club mate ) I have to go for Krusty.

You can call it the old man card, call it whatever you like. As far as I'm concerned the relationship between your time and the world record for your age is valid for comparing performances (in a similar, but slightly more quantitative way than Chivito's male club-runner vs. female Olympian metric). The only thing that might invalidate the age grade method would be if the world record holder was some sort of ringer, but I'm guessing such records are pretty well policed, and that the holders are likely to be superb athletes in the midst of long running careers. At a rough guess of people's ages based on results and/or info posted on their logs, using this age-grade calculator, I'm estimating the related performances as follows:

Runner|Age|Distance|Time|Age Grade|Eq. Time
Krusty|43?|Marathon|2:33:07|84.5|2:25:xx
Jebuz|32?|Marathon|2:36:57|78.4|2:36:xx
Meno|38?|Marathon|3:06:35|67.0|3:03:xx
smmoore|36?|Marathon|2:32:57|81.03|2:31:xx
PM|38?|5 km|21:35|63|20:44
Thomas|45|245 km|33:29:04|?|?

Unfortunately the calculator doesn't seem to work properly for Spartathlon-type distances so can't compare Thomas's performance.

All wonderful performances, but Krusty's is the best for me, even if he didn't rate it very highly himself.

There goes my only vote :pac:

Time was 21:21 for a 38 year old at the time so the age is bang on.

But me in the performance of the year is akin to one of these loonies standing beside all the real efforts

Enduro · 07-12-2015 03:49PM

Murph_D wrote: »

I'm estimating the related performances as follows:

Runner|Age|Distance|Time|Age Grade|Eq. Time
Krusty|43?|Marathon|2:33:07|84.5|2:25:xx
Jebuz|32?|Marathon|2:36:57|78.4|2:36:xx
Meno|38?|Marathon|3:06:35|67.0|3:03:xx
smmoore|36?|Marathon|2:32:57|81.03|2:31:xx
PM|38?|5 km|21:35|63|20:44
Thomas|45|245 km|33:29:04|?|?

Unfortunately the calculator doesn't seem to work properly for Spartathlon-type distances so can't compare Thomas's performance.

For Ultras, the DUV website is the go-to resource for results and stats. From their results page for this year's Spartathlon we can find their calculation for Thomas's Age Graded Performance giving him a AGP time of 31:20:06. I've no idea how this translates to the Age Grade in your table. Races with off-road sections are particularly hard to cross-compare, even to different runnings of the same race.

Jaysus it's hard to pick out on obvious winner from these!

TFBubendorfer · 07-12-2015 04:17PM

Murph_D wrote: »

Runner|Age|Distance|Time|Age Grade|Eq. Time
Krusty|43?|Marathon|2:33:07|84.5|2:25:xx
Jebuz|32?|Marathon|2:36:57|78.4|2:36:xx
Meno|38?|Marathon|3:06:35|67.0|3:03:xx
smmoore|36?|Marathon|2:32:57|81.03|2:31:xx
PM|38?|5 km|21:35|63|20:44
Thomas|45|245 km|33:29:04|?|?

Unfortunately the calculator doesn't seem to work properly for Spartathlon-type distances so can't compare Thomas's performance.

All wonderful performances, but Krusty's is the best for me, even if he didn't rate it very highly himself.

These kind of performance calculators don't work in ultras in general. My best ever race, which was good enough for an IAAF-B standard and got me into the world championship, was graded as the equivalent of a 4-hour marathon :rolleyes:

Just for completeness, my best ever age-graded result was 79.03. Krusty and smmoore are fairly safe in that regards.

I just talked myself out of even the most minimal chance of winning this, haven't I? :P Anyway, my own vote goes to Krusty as well.

Pacing Mule · 07-12-2015 04:26PM

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

These kind of performance calculators don't work in ultras in general. My best ever race, which was good enough for an IAAF-B standard and got me into the world championship, was graded as the equivalent of a 4-hour marathon :rolleyes:

Just for completeness, my best ever age-graded result was 79.03. Krusty and smmoore are fairly safe in that regards.

I just talked myself out of even the most minimal chance of winning this, haven't I? :P Anyway, my own vote goes to Krusty as well.

Or Ultras are actually relatively the same as a 4 hour marathon and the calculators are bang on

TFBubendorfer · 07-12-2015 04:37PM

Pacing Mule wrote: »

Or Ultras are actually relatively the same as a 4 hour marathon and the calculators are bang on

Maybe

I started that aforementioned race with a 4-hour(ish) marathon and kept going for another 20 hours. Personally I rate it higher than a 4-hour marathon

A/R Awards 2015 - Performance of the Year Roads/Mountains/Ultra etc..

Performance of the Year 2015 - Road/Ultra/Mountain etc 68 votes

Comments