Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

What format to use for proposed "Big 10" Challenge 2012?

  • 27-12-2011 1:21pm
    #1
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭


    Following on from last years "Big 8 Challenge", this year its expanded by a couple of categories at the shorter end. Pretty much anyone who wants to run fast and long, needs to run fast first, so you'll now get the chance to test yourself over a 400m, and an 800m.

    Last years discussion started off with posters complaining the times were too hard, or too easy, or not weighted for age or gender, or whatever. Not my business if anyone wants to run slower, but this thread, like last years, is about reaching a set of goals that a half-way decent club runner should aspire to. The main purpose is to create a bit of focus on the faster guys of the forum, and it should act as a spur to the slower guys. More discussion would be helpful, but no-one's got a gun to their head (the best bit of discussion was from the only guy who completed the Challenge last year- here's a synopsis from Larry Brent).

    I had envisioned this as a yearly thing- get the times done in a calendar. No doubt there'll be some who want to bring over their 2011 times, get it done over two years or whatever; or want to get the best 8 of 10... fine if thats what you want, although its a harder thing to get them all in one year, and this thread is about pushing yourself a bit.

    Anyway, over to the forum, lets see how everyone gets on in 2012, lets start a bit of discussion, and best of luck to everyone!



    Name|400m<60 secs|800m<2:10|1 mile<5 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<30min|10k<40m|10miles<1hr|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3hrs

    AN Other||||||||||


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    Good on ya for sticking in the 400m, and 1km. Makes it far more interesting.

    The 400m will be the only one I'll tick off on this list I reckon. The longer the event, the worse the times get for me. The 1k I could manage I reckon, with a push, but very few 1km races around.


  • #3
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    According to the IAAF Tables this is the list of strongest to weakest targets. Couldn't find a score for the 5 Mile though.

    1) 10M - 505
    2) 3K - 470
    3) 1M - 465
    4) Mar - 441
    5) 400m - 401
    6) 1K - 387
    7) 10K - 295
    8) HM - 268
    9) 5K - 161

    5M - No Value


  • #4
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    My sums may not be up to much, but does that make the 1k the toughest time to get now? Just the 2 minutes difference for running an extra lap and a bit seemed quite generous. Not questioning the times, just I can't think in kilometers so not sure how it relates.


  • #5
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    Mc Millan Rank|400m equivalent|800m equivalent|1 mile equivalent|3k equivalent|5k equivalent|5mile equivalent|10k equivalent|10miles equivalent|Half Marathon equivalent|Marathon equivalent

    800m 2:10|59.2|2:10.0|4:48.3|9:32.8|16:39|27:35|34:35|57:57|1:16:57|2:42:17
    400m 60 secs|1:00|2:11.7|4:52.2|9:40.4|16:52|27:57|35:03|58:43|1:17:59|2:44:27
    10 mile 60:00|1:01.3|2:14.6|4:58.6|9:53.1|17:14|28:34|35:49|1:00:00|1:19:41|2:48:03
    1 mile 5:00|1:01.6|2:15.3|5:00|9:56.0|17:19|28:42|35:59|1:00:17|1:20:04|2:48:52
    3k 10:00|1:02.0|2:16.2|5:02.0|10:00|17:26|28:54|36:13|1:00:42|1:20:36|2:50:00
    5 mile 30:00|1:04.4|2:21.4|5:13.5|10:22.9|18:06|30:00|37:36|1:03:01|1:23:41|2:56:29
    Marathon 3:00|1:05.7|2:24.2|5:19.8|10:35.3|18:28|30:36|38:21|1:04:16|1:25:21|3:00:00
    10k 40:00|1:08.5|2:30.4|5:33.5|11:02.5|19:15|31:55|40:00|1:07:01|1:29:00|3:07:43
    Half marathon 1:30|1:09.3|2:32.0|5:37.2|11:09.9|19:28|32:16|40:27|1:07:46|1:30:00|3:09:49
    5k 20:00|1:11.1|2:36.2|5:46.4|11:28.1|20:00|33:09|41:33|1:09:37|1:32:27|3:14:58


    Here's how each is measured according to the McMillan Calculator.


  • #6
    RacoonQueen
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,366 Mod ✭✭✭✭RacoonQueen


    Mc Millan Rank|400m equivilant|1 kilometer equivilant|1 mile equivilant|3k equivilant|5k equivilant|5mile equivilant|10k equivilant|10miles equivilant|Half Marathon equivilant|Marathon equivilant

    5k 20:00|1:11.1|3:24.1|5:46.4|11:28.1|20:00|33:09|41:33|1:09:37|1:32:27|3:14:58



    If I was focusing purely on running next year I'd have a whack at most of these.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    donothoponpop wrote: »
    Mc Millan Rank|400m equivilant|1 kilometer equivilant|1 mile equivilant|3k equivilant|5k equivilant|5mile equivilant|10k equivilant|10miles equivilant|Half Marathon equivilant|Marathon equivilant

    400m 60 secs|1:00|2:52.2|4:52.2|9:40.4|16:52|27:57|35:03|58:43|1:17:59|2:44:27
    10 mile 60:00|1:01.3|2:55.9|4:58.6|9:53.1|17:14|28:34|35:49|1:00:00|1:19:41|2:48:03
    1 mile 5:00|1:01.6|2:56.8|5:00|9:56.0|17:19|28:42|35:59|1:00:17|1:20:04|2:48:52
    3k 10:00|1:02.0|2:58.0|5:02.0|10:00|17:26|28:54|36:13|1:00:42|1:20:36|2:50:00
    1k 3:00|1:02.7|3:00|5:05.5|10:06.8|17:38|29:14|36:38|1:01:23|1:21:31|2:51:56
    5 mile 30:00|1:04.4|3:04.8|5:13.5|10:22.9|18:06|30:00|37:36|1:03:01|1:23:41|2:56:29
    Marathon 3:00|1:05.7|3:08.4|5:19.8|10:35.3|18:28|30:36|38:21|1:04:16|1:25:21|3:00:00
    10k 40:00|1:08.5|3:16.5|5:33.5|11:02.5|19:15|31:55|40:00|1:07:01|1:29:00|3:07:43
    Half marathon 1:30|1:09.3|3:18.7|5:37.2|11:09.9|19:28|32:16|40:27|1:07:46|1:30:00|3:09:49
    5k 20:00|1:11.1|3:24.1|5:46.4|11:28.1|20:00|33:09|41:33|1:09:37|1:32:27|3:14:58


    Here's how each is measured according to the McMillan Calculator. Grist to the mill for anyone banging the sub 60 sec 400m drum, in a world obsessed with sub 3 marathons!;)

    As much as I'd like to claim a sub 60 equates to a 2:44 marathon, it simply does not. The 2011 IAAF tables are far better for this. A sub 60 equates to a 3:03 marathon. Might be better to re-edit the table based on the IAAF Tables. Would be a far more accurate comparison.


  • #8
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    59.99 for 400m =

    1KM : 2:58.89
    Mile : 5:08.11
    3KM : 10:18.18
    5KM : 17:40.06
    5M : ??
    10KM : 37:55.20
    10M : 1:02:58
    HM : 1:23:57
    Mar : 3:03:37

    They'd be far fairer conversions than McMillan.

    It's 2.30am here, too tired to do the rest. Somebody else can do them.


  • #9
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    04072511 wrote: »
    59.99 for 400m =
    ...
    10KM : 37:55.20
    ...

    How many people are going to care about the difference between a 37.54 and a 37.56 10k? :) It just doesn't have the same appeal as 39.59. The point is not to have 10 times that are exactly equivalent (and if it was, why base it on the 400m?) but to have a range of challenging targets - some easier, some harder.


  • #10
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    I know there was some talk last year that the Big 10 times were fine for a male club runner, but out of reach for female club runners. How about these times?

    Name|400m<70 secs|800m<2.30|1 mile<6 min|3k<12min|5k<20min|5mile<35min|10k<45m|10miles<70|Half Marathon<100mins|Marathon<3.30

    AN Other||||||||||


    I didn't add a certain percentage to the other times or anything so scientific, just picked some bigger round numbers. I didn't change the 5k time at all - it's the easiest time on the other table, maybe the hardest on this one (?) but there's no reason why the ranking should be the same.
    Good or bad idea?


  • #11
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    RayCun wrote: »
    How many people are going to care about the difference between a 37.54 and a 37.56 10k? :) It just doesn't have the same appeal as 39.59. The point is not to have 10 times that are exactly equivalent (and if it was, why base it on the 400m?) but to have a range of challenging targets - some easier, some harder.

    I think 04072511 was just using the 400m as an example for IAAF equivalent performances. When there's a list of targets like the Big 10 goal times, people are bound to rank them in terms of difficulty, and I'd agree that IAAF seems a fairer ranking than McMillan.

    Anyway, I'm going to try for a few of these. The aim will be to target the shorter ones, from mile to 10k, over the next few months, and perhaps move longer leading up to the Dublin marathon. I've a decent speed base, (5:31 Goal mile), so will be looking to lose weight and introduce hill repeats/intervals. At the moment, any speedwork is fartlek based.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Gringo78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭Gringo78


    Why 1km?? Odd distance and not one that's actually raced. What's wrong with 800m?


  • #13
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    Gringo78 wrote: »
    Why 1km?? Odd distance and not one that's actually raced. What's wrong with 800m?

    Fair point. My thinking was 3 mins for 1k fit in with the "round numbers" spirit of the whole thing, better than a 2:30 800m. If you break the round numbers for a 2:20 800m, you may as well start tinkering with other times. The time doesn't have to be from a race, so long as its accurately measured. Lots of guys do 1k intervals, and for that matter the mile isn't raced much either. I'd say running a k under 3 mins represents a similar goal to breaking 5 mins for the mile, that's why I put it in.

    (But if it meant changing to 800m would get a lot more runners from here entering 800m races, I'd be all for the change).


  • #14
    BobMac104
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭BobMac104


    Thanks ray! That other table is well out of my reach anyway for a while. but this table sets some tough (but with hard work) achieveable goals over the next year or so.


  • #15
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    From the donothoponpop table of McMillian times I'd agree with the order that the longer distances stack up in order of difficulty. Even though McMillain actually says the short distance times should be taken with a very large lump of sodium chloride, I am surprised that even his tables rank the 400m as the top one.


  • #16
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Shhhh, don't tell anyone...but the 5km time is the same in both challenges.


  • #17
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    Gringo78 wrote: »
    Why 1km?? Odd distance and not one that's actually raced. What's wrong with 800m?

    +1 800m is a much better challenge and one you might actually find a race for. 2min 20 sounds fair, if you want round number call it 140 seconds.


  • #18
    RoyMcC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭RoyMcC


    I'm waiting for the 'Small Challenge' - the girls' one is still too tough for me :(:pac:


  • #19
    BobMac104
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭BobMac104


    robinph wrote: »
    Shhhh, don't tell anyone...but the 5km time is the same in both challenges.

    ya he mentions that in his post. I think its by far the softest on the "big 10"


  • #20
    antomagoo
    Registered Users Posts: 730 ✭✭✭antomagoo


    So is this going to be female only? Cause where I'm at at the moment this table will suit me for the coming year


  • #21
    n-dawg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭n-dawg


    If you want to make it even just have a 2 min 800! It's a very tough goal but isn't it meant to be a challenge...


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    ocnoc
    Registered Users Posts: 830 ✭✭✭ocnoc


    n-dawg wrote: »
    If you want to make it even just have a 2 min 800! It's a very tough goal but isn't it meant to be a challenge...

    and so the marathon time was reduced to 2:45, the 10 mile dropped to 50mins, the 10k dropped to 30, with the 5k hovering at 15 dead :P


  • #23
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    Having discussed this with a few people, the feeling was that an 800m makes more sense, in order to race the distance. 2 mins would fit the "round numbers" perfect, but would be so far removed from the other times. 2:10 for the 800m makes it a decent standard to aim for, and I can't see much value in making it 2:15, or 2:20, 2:30, whatever.


  • #24
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    donothoponpop wrote: »
    2:10 for the 800m makes it a decent standard to aim for

    :eek:
    That's one way to describe it :pac:


  • #25
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    antomagoo wrote: »
    So is this going to be female only? Cause where I'm at at the moment this table will suit me for the coming year

    If you want to compete at the women's standard, we won't judge you.

    Okay, that's a lie :D


  • #26
    BeepBeep67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,084 ✭✭✭BeepBeep67


    donothoponpop wrote: »
    Mc Millan Rank|400m equivalent|800m equivalent|1 mile equivalent|3k equivalent|5k equivalent|5mile equivalent|10k equivalent|10miles equivalent|Half Marathon equivalent|Marathon equivalent

    800m 2:10|59.2|2:10.0|4:48.3|9:32.8|16:39|27:35|34:35|57:57|1:16:57|2:42:17
    400m 60 secs|1:00|2:11.7|4:52.2|9:40.4|16:52|27:57|35:03|58:43|1:17:59|2:44:27
    10 mile 60:00|1:01.3|2:14.6|4:58.6|9:53.1|17:14|28:34|35:49|1:00:00|1:19:41|2:48:03
    1 mile 5:00|1:01.6|2:15.3|5:00|9:56.0|17:19|28:42|35:59|1:00:17|1:20:04|2:48:52
    3k 10:00|1:02.0|2:16.2|5:02.0|10:00|17:26|28:54|36:13|1:00:42|1:20:36|2:50:00
    5 mile 30:00|1:04.4|2:21.4|5:13.5|10:22.9|18:06|30:00|37:36|1:03:01|1:23:41|2:56:29
    Marathon 3:00|1:05.7|2:24.2|5:19.8|10:35.3|18:28|30:36|38:21|1:04:16|1:25:21|3:00:00
    10k 40:00|1:08.5|2:30.4|5:33.5|11:02.5|19:15|31:55|40:00|1:07:01|1:29:00|3:07:43
    Half marathon 1:30|1:09.3|2:32.0|5:37.2|11:09.9|19:28|32:16|40:27|1:07:46|1:30:00|3:09:49
    5k 20:00|1:11.1|2:36.2|5:46.4|11:28.1|20:00|33:09|41:33|1:09:37|1:32:27|3:14:58


    Here's how each is measured according to the McMillan Calculator.

    This table could add an interesting dimension to the challenge and make it more inclusive, example if you tick off all the times based on the 2:10 800 and got 10 points for each of those you can achieve a maximum of 100 points, run a 3:14:58 Marathon and you would get 1 point based on the 20min 5k, people can then rank themselves on total points accumulated.


  • #27
    antomagoo
    Registered Users Posts: 730 ✭✭✭antomagoo


    RayCun wrote: »
    If you want to compete at the women's standard, we won't judge you.

    Okay, that's a lie :D

    I can live with that :D

    I'll just suck it up so & stick to the Big 10 challenge


  • #28
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    I dont like this McMillan calculator. While it may be good for translating a 5k into a 10, HM, Marathon etc, it doesn't really translate a 400m, and even an 800m into those distances. The IAAF tables is far more accurate, and while it takes more time, as you have to dig through the numbers, it will be worth it in the end. I'd be happy to do it one day, when I have some spare time. The only downside is the lack of 5 Mile numbers on the tables, but we can use MacMillan for that based on 10K times or something.


  • #29
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    04072511 wrote: »
    According to the IAAF Tables this is the list of strongest to weakest targets. Couldn't find a score for the 5 Mile though.

    1) 10M - 505
    2) 3K - 470
    3) 1M - 465
    4) Mar - 441
    5) 400m - 401
    6) 1K - 387
    7) 10K - 295
    8) HM - 268
    9) 5K - 161

    5M - No Value

    548 points for a sub 2:10 800m. I know these targets are supposed to be challenging, and that they dont all have to be of the same standard, but I think sub 2:10 could be a bit off the wall with regards the others, and sub 2:15 would be more in line with the Mile and Marathon targets.

    Just a suggestion as it may help others. Makes no difference to me as I won't be beating the 800m target regardless of whether it is 2:10 or 2:15 :)


  • #30
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    IAAF Rank (points)|400m equivalent|800m equivalent|1 mile equivalent|3k equivalent|5k equivalent|5mile equivalent*|10k equivalent|10miles equivalent|Half Marathon equivalent|Marathon equivalent

    800m 2:12 (508)|57.35|2:12.0|4:54.7|9:50|16:52|*|36:05|59:53|1:19:48|2:54:02
    10 mile 60:00 (504)|57.45|2:12.19|4:55.17|9:51|16:54|*|36:09|1:00:00|1:19:57|2:54:23
    3k 10:00 (470)|58:26|2:13.97|4:59.28|10:00|17:09|*|36:43|1:00:56|1:21:13|2:57:19
    1 mile 5:00 (465)|58.38|2:14.23|5:00|10:01|17:11|*|36:48|1:01:05|1:21:24|2:57:45
    5 mile 30:00*||||||||||
    Marathon 3:00 (440)|58:99|2:15.59|5:03.03|10:07|17:22|*|36:14|1:01:48|1:22:23|3:00:00
    400m 60 secs (401)|1:00|2:17.78|5:08|10:18|17:40|*|37:55|1:02:58|1:23:57|3:03:37
    10k 40:00 (297)|1:02.92|2:24.23|5:23.01|10:49|18:33|*|40:00|1:06:23|1:28:33|3:14:16
    Half marathon 1:30 (268)|1:03.72|2:26.22|5:27.61|10.59|18:49|*|40:35|1:07:27|1:30:00|3:17:34
    5k 20:00 (160)|1:07.73|2:34.8|5:47.48|11:40|20:00|*|43:18|1:12:00|1:36:07|3:31:45


    Ranked and measured using 2011 IAAF tables.
    I decided on an 800m time of 2:12, as 2:10 was way off the chart (548 pts), in comparison with the others, but I wanted the shorter race to be as tough as the toughest of what we had already (10 miler).

    *There is no 5 mile listed, if anyone has an account with All-Athletics.com, could they please look up the score equivalent for 5 miles.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    donothoponpop wrote: »
    IAAF Rank (points)|400m equivalent|800m equivalent|1 mile equivalent|3k equivalent|5k equivalent|5mile equivalent*|10k equivalent|10miles equivalent|Half Marathon equivalent|Marathon equivalent

    800m 2:12 (508)|57.35|2:12.0|4:54.7|9:50|16:52|*|36:05|59:53|1:19:48|2:54:02
    10 mile 60:00 (504)|57.45|2:12.19|4:55.17|9:51|16:54|*|36:09|1:00:00|1:19:57|2:54:23
    3k 10:00 (470)|58:26|2:13.97|4:59.28|10:00|17:09|*|36:43|1:00:56|1:21:13|2:57:19
    1 mile 5:00 (465)|58.38|2:14.23|5:00|10:01|17:11|*|36:48|1:01:05|1:21:24|2:57:45
    5 mile 30:00*||||||||||
    Marathon 3:00 (440)|58:99|2:15.59|5:03.03|10:07|17:22|*|36:14|1:01:48|1:22:23|3:00:00
    400m 60 secs (401)|1:00|2:17.78|5:08|10:18|17:40|*|37:55|1:02:58|1:23:57|3:03:37
    10k 40:00 (297)|1:02.92|2:24.23|5:23.01|10:49|18:33|*|40:00|1:06:23|1:28:33|3:14:16
    Half marathon 1:30 (268)|1:03.72|2:26.22|5:27.61|10.59|18:49|*|40:35|1:07:27|1:30:00|3:17:34
    5k 20:00 (160)|1:07.73|2:34.8|5:47.48|11:40|20:00|*|43:18|1:12:00|1:36:07|3:31:45


    Ranked and measured using 2011 IAAF tables.
    I decided on an 800m time of 2:12, as 2:10 was way off the chart (548 pts), in comparison with the others, but I wanted the shorter race to be as tough as the toughest of what we had already (10 miler).

    *There is no 5 mile listed, if anyone has an account with All-Athletics.com, could they please look up the score equivalent for 5 miles.

    Good work sir. I can now take the afternoon off and go on the beer. :D

    Cheers for putting that together.


  • #32
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    04072511 wrote: »
    I dont like this McMillan calculator. While it may be good for translating a 5k into a 10, HM, Marathon etc, it doesn't really translate a 400m, and even an 800m into those distances. The IAAF tables is far more accurate, and while it takes more time, as you have to dig through the numbers, it will be worth it in the end. I'd be happy to do it one day, when I have some spare time. The only downside is the lack of 5 Mile numbers on the tables, but we can use MacMillan for that based on 10K times or something.

    I did the digging for the past few hours, and I have to say, as a student of statistics, the IAAF comparisons seemed far better than McMillans, the IAAF got rid of skewing at either end of the distances, and this seems a much fairer data table to work from. If no-one can get the 5 mile equivalents from all-athletics (you need a paid membership), we can use McMillan for 5 miles (he seems closer around the middle distances anyway).

    Toughest is the 800m. Its no longer a round number, but 2:00 is off the chart in comparison, 2:10 is likewise much tougher than the rest, 2:15 seems almost too easy, when part of the idea for this is to get distance runners seeing how tough the shorter stuff can be.


  • #33
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    04072511 wrote: »
    Good work sir. I can now take the afternoon off and go on the beer. :D

    And I can go to bed:D


  • #34
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    Good idea here RayCun.

    A couple of suggestions though:

    Now that the 1km has been replaces by the 800m I'd suggest 2:30 for 800m to be the target here, and raising the standard of the 400m to 65 seconds, to keep with Donothoponpop's suggestion of having the standard of shorter events high to show how difficult they can be. Both those times would be equivalent to a marathon in the 3:20-3:25 range, so they aren't off the charts.

    Also I don't think it should be restricted to women. Good targets in that list, and would be good for people regardless of gender to have something difficult, but achieveable as a short term goal.

    EDIT: If keeping the 400m at 70 seconds is something that will get more people trying the event then I'm all for keeping that as the standard. It's pretty much in line with the mile, 10km and Half Marathon standards according to IAAF Tables.


  • #35
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    IAAF Rank (points)|400m equivalent|800m equivalent|1 mile equivalent|3k equivalent|5k equivalent|5mile equivalent*|10k equivalent|10miles equivalent|Half Marathon equivalent|Marathon equivalent

    800m 2:00 (769)|51.91|2:00.0|4:26.98|8:52|15:13|*|32:19|53:32|1:11:14|2:34:14
    800m 2:10 (548)|56.44|2:10.0|4:50.04|9:40|16:35|*|35:27|58:49|1:18:22|2:50:43
    800m 2:12 (508)|57.35|2:12.0|4:54.7|9:50|16:52|*|36:05|59:53|1:19:48|2:54:02



    I'm still not 100% on what should be the 800m time... included above are 2:00 (very round number!), 2:10 (somewhat round), and 2:12 (not round at all). The fastest would add a whole different aspect to the Challenge, making it capable of only the very fastest on this forum (but that's what a Challenge is all about). The 2:10 is a good deal harder than anything else. I've explained elsewhere my thinking behind 2:12.

    However, although the Challenge would still be to hit all 10 times in a year, using this table could give some simple points ranking system, as Beepbeep67 mentions. 1 point for any of the 5k equivalent times hit, 2 points for any of the HM equivalents; up to 10 points for any of the 800m equivalents (we'd still have to decide on what 800m to use).

    Any thoughts?


  • #36
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    I think the 2:12, it's still ranked above all the proper longer distances so will keep 12345 happy that shorter distances are better. :D

    Just have to make a note that it is the only distance that gets to have an awkward time for it, and anyone arguing that the marathon time should also have a more accurate time of 2:03:37 or it's really not worth considering as even half way decent gets taken out the back and shot.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    donothoponpop wrote: »
    IAAF Rank (points)|400m equivalent|800m equivalent|1 mile equivalent|3k equivalent|5k equivalent|5mile equivalent*|10k equivalent|10miles equivalent|Half Marathon equivalent|Marathon equivalent

    800m 2:00 (769)|51.91|2:00.0|4:26.98|8:52|15:13|*|32:19|53:32|1:11:14|2:34:14
    800m 2:10 (548)|56.44|2:10.0|4:50.04|9:40|16:35|*|35:27|58:49|1:18:22|2:50:43
    800m 2:12 (508)|57.35|2:12.0|4:54.7|9:50|16:52|*|36:05|59:53|1:19:48|2:54:02



    I'm still not 100% on what should be the 800m time... included above are 2:00 (very round number!), 2:10 (somewhat round), and 2:12 (not round at all). The fastest would add a whole different aspect to the Challenge, making it capable of only the very fastest on this forum (but that's what a Challenge is all about). The 2:10 is a good deal harder than anything else. I've explained elsewhere my thinking behind 2:12.

    However, although the Challenge would still be to hit all 10 times in a year, using this table could give some simple points ranking system, as Beepbeep67 mentions. 1 point for any of the 5k equivalent times hit, 2 points for any of the HM equivalents; up to 10 points for any of the 800m equivalents (we'd still have to decide on what 800m to use).

    Any thoughts?

    Put it this way:

    A sub 2 minute 800m for a woman is a standard that would get you into the top 20 in the world. Yvonne Hak had never ran sub 2 before Barca 2010, and ran high 1:58 and got a silver medal. Now look at the other events. Would a sub 60 400m, sub 40 minute 10k, sub 3 hour marathon, sub 60 10 mile get a woman anywhere at the elite level? No.

    Sub 2 minutes is far too strong a target for these tables.


  • #38
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Sure, changed the 1k target to an 800m.

    Now to try tiptoeing through the minefield... the idea of the Big 8 challenge originally was (I think) that they were times a club runner should aspire to and should be able to achieve (with some work).

    The trouble with the times in the other thread, from the point of view of a female runner, is that they are not really club runner standard. There are some women who can run sub 30 for 5 miles, but they are better than 'good club runner' standard. There are some women who can run sub 60 for 10 miles but they are really great runners (6 women went sub 60 at the Frank Duffy this summer). Those times don't work as targets for most of the women on this forum (or in running clubs in real life), because they're not really achievable.

    But for a male club runner, the times above are too achievable, so they don't work as aspirational targets. Maybe you can hit some of the above targets this year, but you should be aiming for the targets in the other thread, even if it takes you a little longer to get there.


  • #39
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    What ever tweaking you do to the times, the 5km time should be kept as the supposed best standard. If you get that then you are into the "Big" one which is the point of the targets and moving up a league.


  • #40
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    RayCun wrote: »
    Sure, changed the 1k target to an 800m.

    Now to try tiptoeing through the minefield... the idea of the Big 8 challenge originally was (I think) that they were times a club runner should aspire to and should be able to achieve (with some work).

    The trouble with the times in the other thread, from the point of view of a female runner, is that they are not really club runner standard. There are some women who can run sub 30 for 5 miles, but they are better than 'good club runner' standard. There are some women who can run sub 60 for 10 miles but they are really great runners (6 women went sub 60 at the Frank Duffy this summer). Those times don't work as targets for most of the women on this forum (or in running clubs in real life), because they're not really achievable.

    But for a male club runner, the times above are too achievable, so they don't work as aspirational targets. Maybe you can hit some of the above targets this year, but you should be aiming for the targets in the other thread, even if it takes you a little longer to get there.

    Very fair points. But I think these tables could be good for some people starting out. Say for somebody at the 4:xx marathon level, or 55 mins for 10k, just getting into running, this could be used as motivational targets.

    Just commenting on a general sense as I won't be doing anything over 800m (or maybe the occasional mile) myself, but I find these threads quite interesting, especially now, with the addition of the 400m and 800m.


  • #41
    BeepBeep67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,084 ✭✭✭BeepBeep67


    So the challenge I believe is what an average/good club athlete can aim for.
    Looking at the last DAB Graded 800, 74% of the 69 runners ran sub 2:10. Admittedly these were probably 800/1500 specialists and there were 21 sub 2mins on the night. So IMO 2:10 is about the right mark - run > 2:10 on Aug 1st and you're in the bottom quartile.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    drquirky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭drquirky


    The work required to run many of these times varies wildly. I could run a 60 sec 400 in a very short space of time w/ fairly limited work yet the work required to run a sub 3 marathon is quite high. The fundamental issue is that sprinters are just lazy runners who are afraid to sweat....


  • #43
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    drquirky wrote: »
    The work required to run many of these times varies wildly. I could run a 60 sec 400 in a very short space of time w/ fairly limited work yet the work required to run a sub 3 marathon is quite high. The fundamental issue is that sprinters are just lazy runners who are afraid to sweat....

    Haha. Don't mention the War!

    It all depends on where you're talents are. I've heard of people who have run 2:45 for the marathon and who can barely break 70 for the 400m. Admittadly, they dont specifically train for the 400m, and are on the extreme end of the slow twitch side of the fast/slow twitch spectrum. But the IAAF has a sub 60 close to the level of a sub 3 marathon (3:03) and I would bet my house (not that I have one:)) that some of the 2:58-2:59 runners we have here couldnt get close to a sub 60. Similarly, I could dedicate years to marathon running and wouldn't get near sub 3. Just depends on the person's make-up.


  • #44
    couerdelion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭couerdelion


    Why not think of these as a 'B' level target that are still aspirational to those of us who don't run for a club. If we can manage to attain these we can promote ourselves to the 'A' level league?

    That way the real runners have their targets and those of who aren't able to devote the time to running to improve to the club level standard still can compete against other boardsie's.


  • #45
    Itziger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,017 ✭✭✭Itziger


    couerdelion wrote: »
    Why not think of these as a 'B' level target that are still aspirational to those of us who don't run for a club. If we can manage to attain these we can promote ourselves to the 'A' level league?

    That way the real runners have their targets and those of who aren't able to devote the time to running to improve to the club level standard still can compete against other boardsie's.

    That sounds fair enough to me probably because I'm between the two! I have most of the 'mediums' but am a bit off the 'bigs'.


  • #46
    pconn062
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭pconn062


    Looks like fun, I am looking to try and hit a few of these this year, namely the mile, 10k and half marathon. I have the 5k done already so if I can find a race I will try for that again as well.


  • #47
    shotgunmcos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭shotgunmcos


    I see the makings of a good challenge here and it would take on a similar formt to the SBR. The gold level is the A times and the Green level is the B times as per this thread. So you might have an epic 12 column table ranked overall by the points scored. You get to enter your best time for any of the 10 distances and if you hit the B standard it is coloured green and if you hit the A standard it is coloured gold, if it doesn't meet the B (green) standard it stays black font

    The points system could be accumulated in the 800m/marathon 'equivalent' system that was discussed in the other thread. Combining the equivalent score of all your best times (which would mean that you could finish higher than someone who has only posted 2 electric gold standard times simply by posting more results.

    Example

    Name|points|400m|800m|3k|5k...
    D'pop|99|00:59|02:11|12:03|16:30
    TFB|79|01:06||11:10|21:30



    Or as per the SBR thread which ranks in the order of
    # targets hit
    colour of targets
    points

    This format is a little more complex to understand but it ultimately rewards participation as much as it does the standard of your results

    For example if TRR hit 4 gold (A) standard and that was all he posted, D'pop can rank higher simply by having 5 targets

    If 2 people have the same targets and number of them (ex 10 gold) then its ranked on the points (higher equivalent)

    So, in the early stages up to the summer lots of B standard targets will feature high up the table but in the end the fastest gold standards will sit at the top.

    It would make a good competition for all out of it and avoid the possibility of someone with one single gold standard being ranked above someone who posts 10 green (B) targets over the year (I dunno but I'd be chuffed with 10 green over a single gold!). There is a great satisfaction to posting a green target and even better posting gold and EVEN BETTER, turning green to gold!

    It would also eliminate (maybe) the 'best of' thread as everyone would have their best times recorded on this challenge!

    It would eliminate the need for a "big" and a "medium" challenge threads.

    Maybe woddle can think of a way to drag the 1000 mile challenge in too and make a super running master thread :D


  • #48
    shotgunmcos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭shotgunmcos


    Oh and I propose calling it The 2012 Gold 10 Challenge :D


  • #49
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Name|400m|800m|1 mile|3k|5k|5mile|10k|10miles|Half Marathon|Marathon|Points

    04072511|1:00.9 (1)|2:27.9 (3)|n/a (2)|n/a (1)|n/a (5)|n/a (2)|n/a (3)|n/a (4)|n/a (3)|n/a (3)|27
    Timmaayy|n/a (2)|2:01.31 (1)|4.39 (1)|n/a (1)|16.19 (2)|n/a (2)|n/a (3)|n/a (4)|n/a (3)|n/a (3)|22
    Brianderunner|n/a (2)|2:22.4 (2)|n/a (2)|n/a (1)|17.51 (3)|n/a (2)|37.33 (2)|61.08 (2)|82.29 (7)|n/a (3)|26
    TheRoadRunner|n/a (2)|n/a (4)|n/a (2)|n/a (1)|16.05 (1)|26.29 (1)|33.04 (1)|55.50 (1)|n/a (3)|2.36.45(1)|17
    TFBubendorfer|n/a (2)|n/a (4)|n/a (2)|n/a (1)|18.05 (4)|n/a (2)|n/a (3)|61.51 (3)|83.36 (2)|2.59.35 (2)|25


    Something like this?
    Doh, forgot the colour-coding


  • #50
    TFBubendorfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,340 ✭✭✭TFBubendorfer


    04072511 wrote: »
    I would bet my house (not that I have one:)) that some of the 2:58-2:59 runners we have here couldnt get close to a sub 60.

    You can keep your house, you're absolutely right about that. ;)
    If that's down to talent or training or age or anything else can be discussed again and again and ...


  • #51
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    04072511 wrote: »
    Similarly, I could dedicate years to marathon running and wouldn't get near sub 3. Just depends on the person's make-up.

    Don't use that as an excuse to be lazy and not try ;). If you actually put in the work you might surprise yourself

    I am an ex sprinter and am pretty sure I could get close to a 60 second 400m right now with no specific training. Despite that I am getting better and better at the long stuff, hard work pays off.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement