|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 03/15/04 - 17:35 Post subject: Your best race distance
Here's the calculator.
I've actually been looking for this for quite awhile and lo n' behold, it's on the RW site.
Anyway, I think it's a good tool if you want to know what distance you do best at. And when it comes to planning a great peak performance, perhaps getting a pointer like this, can tell you where to focus your upcoming race schedule to capitalize on your strengths.
For me, it has always held true that 8km/10km is my best distance. Definitely my favs too.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/15/04 - 17:50 Post subject:
 The information about the calculator won't come up. I guess I'm confused as to what it is ranking exactly...just in order your best run? What is this?
I will say not knowing anything about what this is telling me that it ranked my 10 miler first and thats my favorite distance. but not the best one I put in 
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/15/04 - 18:04 Post subject:
Did you put in 3 different race distances?
What it does is statistically compare your time to world record times and respectively on a percentage basis, rank how close you come on each one you've entered.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/15/04 - 18:14 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | Did you put in 3 different race distances?
What it does is statistically compare your time to world record times and respectively on a percentage basis, rank how close you come on each one you've entered. |
I see...that makes sense. I put in 5 (all different distances) and it put them in 2, 5, 1, 3, 4 order as far as best times. Makes much more sense now. Pretty cool!
|
|
|
|
|
spongebob
Former FFL Champion
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 3602
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/15/04 - 23:39 Post subject:
It says I'm a better 10k runner than a 5k runner. I found that surprising.
|
|
|
|
|
TimRuns
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 10062
Location: Coquitlam, British Columbia
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/16/04 - 00:55 Post subject:
| Runner X wrote: | | It says I'm a better 10k runner than a 5k runner. I found that surprising. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/16/04 - 07:01 Post subject:
| Quote: | Number Race Time (in seconds) % of World record
1 5000 meters 1311 173
2 10 mile 4954 183
3 1 mile 393 176
Coefficient (a) Exponent (b) Goodness of fit of model*
0.114 1.101 Good |
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/16/04 - 09:38 Post subject:
| Runner X wrote: | | It says I'm a better 10k runner than a 5k runner. I found that surprising. |
Same here.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/16/04 - 11:02 Post subject:
| Runner X wrote: | | It says I'm a better 10k runner than a 5k runner. I found that surprising. |
Sort of an identity crisis, no?
|
|
|
|
|
CoachCraig
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Dec 2003
Posts: 276
Location: Eugene, OR
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/16/04 - 18:46 Post subject:
This did a pretty good job of this. I actually wrote my own version of this calculator a few years ago that is quite similar, but it isn't available to the public right now. One odd thing is that is says I'm a better 400m runner than a marathoner in spite of having horrible leg speed.
It's rankings for me:
1 10K 1859 117
2 10 mile 3181 117
3 Half marathon 4303 121
4 5000 meters 900 119
5 3000 meters 516 117
6 1500 meters 245 119
7 400 meters 58.9 136
8 Marathon 10142 134
My own rankings for myself:
#1 - 10K
#2 - 5K
#3 - 3000m
#4 - 10 miles
#5 - 1/2 marathon
#6 - 1500m
#7 - Marathon
#8 - 400m
Ultimately I'm physically best suited for marathons, but the 10K works better for my mentality and racing style (hammer).
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/16/04 - 20:28 Post subject:
I disagree with this.
1 Half marathon
2 10 mile
3 5 mile
4 5K
5 Marathon
6 10K
Based on my times I'd rank me as
1 5M
2 Half
3 10M
4 5K
5 10K
6 Marathon
Based on end result v. amount of work to achieve it I'd rank me as
1 5M
2 10M
3 Half
4 10K
5 Marathon
6 5K
|
|
|
|
|
Floridaboiler
POTFH
|
|
|
Joined: 18 May 2002
Posts: 11322
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/16/04 - 20:42 Post subject:
My rankings were:
the ranking of your runs
Number Race Time (in seconds) % of World record
1 5000 meters 1216 160
2 8K 2090 158
3 10 mile 4544 168
4 3 mile 1211 Not Available
5 Half marathon 6225 175
6 Marathon 13525 179
7 1 mile 364 163
8 10K 2782 176
9 5 mile 2381 Not Available
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 10:03 Post subject:
I'm a better 10k runner than marathoner????? I have a truly hard time with that!!!!!! At least it put the 5 mile at the bottom-----there is no question regarding that distance. Hmmmmm....I was thinking of actually training for a 10k this summer...instead of a marathon.
|
|
|
|
|
CoachCraig
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Dec 2003
Posts: 276
Location: Eugene, OR
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 14:25 Post subject:
I'm a little unclear how this does its rankings. While it mentions percent of the world record, it doesn't rank exclusively on that. My guess is that this is based on a curve fit of either world records or world class times, which filters out "exceptional" world records and takes care of "not available" world records at unusual distances.
One issue with this approach is that it tends to overrate short distances and underrate long distances. I'm at roughly the same percentage compared to the world record at 400m and the marathon. However, many people could run 135% of the world record at a sprint distance with little or no training, and 135% at 400m or shorter doesn't even make you better than average as a young, healthy male runner. At the marathon, 135% is a whole different ballgame even though this calculator would say this is the equivalent. The level of training required to run at 135% of the world record in the marathon is very significant, and this kind of time would put you easily in the top 5% of marathon runners, and a tiny fraction of 1% of the general population.
Since very few people do the kind of training volume required to approach their true potential in the longer distances, this calculator doesn't really show what your ultimate best distance is. With improved training, your longer races will improve by a greater percentage than your shorter races.
I am working on a calculator that I think will be somewhat more useful, and I'll share it here when it is done. However, there are really too many variables to effectively evaluate yourself with just an online calculator. Your relative race times need to be combined with an evaluation of the details of those races and your training, as well as you and your coaches experience with your style of running.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 14:47 Post subject:
1 400 meters 65 151
2 10 mile 4650 171
3 Half marathon 6450 181
how about that
|
|
|
|
