I'm getting no work done today thanks to this.
I've looked at my performance as a % of the winner's time and what I thought was my best performance was actually my worst!
Top 4% of finishers in Great North run, but nearly 160% of winner's time. Damn Hendrick Ramaala.
It's interesting to see the correlation on an excel chart - my two lines are definitely moving in the right direction as I get fitter.
Who said geek?
Which would be:
=(100-your pos/field number*100+winning time in mins/your time in mins*100)/2
I'd just be happy to get off the last page of the results sheets
at present i am just happy to be able to run, fininshing is a bonus
(You may not be surprised to know that...)
I have recorded my:
i) position/ no of finishers (complicated sometimes by separate male/female races) as a %, and
ii) time/winning time as a %
for every race I have done over the last 20 years.
Since I do 50 fell races a year that is a lot of data and, narcissistically, I find it is illuminating.
A purer approach is the concept of Standard Race Times which ex-FRA Statistician Brian Martin used in his magisterial "Lakeland Classics-Top 20 Men All Time Rankings" (Fellrunner June 2005).
However most people might think simple is best.
GB
I find this an interesting idea, and though it is only a guideline it is illuminating. ChrisU has this on the SHRacing site as he puts race results in and I am certainly improving on last year, which is always good to see.
However what about the effects of aging? Has anyone looked at the age multipliers which are used for track and road? I think there was an article in RunnersWorld about this a few months ago.
Having only started this lark a year and a half ago I am still getting absolute pbs, but over the years this must get harder as I am already over 40.
Jason
Jason
Is it meant to be this hard?
i find that if i am performing to my abilty i can only drink 1 bottled beer, if i am under performing , i can drink as much as i can before i fall on the floor normally 8 pints..