General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 4
 
 
2015-10-13 4:27 PM
in reply to: 0


1660
10005001002525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Enter "Ritch Viola" into the USAT search - he's been 100+ in his races at M40, even in local events like the Silicon Valley Triathlon or Donner Lake 70.3. One of the top AGers in the country, and he's raced in a bunch of my races. 

 

As an aside, Craig Alexander (yup, THE Craig Alexander) got like 115 for his 2nd place finish at Vineman this year. Pretty crazy.



Edited by yazmaster 2015-10-13 4:30 PM


2015-10-13 5:31 PM
in reply to: yazmaster

User image

New user
147
10025
Overland Park, KS
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
You can find the 'Par Time' for a given race with a ranking and finish time, multiply your time by your ranking for the race, for example a 5 hr HIM and a ranking of 80 (for that race) will have a par time of 5x.80 = 4 hrs.

USAT calculates (IIRC, several years since I looked it up) the Par Time for a race by taking individual's finish time divided by individual's ranking from prior year for all those who have rankings from prior year, throwing out some outliers (top and bottom 10%?, individual par times, not results) and averaging the remaining individual par times. Based on that par time your race ranking is then calculated as the Par Time divided by your Finish Time.

There will be some race particular variation due to who shows up, if it is particularly top heavy or bottom heavy, trimming the outliers will probably result in a faster or slower par time. I would also think that an IM's par time may get skewed downwards if there are a lot of bucket listers, thus opening up the possibility of higher rankings for those that are competitive. Maybe they do some slightly higher level statistical magic now, I have no inside knowledge, just what I recall from an article in USAT magazine a long time ago and I am a bit of a numbers geek.

Far from perfect but an interesting tool.

2015-10-13 5:57 PM
in reply to: yazmaster

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by yazmaster

Enter "Ritch Viola" into the USAT search - he's been 100+ in his races at M40, even in local events like the Silicon Valley Triathlon or Donner Lake 70.3. One of the top AGers in the country, and he's raced in a bunch of my races. 

 

As an aside, Craig Alexander (yup, THE Craig Alexander) got like 115 for his 2nd place finish at Vineman this year. Pretty crazy.

HIM's are local races?  Ok.

I have noticed that HIM and IM races give WAY more points then sprints or oly's.  I don't know if it's the field or what.

2015-10-13 6:09 PM
in reply to: yazmaster

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by yazmaster

Enter "Ritch Viola" into the USAT search - he's been 100+ in his races at M40, even in local events like the Silicon Valley Triathlon or Donner Lake 70.3. One of the top AGers in the country, and he's raced in a bunch of my races. 

 

As an aside, Craig Alexander (yup, THE Craig Alexander) got like 115 for his 2nd place finish at Vineman this year. Pretty crazy.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Dude, I entered Ritch Viola......he is averaging 104 or so.  His races are Two Ironman 70.3's and Alcatraz.  LMAO  Local???  Hello?

2015-10-13 6:13 PM
in reply to: Left Brain


1660
10005001002525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Uhh, yeah. 

Neither the Silicon Valley Triathlon nor Donner Lake are considered "national-class" triathlons, although sure, the top guys are pretty fast, but that's pretty much the case for most races here in Norcal. 

 

The point is that you can in fact get 100 or 100+ USAT scores in local, non-national class races if you beat the field by a large enough margin - you don't have to race against a totally stacked elite field to get that number.

2015-10-13 6:18 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
I don't understand these USAT scores

Did Miami 70.3
Came 4th in my AG in an event with 3000 people, swam ok, hit good watts, ran a 1:36 for a total of 4h44. One of my better races : I got 86points

Did worlds 70.3
Came in ...hell I don't remember but it was in the 60s. Swam like crap, watts were crap, walked, for a total of 5h27. One of my worst races ever : I got 84 points

My n=1 is this isn't a great way to measure performance.


2015-10-13 6:22 PM
in reply to: yazmaster

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by yazmaster

Uhh, yeah. 

Neither the Silicon Valley Triathlon nor Donner Lake are considered "national-class" triathlons, although sure, the top guys are pretty fast, but that's pretty much the case for most races here in Norcal. 

 

The point is that you can in fact get 100 or 100+ USAT scores in local, non-national class races if you beat the field by a large enough margin - you don't have to race against a totally stacked elite field to get that number.

Yeah, for the most part you do.  It's not arguable.  You won't get anywhere near 100 pts. by winning your local municipal triathlon.  Hell, you can AG podium at most of them and get 65-75 pts.  I know this firsthand. LOL 

Those races you mentioned are really stacked and draw very fast fields....hardly a "local" race.  Nice try though.

2015-10-13 6:59 PM
in reply to: #5145925

User image


85
252525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
I'm 82 and 84 for two local sprints where I podium'd both in 25-29 AG. Have my first HIM this weekend. Not expecting a podium here but will be interested to see where the number comes back (even though I missed almost all my running this year.. Grr).

Overall, this thread is full of good info. This is my first full season in tri and Kona has definitely ran through my mind. I'm certainly planning to build speed at sprint and oly next few years before I try to carry that over to long course. Thanks to everyone who put time into the numbers to quantify (for the most part) what is needed. Good luck, 3Mar.. I'll chase the dream with you. Good luck at B2B this weekend, I'll be there too.
2015-10-13 7:11 PM
in reply to: tjones2k9

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by tjones2k9 I'm 82 and 84 for two local sprints where I podium'd both in 25-29 AG. Have my first HIM this weekend. Not expecting a podium here but will be interested to see where the number comes back (even though I missed almost all my running this year.. Grr). Overall, this thread is full of good info. This is my first full season in tri and Kona has definitely ran through my mind. I'm certainly planning to build speed at sprint and oly next few years before I try to carry that over to long course. Thanks to everyone who put time into the numbers to quantify (for the most part) what is needed. Good luck, 3Mar.. I'll chase the dream with you. Good luck at B2B this weekend, I'll be there too.

 talked to a USAT guy a few minutes ago and asked about the BIG points that you can really only get in HIM's and IM's....the 110 plus point races.  He told me that it was the same formula, but since the races are longer you can put quite a bit more time into the "par" time and therefore get more points.  Makes sense.  Your 82 and 84 for local sprint podium is pretty normal.  Good luck with your HIM!

2015-10-13 9:38 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by marcag I don't understand these USAT scores Did Miami 70.3 Came 4th in my AG in an event with 3000 people, swam ok, hit good watts, ran a 1:36 for a total of 4h44. One of my better races : I got 86points Did worlds 70.3 Came in ...hell I don't remember but it was in the 60s. Swam like crap, watts were crap, walked, for a total of 5h27. One of my worst races ever : I got 84 points My n=1 is this isn't a great way to measure performance.

ETA - I had it backwards.  It actually makes sense.  Even though your time was slower and you felt you raced much worse that you are capable of at Worlds, your performance was still relative to the field in the race. Your race, no matter how good or bad you think you did, is always compared to the field of that particular race. The Miami race had a faster "par" time....it happens.



Edited by Left Brain 2015-10-13 9:49 PM
2015-10-14 4:40 AM
in reply to: tjones2k9

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
Originally posted by tjones2k9

I'm 82 and 84 for two local sprints where I podium'd both in 25-29 AG. Have my first HIM this weekend. Not expecting a podium here but will be interested to see where the number comes back (even though I missed almost all my running this year.. Grr).

Overall, this thread is full of good info. This is my first full season in tri and Kona has definitely ran through my mind. I'm certainly planning to build speed at sprint and oly next few years before I try to carry that over to long course. Thanks to everyone who put time into the numbers to quantify (for the most part) what is needed. Good luck, 3Mar.. I'll chase the dream with you. Good luck at B2B this weekend, I'll be there too.


Good luck to you too. The weather looks pretty good so far. Should be a good race.


2015-10-14 5:10 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by marcag I don't understand these USAT scores Did Miami 70.3 Came 4th in my AG in an event with 3000 people, swam ok, hit good watts, ran a 1:36 for a total of 4h44. One of my better races : I got 86points Did worlds 70.3 Came in ...hell I don't remember but it was in the 60s. Swam like crap, watts were crap, walked, for a total of 5h27. One of my worst races ever : I got 84 points My n=1 is this isn't a great way to measure performance.

ETA - I had it backwards.  It actually makes sense.  Even though your time was slower and you felt you raced much worse that you are capable of at Worlds, your performance was still relative to the field in the race. Your race, no matter how good or bad you think you did, is always compared to the field of that particular race. The Miami race had a faster "par" time....it happens.




Is it possible they do not use age in the calculation ?

In the Miami 70.3 race I was 4th in my AG (50-54)
If I look at the guy in the 35-39 AG with the exact same time, same race, he is 27th and he has exactly the same number of points.

I am guessing they don't take age into consideration, which makes sense in some ways

EDIT : 99% sure the numbers are NOT AG adjusted. I looked at the guy 2 AG older. He won his AG but went 40min slower. He has significantly less points.

Edited by marcag 2015-10-14 5:23 AM
2015-10-14 7:00 AM
in reply to: marcag

User image

Pro
6011
50001000
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by marcag
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by marcag I don't understand these USAT scores Did Miami 70.3 Came 4th in my AG in an event with 3000 people, swam ok, hit good watts, ran a 1:36 for a total of 4h44. One of my better races : I got 86points Did worlds 70.3 Came in ...hell I don't remember but it was in the 60s. Swam like crap, watts were crap, walked, for a total of 5h27. One of my worst races ever : I got 84 points My n=1 is this isn't a great way to measure performance.

ETA - I had it backwards.  It actually makes sense.  Even though your time was slower and you felt you raced much worse that you are capable of at Worlds, your performance was still relative to the field in the race. Your race, no matter how good or bad you think you did, is always compared to the field of that particular race. The Miami race had a faster "par" time....it happens.

Is it possible they do not use age in the calculation ? In the Miami 70.3 race I was 4th in my AG (50-54) If I look at the guy in the 35-39 AG with the exact same time, same race, he is 27th and he has exactly the same number of points. I am guessing they don't take age into consideration, which makes sense in some ways EDIT : 99% sure the numbers are NOT AG adjusted. I looked at the guy 2 AG older. He won his AG but went 40min slower. He has significantly less points.

You're right.  Age is not a factor in score calculation.  It's strictly time.  If you look at the top rankings in various AG's, you'll notice that the older groups have lower scores, because they're slower relative to the par time.  Here is more information:  http://www.usatriathlon.org/rankings/rankings-criteria.aspx

 

2015-10-14 10:17 AM
in reply to: marcag

User image

New user
147
10025
Overland Park, KS
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
Originally posted by marcag

I don't understand these USAT scores

Did Miami 70.3
Came 4th in my AG in an event with 3000 people, swam ok, hit good watts, ran a 1:36 for a total of 4h44. One of my better races : I got 86points

Did worlds 70.3
Came in ...hell I don't remember but it was in the 60s. Swam like crap, watts were crap, walked, for a total of 5h27. One of my worst races ever : I got 84 points

My n=1 is this isn't a great way to measure performance.



The problem here is obvious, USAT score, doesn't work for Canadians :-)
2015-10-14 10:25 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
Originally posted by mikec123

Originally posted by marcag

I don't understand these USAT scores

Did Miami 70.3
Came 4th in my AG in an event with 3000 people, swam ok, hit good watts, ran a 1:36 for a total of 4h44. One of my better races : I got 86points

Did worlds 70.3
Came in ...hell I don't remember but it was in the 60s. Swam like crap, watts were crap, walked, for a total of 5h27. One of my worst races ever : I got 84 points

My n=1 is this isn't a great way to measure performance.



The problem here is obvious, USAT score, doesn't work for Canadians :-)



Well if they are going to take my $10, it should :-)

I had never looked at them before this conversation but it's interesting. The fact they aren't age graded was confusing.

I still don't believe they are good at differentiating good and bad performances. My good races are within a point of my bad races. Maybe 1 point is a lot, but it's very much good=86, bad=84 and average is 85. I was expecting more separation.

I do prefer the AWA (Ironman All world athlete) as it gives you points based on time behind the leader of your AG.

It's too bad they don't do this internationally.
I am guessing Americans that win races in Canada don't get credit for them ?
My best races were in Canada. I would love to see how they would score.

I am waiting to see my ITU Chicago worlds score. I SUCKED big time. If I get an 85, I give up :-)


Edited by marcag 2015-10-14 10:26 AM
2015-10-14 10:50 AM
in reply to: marcag

User image

Expert
2547
200050025
The Woodlands, TX
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by marcag I don't understand these USAT scores Did Miami 70.3 Came 4th in my AG in an event with 3000 people, swam ok, hit good watts, ran a 1:36 for a total of 4h44. One of my better races : I got 86points Did worlds 70.3 Came in ...hell I don't remember but it was in the 60s. Swam like crap, watts were crap, walked, for a total of 5h27. One of my worst races ever : I got 84 points My n=1 is this isn't a great way to measure performance.

 

I couldn't agree more. USAT rankings have never worked for me. One year I qualified for kona at IMAZ (spring race). 10 age/34overall. Got 3rd overall/1st age at a local sprint with 1000+ people, and did Kona. My ranking that year was somewhere in the middle of the rankings on page 2 or 3. I punted on the whole idea after that.



2015-10-14 10:57 AM
in reply to: tjfry

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by tjfry

Originally posted by marcag I don't understand these USAT scores Did Miami 70.3 Came 4th in my AG in an event with 3000 people, swam ok, hit good watts, ran a 1:36 for a total of 4h44. One of my better races : I got 86points Did worlds 70.3 Came in ...hell I don't remember but it was in the 60s. Swam like crap, watts were crap, walked, for a total of 5h27. One of my worst races ever : I got 84 points My n=1 is this isn't a great way to measure performance.

 

I couldn't agree more. USAT rankings have never worked for me. One year I qualified for kona at IMAZ (spring race). 10 age/34overall. Got 3rd overall/1st age at a local sprint with 1000+ people, and did Kona. My ranking that year was somewhere in the middle of the rankings on page 2 or 3. I punted on the whole idea after that.

winning your age group at a big sprint is fairly meaningless as far as measuring your performance nationally......

2015-10-14 12:14 PM
in reply to: Left Brain


1660
10005001002525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by yazmaster

Uhh, yeah. 

Neither the Silicon Valley Triathlon nor Donner Lake are considered "national-class" triathlons, although sure, the top guys are pretty fast, but that's pretty much the case for most races here in Norcal. 

 

The point is that you can in fact get 100 or 100+ USAT scores in local, non-national class races if you beat the field by a large enough margin - you don't have to race against a totally stacked elite field to get that number.

Yeah, for the most part you do.  It's not arguable.  You won't get anywhere near 100 pts. by winning your local municipal triathlon.  Hell, you can AG podium at most of them and get 65-75 pts.  I know this firsthand. LOL 

Those races you mentioned are really stacked and draw very fast fields....hardly a "local" race.  Nice try though.

\

Unlike what you say, the Silicon Valley tri and Donner lake are not 'stacked' triathlons here in Norcal - they're pretty typical of the competitive level of the field that shows up. For sure, you still get substantially faster people at the WTC events in the front. In my last 3 local tris, the Every Man Jack triathlon mens triathlon team showed up, and pretty much swept most of the spots 1-8 in M20-50 with Oly times around 2 flat.

2015-10-14 12:19 PM
in reply to: yazmaster

User image

Pro
6011
50001000
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by yazmaster

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by yazmaster

Uhh, yeah. 

Neither the Silicon Valley Triathlon nor Donner Lake are considered "national-class" triathlons, although sure, the top guys are pretty fast, but that's pretty much the case for most races here in Norcal. 

 

The point is that you can in fact get 100 or 100+ USAT scores in local, non-national class races if you beat the field by a large enough margin - you don't have to race against a totally stacked elite field to get that number.

Yeah, for the most part you do.  It's not arguable.  You won't get anywhere near 100 pts. by winning your local municipal triathlon.  Hell, you can AG podium at most of them and get 65-75 pts.  I know this firsthand. LOL 

Those races you mentioned are really stacked and draw very fast fields....hardly a "local" race.  Nice try though.

\

Unlike what you say, the Silicon Valley tri and Donner lake are not 'stacked' triathlons here in Norcal - they're pretty typical of the competitive level of the field that shows up. For sure, you still get substantially faster people at the WTC events in the front. In my last 3 local tris, the Every Man Jack triathlon mens triathlon team showed up, and pretty much swept most of the spots 1-8 in M20-50 with Oly times around 2 flat.

[Sigh]

 





Attachments
----------------
How_are_race_scores_calculated.docx (20KB - 23 downloads)
2015-10-14 12:51 PM
in reply to: tjfry

User image


8763
5000200010005001001002525
Boulder, Colorado
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by tjfry

Originally posted by marcag I don't understand these USAT scores Did Miami 70.3 Came 4th in my AG in an event with 3000 people, swam ok, hit good watts, ran a 1:36 for a total of 4h44. One of my better races : I got 86points Did worlds 70.3 Came in ...hell I don't remember but it was in the 60s. Swam like crap, watts were crap, walked, for a total of 5h27. One of my worst races ever : I got 84 points My n=1 is this isn't a great way to measure performance.

 

I couldn't agree more. USAT rankings have never worked for me. One year I qualified for kona at IMAZ (spring race). 10 age/34overall. Got 3rd overall/1st age at a local sprint with 1000+ people, and did Kona. My ranking that year was somewhere in the middle of the rankings on page 2 or 3. I punted on the whole idea after that.

Many people will cherry pick races, so you don't stand a chance. If you had done Nationals, 70.3 Worlds and Kona as your 3 races, maybe....

2015-10-14 1:56 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by mikericci

Originally posted by tjfry

Originally posted by marcag I don't understand these USAT scores Did Miami 70.3 Came 4th in my AG in an event with 3000 people, swam ok, hit good watts, ran a 1:36 for a total of 4h44. One of my better races : I got 86points Did worlds 70.3 Came in ...hell I don't remember but it was in the 60s. Swam like crap, watts were crap, walked, for a total of 5h27. One of my worst races ever : I got 84 points My n=1 is this isn't a great way to measure performance.

 

I couldn't agree more. USAT rankings have never worked for me. One year I qualified for kona at IMAZ (spring race). 10 age/34overall. Got 3rd overall/1st age at a local sprint with 1000+ people, and did Kona. My ranking that year was somewhere in the middle of the rankings on page 2 or 3. I punted on the whole idea after that.

Many people will cherry pick races, so you don't stand a chance. If you had done Nationals, 70.3 Worlds and Kona as your 3 races, maybe....

That's exactly what my kid wanted to do last year.  He had moved up in rankings each year and last year, since he was 17, he wanted to make a run at the #1 16-17 AG ranking.  He didn't do any local races, and for his 3 AG races he picked, like I said, ITU Chicago, AG Nationals, and AG Worlds.  He got it.  Does that mean he was the best 16-17 year old triathlete that year?  No.  But in his AG it was a pretty good measure of the top 10 or so for non-draft racing.  It was just a goal he had, and he figured that he wanted to work on his ITU ranking once he was 18, so last year was his "last chance", as he put it.  This year he has no ranking because he didn't race any AG races except for a few local club races that weren't even USAT certified.  Does that mean he's now last in AG?  No.  It's just something that was fun for him.

I think one year I was ranked 9385 or so......so we can claim 2 in the top 10,000.



Edited by Left Brain 2015-10-14 1:58 PM


2015-10-15 7:47 AM
in reply to: #5145925

User image

Expert
1159
10001002525
Charlotte, NC
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
I love your enthusiasm and your determination and it seems like you've got what it takes to make a real go at this. However, I'd encourage you to have different definitions of success than just qualifying for Kona, otherwise you may be setting yourself up for disappointment. A few weeks ago I went 10:32 at IM Choo and was a full 30 minutes from a KQ. If KQ was the sole determinant of success on that day, I would have been very discouraged at my results. However, I gave it everything I had, high fived a bunch of spectators along the way, thanked the volunteers at each aid station, kissed my wife near the finish line and made it to the end healthy. That was a success in my book even without the KQ.

Good luck on your journey. Make sure you take time to enjoy the trip.
2015-10-15 10:24 AM
in reply to: mikericci

User image

Expert
2547
200050025
The Woodlands, TX
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by mikericci

Originally posted by tjfry

Originally posted by marcag I don't understand these USAT scores Did Miami 70.3 Came 4th in my AG in an event with 3000 people, swam ok, hit good watts, ran a 1:36 for a total of 4h44. One of my better races : I got 86points Did worlds 70.3 Came in ...hell I don't remember but it was in the 60s. Swam like crap, watts were crap, walked, for a total of 5h27. One of my worst races ever : I got 84 points My n=1 is this isn't a great way to measure performance.

 

I couldn't agree more. USAT rankings have never worked for me. One year I qualified for kona at IMAZ (spring race). 10 age/34overall. Got 3rd overall/1st age at a local sprint with 1000+ people, and did Kona. My ranking that year was somewhere in the middle of the rankings on page 2 or 3. I punted on the whole idea after that.

Many people will cherry pick races, so you don't stand a chance. If you had done Nationals, 70.3 Worlds and Kona as your 3 races, maybe....

That's my point. Even as a junior WAY back when, I was top ten at Nationals, On the junior team at worlds and won a slew of races in tx and was way down the list behind people I had beaten heads up throughout the season. They cherry picked for rankings and I didn't. So I've never felt that the rankings are accurate. Certainly don't feel they are an indicator for Kona.

2015-10-15 10:46 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Not a Coach
11473
5000500010001001001001002525
Media, PA
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by TriMyBest

Originally posted by yazmaster

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by yazmaster

Uhh, yeah. 

Neither the Silicon Valley Triathlon nor Donner Lake are considered "national-class" triathlons, although sure, the top guys are pretty fast, but that's pretty much the case for most races here in Norcal. 

 

The point is that you can in fact get 100 or 100+ USAT scores in local, non-national class races if you beat the field by a large enough margin - you don't have to race against a totally stacked elite field to get that number.

Yeah, for the most part you do.  It's not arguable.  You won't get anywhere near 100 pts. by winning your local municipal triathlon.  Hell, you can AG podium at most of them and get 65-75 pts.  I know this firsthand. LOL 

Those races you mentioned are really stacked and draw very fast fields....hardly a "local" race.  Nice try though.

\

Unlike what you say, the Silicon Valley tri and Donner lake are not 'stacked' triathlons here in Norcal - they're pretty typical of the competitive level of the field that shows up. For sure, you still get substantially faster people at the WTC events in the front. In my last 3 local tris, the Every Man Jack triathlon mens triathlon team showed up, and pretty much swept most of the spots 1-8 in M20-50 with Oly times around 2 flat.

[Sigh]

 

 

Out of curiosity, I decided to actually read the attachment Don provided. 

What you need to get a high score, if I understand, is to beat the races 'par time' by a wide margin.  The par time is set by those in the race who have rankings from the prior year.  You don't need a 'stacked field' or even to beat the field by a wide margin.  It would actually help to have a 'weak' par--for example, a lot of the prior ranked athletes to 'underperform' versus their past performances.  This actually seems most likely in a small race with a smaller sample size.  But, conversely, so is the opportunity to have a 'strong' par set and end up with a poor ranking.  Larger races seem likely to give more 'accurate' readings because your sample size is likely to more often yield a representative 'par'.

 

EDIT:  Actually, I think, you just need to get close to the par time to get a high score (beating it guarantees a 100+ if I understood correctly).



Edited by JohnnyKay 2015-10-15 10:47 AM
2015-10-15 11:09 AM
in reply to: JohnnyKay

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by JohnnyKay

Originally posted by TriMyBest

Originally posted by yazmaster

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by yazmaster

Uhh, yeah. 

Neither the Silicon Valley Triathlon nor Donner Lake are considered "national-class" triathlons, although sure, the top guys are pretty fast, but that's pretty much the case for most races here in Norcal. 

 

The point is that you can in fact get 100 or 100+ USAT scores in local, non-national class races if you beat the field by a large enough margin - you don't have to race against a totally stacked elite field to get that number.

Yeah, for the most part you do.  It's not arguable.  You won't get anywhere near 100 pts. by winning your local municipal triathlon.  Hell, you can AG podium at most of them and get 65-75 pts.  I know this firsthand. LOL 

Those races you mentioned are really stacked and draw very fast fields....hardly a "local" race.  Nice try though.

\

Unlike what you say, the Silicon Valley tri and Donner lake are not 'stacked' triathlons here in Norcal - they're pretty typical of the competitive level of the field that shows up. For sure, you still get substantially faster people at the WTC events in the front. In my last 3 local tris, the Every Man Jack triathlon mens triathlon team showed up, and pretty much swept most of the spots 1-8 in M20-50 with Oly times around 2 flat.

[Sigh]

 

 

Out of curiosity, I decided to actually read the attachment Don provided. 

What you need to get a high score, if I understand, is to beat the races 'par time' by a wide margin.  The par time is set by those in the race who have rankings from the prior year.  You don't need a 'stacked field' or even to beat the field by a wide margin.  It would actually help to have a 'weak' par--for example, a lot of the prior ranked athletes to 'underperform' versus their past performances.  This actually seems most likely in a small race with a smaller sample size.  But, conversely, so is the opportunity to have a 'strong' par set and end up with a poor ranking.  Larger races seem likely to give more 'accurate' readings because your sample size is likely to more often yield a representative 'par'.

 

EDIT:  Actually, I think, you just need to get close to the par time to get a high score (beating it guarantees a 100+ if I understood correctly).

I don't think that can be right.  I have been to a number of races where the folks we were with won the overall (a Jr. team that can win virtually any sprint).....and obviously beat the par time.  I have seen those folks get scores in the high 80's.  Maybe it holds truen for HIM and IM....because you can get some BIG points by being on the front end of those races.  The problem with trying to figure it out is that you never know what the "par" time is.....as far as I know.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Rss Feed  
 
 
of 4
 
 
RELATED POSTS

How to qualify for Kona? Pages: 1 2

Started by bendoregon
Views: 5200 Posts: 39

2007-12-04 10:36 PM jcjsc00

My kid qualified for Kona today!!!! Pages: 1 2

Started by Scout
Views: 2874 Posts: 33

2007-06-26 8:01 PM Scout

What IM time will qualify you for Kona?

Started by nuorder
Views: 1348 Posts: 8

2006-09-07 8:39 AM amiine

Easy to qualify for Kona?

Started by paTRIck
Views: 1252 Posts: 6

2006-02-26 4:59 PM TH3_FRB

Qualifying for Kona at IMWI

Started by derekh25
Views: 1562 Posts: 12

2005-05-09 7:24 PM OldAg92
RELATED ARTICLES
date : November 12, 2010
author : Coach AJ
comments : 0
Four Kona athletes give us their race stories.
 
date : October 20, 2010
author : Coach AJ
comments : 0
We interview several age-groupers pre-race on their Ironman Kona race thoughts.
date : January 14, 2008
author : dr_forbush
comments : 0
In addition to writing your race number on each upper arm, they also wrote your age on your calf. This allowed me to see who was passing me by in the bike section of this race.
 
date : July 2, 2006
author : acbadger
comments : 1
Is there a magic number of days off for your training plan? Is it a one size fits all or an an individual choice?
date : July 5, 2005
author : KevinKonczak
comments : 0
After you have established the Ironman goal, the most important factor outside of the training is which race to choose? What is your best sort of course, hilly, rolling, flat?