Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

Champion

6962

Atlanta, Ga

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

I personally include the DNF's but not the DNS. You raced against all that toed the line with you.

Just my 2 cents.

My Race Log

Resident Curmudgeon

25290

The Road Back

Gold member

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

Finishers only. How do you know 260 even started the race? Anyone can send in an entry and not show. Why not count the billions that didn't even bother to do that?

My $0.02.

Edited by the bear 2006-08-01 9:10 AM

My Race Log

Champion

11641

Fairport, NY

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

I count DNF but not DNS.

The number that started the race can usually be found in the online results depending on how they're published. The race production company that scores most of the tris in my area gives a breakdown of registered vs. starters.

My Race Log

Champion

7036

Sarasota, FL

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

Not to sound too heartless, but shouldn't you be more concerned about the 112 who finished in front of you rather than the undetermined number who finished behind?

Mark

My Race Log

Resident Curmudgeon

25290

The Road Back

Gold member

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

RedCorvette - 2006-08-01 10:09 AM

Not to sound too heartless, but shouldn't you be more concerned about the 112 who finished in front of you rather than the undetermined number who finished behind?

Mark

Bingo!

My Race Log

New user

129

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

In defense of the original post, I use percentiles to gauge progress as well. The reason being that different distances, different conditions, and different terrains can give you varied results. I come from a marathon background and I base my performances on time as every course is 26.2 miles. Now one could argue that different conditions and different terrains come into play as well but not to the extent of a triathlon. PRs are very difficult to maintain in the triathlon world whereas, in a marathon, most runners know their PR.

Back to the comment that we should be more concerned about the people in front of us. If 15 people finished in front of us in a race in which 16 people entered we would consider that a poor result. Had I finished in 15th place at St. Anthony's I would have been ecstatic! Gauging one's performance on percentiles seems, to me, to be the most effective means of measuring progress.

I think we are up to 6 cents after you add my 2.

My Race Log

Master

2946

Centennial, CO

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

Here's a question though. I understand only to count those who started, but what does USAT do? If say you are in a Grand Prix event and the top 33% in your AG qualify for nationals. Is that based upon those who Registered, Started or Finished?

I guess I would do what the official USAT rankings said.

My Race Log

Master

2060

Northern California

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

Tri-Atlanta - 2006-08-01 1:53 PM

I think we are up to 6 cents after you add my 2.

Not quite. You can substract the $0.01 for the second sentence in Bear's first post as he was clearly trying too hard to be a grouch.

My Race Log

Champion

7036

Sarasota, FL

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

Tri-Atlanta - 2006-08-01 4:53 PM In defense of the original post, I use percentiles to gauge progress as well. The reason being that different distances, different conditions, and different terrains can give you varied results. I come from a marathon background and I base my performances on time as every course is 26.2 miles. Now one could argue that different conditions and different terrains come into play as well but not to the extent of a triathlon. PRs are very difficult to maintain in the triathlon world whereas, in a marathon, most runners know their PR. Back to the comment that we should be more concerned about the people in front of us. If 15 people finished in front of us in a race in which 16 people entered we would consider that a poor result. Had I finished in 15th place at St. Anthony's I would have been ecstatic! Gauging one's performance on percentiles seems, to me, to be the most effective means of measuring progress. I think we are up to 6 cents after you add my 2.

If you raced the exact same group of people in every race you entered, then your argument might make sense. What if your race example with 16 people had 15 elites/pros entered and you did a PR to finish 16th? Would you go home with your tail between your legs? Then your next race is full of first-timers, you end up on the podium, but run a terrible race? Do you party and celebrate all night? Do you brag about beating all the 70 year-olds and the physically challenged competitors? I'll concede that relative performance over time is an indication of progress, but your individual race pace for each discipline and your overall time is a truer measure of your performance in my view.

Mark

My Race Log

Expert

897

Seattle WA

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

RedCorvette - 2006-08-01 7:54 PM

Tri-Atlanta - 2006-08-01 4:53 PM In defense of the original post, I use percentiles to gauge progress as well. The reason being that different distances, different conditions, and different terrains can give you varied results. I come from a marathon background and I base my performances on time as every course is 26.2 miles. Now one could argue that different conditions and different terrains come into play as well but not to the extent of a triathlon. PRs are very difficult to maintain in the triathlon world whereas, in a marathon, most runners know their PR. Back to the comment that we should be more concerned about the people in front of us. If 15 people finished in front of us in a race in which 16 people entered we would consider that a poor result. Had I finished in 15th place at St. Anthony's I would have been ecstatic! Gauging one's performance on percentiles seems, to me, to be the most effective means of measuring progress. I think we are up to 6 cents after you add my 2.

If you raced the exact same group of people in every race you entered, then your argument might make sense. What if your race example with 16 people had 15 elites/pros entered and you did a PR to finish 16th? Would you go home with your tail between your legs? Then your next race is full of first-timers, you end up on the podium, but run a terrible race? Do you party and celebrate all night? Do you brag about beating all the 70 year-olds and the physically challenged competitors? I'll concede that relative performance over time is an indication of progress, but your individual race pace for each discipline and your overall time is a truer measure of your performance in my view.

Mark

Mark -

In most triathlons, you'll have a good distribution of competitors - elites, newbies, etc. It seems a good assumption taht the people entering are of the same caliber, overall, for most races. Thus why it's useful to look at rank/percentile. Also, weather and terrain (and course length) can make a huge difference, so basing your evaluation solely on pace and time doesn't make sense. But, by looking at rank you take these factors out of hte picture.

Basically, the differences in the overall makeup of fellow competitors is likely far less than the differences due to weather and terrain.

Edited by tpetersen02 2006-08-01 7:18 PM

My Race Log

Champion

7036

Sarasota, FL

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

tpetersen02 - 2006-08-01 8:17 PM

RedCorvette - 2006-08-01 7:54 PM

Tri-Atlanta - 2006-08-01 4:53 PM In defense of the original post, I use percentiles to gauge progress as well. The reason being that different distances, different conditions, and different terrains can give you varied results. I come from a marathon background and I base my performances on time as every course is 26.2 miles. Now one could argue that different conditions and different terrains come into play as well but not to the extent of a triathlon. PRs are very difficult to maintain in the triathlon world whereas, in a marathon, most runners know their PR. Back to the comment that we should be more concerned about the people in front of us. If 15 people finished in front of us in a race in which 16 people entered we would consider that a poor result. Had I finished in 15th place at St. Anthony's I would have been ecstatic! Gauging one's performance on percentiles seems, to me, to be the most effective means of measuring progress. I think we are up to 6 cents after you add my 2.

If you raced the exact same group of people in every race you entered, then your argument might make sense. What if your race example with 16 people had 15 elites/pros entered and you did a PR to finish 16th? Would you go home with your tail between your legs? Then your next race is full of first-timers, you end up on the podium, but run a terrible race? Do you party and celebrate all night? Do you brag about beating all the 70 year-olds and the physically challenged competitors? I'll concede that relative performance over time is an indication of progress, but your individual race pace for each discipline and your overall time is a truer measure of your performance in my view.

Mark

Mark -

In most triathlons, you'll have a good distribution of competitors - elites, newbies, etc. It seems a good assumption taht the people entering are of the same caliber, overall, for most races. Thus why it's useful to look at rank/percentile. Also, weather and terrain (and course length) can make a huge difference, so basing your evaluation solely on pace and time doesn't make sense. But, by looking at rank you take these factors out of hte picture.

Basically, the differences in the overall makeup of fellow competitors is likely far less than the differences due to weather and terrain.

If you read my post you'll see that I don't completely discount relative performance. If you're a pro or elite, yeah, it probably has some merit because you're probably facing off against the same folks all the time. But if you're back in the AG pack, I just think it's misleading to evaluate your performance on relative placing alone. That's why the USAT ranking points formula factors in performance versus the winner's time, not just finishing position. And if you're implying that you'll have the same distribution of athletes at St. Anthony's verses a race run by a local YMCA, I don't buy that.

My $0.02

Mark

My Race Log

Expert

897

Seattle WA

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

RedCorvette - 2006-08-01 9:49 PM

tpetersen02 - 2006-08-01 8:17 PM

RedCorvette - 2006-08-01 7:54 PM

Tri-Atlanta - 2006-08-01 4:53 PM In defense of the original post, I use percentiles to gauge progress as well. The reason being that different distances, different conditions, and different terrains can give you varied results. I come from a marathon background and I base my performances on time as every course is 26.2 miles. Now one could argue that different conditions and different terrains come into play as well but not to the extent of a triathlon. PRs are very difficult to maintain in the triathlon world whereas, in a marathon, most runners know their PR. Back to the comment that we should be more concerned about the people in front of us. If 15 people finished in front of us in a race in which 16 people entered we would consider that a poor result. Had I finished in 15th place at St. Anthony's I would have been ecstatic! Gauging one's performance on percentiles seems, to me, to be the most effective means of measuring progress. I think we are up to 6 cents after you add my 2.

If you raced the exact same group of people in every race you entered, then your argument might make sense. What if your race example with 16 people had 15 elites/pros entered and you did a PR to finish 16th? Would you go home with your tail between your legs? Then your next race is full of first-timers, you end up on the podium, but run a terrible race? Do you party and celebrate all night? Do you brag about beating all the 70 year-olds and the physically challenged competitors? I'll concede that relative performance over time is an indication of progress, but your individual race pace for each discipline and your overall time is a truer measure of your performance in my view.

Mark

Mark -

In most triathlons, you'll have a good distribution of competitors - elites, newbies, etc. It seems a good assumption taht the people entering are of the same caliber, overall, for most races. Thus why it's useful to look at rank/percentile. Also, weather and terrain (and course length) can make a huge difference, so basing your evaluation solely on pace and time doesn't make sense. But, by looking at rank you take these factors out of hte picture.

Basically, the differences in the overall makeup of fellow competitors is likely far less than the differences due to weather and terrain.

If you read my post you'll see that I don't completely discount relative performance. If you're a pro or elite, yeah, it probably has some merit because you're probably facing off against the same folks all the time. But if you're back in the AG pack, I just think it's misleading to evaluate your performance on relative placing alone. That's why the USAT ranking points formula factors in performance versus the winner's time, not just finishing position. And if you're implying that you'll have the same distribution of athletes at St. Anthony's verses a race run by a local YMCA, I don't buy that.

My $0.02

Mark

Yeah - I agree you can't compare St A's to a local YMCA tri, but if it's an organized tri with more than ~200-300 people, statistically you're likely to get a decent distribution (if you're in a semi-well populated AG). Plus, for a series of races in a given area, even among top AGers, you're going to get to know your competition - not just elites.

I think the USAT formula, and others, that rate performance to the winner effectively do the same thing as finishing position. Which one is better is hard to say, but it's easier for people to calculate percentage than some relative number vs the winner. It seemed from your argument that you meant you would ignore relative performance vs winner and focus only on total time/pace.

Oh, and yes, I'm "back" in the AG pack... VERY far back...

enjoy,
tom

My Race Log

Master

3019

West Jordan, UT

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

RedCorvette - 2006-08-01 9:09 AM

Not to sound too heartless, but shouldn't you be more concerned about the 112 who finished in front of you rather than the undetermined number who finished behind?

Mark

Don't listen to these guys, I think it is awesome you did well enough to finish in the middle.

My Race Log

New user

129

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

Truth is that ranking and pacing both play a role in how I determine progress. For the upcoming Timberman HIM in a few weeks I looked at what pacing was feasible considering the hills. I then looked at last year's results to determine where that would place me. If I hit my "reasonable" goal then I would be somewhere between the 33% and 50% percentile. Obviously, there are certain elements that could effect my time but many of these elements would likely effect all competitors. It would effect my time but it would have less of an impact on the percentile finish. For example, Gilford NH will have a high temp today of nearly 90 degrees. Also, the weather has been warmer than average this summer and there is an outside possibility that the water temp would be too high for wetsuits. Both of these factors play into EVERY athletes race so I believe gauging one's performance on relative placing is a good means of determining performance.

With that being said, if I finished in the 33rd percentile but ran 9 minute miles for the 1/2 mary than I would be disappointed. I hit my "relative placing" goal but I had an event that was far less than my expectations.

It all plays into our determination of performance. Marathons are much easier. I will run the Gasparilla Marathon in February and there is only one measure of success ... 3:20:59. That gets me into Boston.

My Race Log

Runner

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

Generally, I look at a couple things. I look at my time versus what I have done in the past / thought I would do that day (goal time or whatever). Then I look at my overall rank and whatever other rank to see where I stood in terms of placing. I also look at the times of those who finish in front of me (did anyone else mention that?). I think that if you look at the leaders' times versus their position relative to yours, you get a much better idea of where you stand. If the top AGer is finishing several minutes ahead of you in a sprint, you know you got your cut out. Besides, if it's a tough course or bad weather, those things will affect everyone, and it has less to do with you having a bad day or whatever else. I also look at times from the year before, to see if this year was faster / slower overall. But, I'm geeky and like numbers.

My $.02.

My Race Log

Expert

1213

Los Gatos, CA

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

Are you including man and women in your overall numbers? I only include same gender....in overall numbers....

My Race Log

Expert

944

Waller County, TX

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

The 207 or 260 numbers included all individual gender and classes, no relays or teams.

The replys and opinions have been very interesting and all have merit relative to what each racer is trying to "show" for their particular performance, how to gauge it and compare it to other races and racers. The fact remains; each race, venue, and conditions are different and very individual.

I am a numbers guy and have played with all the percentiles, means, normal distributions, etc. for this and my other races (3 sprints). In the end, I am a MOP age grouper just trying finish, get a little better each time AND have some fun.

For the purpose of my RR's I have decided to go with the hard numbers: I finished 113th and there were 207 finishers. No one can question that. In the RR comments, along with the race conditions and other minutia, I'll note there were ~260 racers and quite a few DNF's. Someone reading the RR can draw their own conclusions.

The original question was to confirm whether there was a "standard" usage of what numbers to plug in for the rank.

Thanks to all.

My Race Log

Champion

7036

Sarasota, FL

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

Scout7 - 2006-08-02 9:43 AM Generally, I look at a couple things. I look at my time versus what I have done in the past / thought I would do that day (goal time or whatever). Then I look at my overall rank and whatever other rank to see where I stood in terms of placing. I also look at the times of those who finish in front of me (did anyone else mention that?). I think that if you look at the leaders' times versus their position relative to yours, you get a much better idea of where you stand. If the top AGer is finishing several minutes ahead of you in a sprint, you know you got your cut out. Besides, if it's a tough course or bad weather, those things will affect everyone, and it has less to do with you having a bad day or whatever else. I also look at times from the year before, to see if this year was faster / slower overall. But, I'm geeky and like numbers. My $.02.

I look things in a similar way. Not only my overall time compared to the guys in front of me, but my performance over the individual legs. Right now I'm doing better in the swim and bike and then giving it back on the run, which confirms I need to a.) run more, & b.) lose weight.

I also compare my times for the same events year-to-year. From my first year to my second year I made a huge improvement. Now into my third year, it's getting a lot tougher as the learning curve flattens out.

The only thing I can directly control is how hard I work at getting better. There's nothing I can do about who else is going to show up at a race, how talented they are, or how hard they have worked to prepare. If I give it my best, then it really doesn't make any difference to me if I finish 10th or 100th. Will I sprint to the finish to try to catch the person in front of me? Sure thing. But if they still beat me, then they were the better racer that day.

One thing I will never do (and I think this is the problem I had with the initial post) is make a big deal about who, or how many, I might beat in a race. If anyone has a problem with that, then I apologize.

Oh, yeah and the absolutely most important thing is to enjoy yourself and have fun.

Mark

My Race Log

Extreme Veteran

411

Abilene, Texas

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

include the DNFs. It's not your fault they didn't finish.

Elite

3067

Cheesehead, WI

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

the super sprint I did separated men and women -- is that the norm??? Would be interesting to know how I stacked up against men. Ok, so most will beat me, but I'm sure there are some I'd beat and I think ranks should be listed both by sex and overall.

My Race Log

Coach

10487

Boston, MA

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

jkron - 2006-08-01 9:00 AM I completed my first Oly on a pretty tough course this weekend and I'm in the process of writing my RR. There were ~260 entrants and 207 official finishers. I was 113th overall. The bike course included about 15 miles of very rough, new gravel road topping, and lots of hills. The run was a mile of rocky trail, hilly with 90° heat and full sun. There were quite a few DNF's due to mechanical and physical ability problems. (Of course, the very good athletes make it look easy and my hat's off to them.) I want to be fair and accurate. Should I show my ranking as 113/260 or 113/207? What say ye?

The USAT don’t care for the DNS and are not considered at the rankings at all...

I personally only care about those ahead of me plus anyone can have a bad day and DNF…

My Race Log

Extreme Veteran

411

Abilene, Texas

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

I count women too. I don't count relays unless I beat them. If someone is younger than me or has more teeth I don't count them, nor do I count people that have nicer abs.

A few others that don't count are: People that make more money than me. People that bring their dogs to the races, and people that take epo or drive an SUV.

That's about it.

Edited by Yellow_Dawg 2006-08-02 2:18 PM

Resident Curmudgeon

25290

The Road Back

Gold member

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

Yellow_Dawg - 2006-08-02 2:14 PM I count women too. I don't count relays unless I beat them. If someone is younger then me or has more teeth I don't count them, nor do I count people that have nicer abs. A few others that don't count are: People that make more money than me. People that bring their dogs to the races, and people that take epo or drive an SUV. That's about it.

Damn, I like that! That means I'm first in every race!

My Race Log

Member

31

Colorado

Subject: RE: Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

If I was worried about placement I wouldn't enter.

I live near Boulder, and dang if everyone I race against isn't either an ex-pro,
a marathoner, a century rider, or a masters swimmer.

I looked up my goal time and discovered I'm in contention for the last 3 slots.
Needless to say, my attitude HAS to be about doing the best I can and not
worrying about everyone else.

Today I swam 2 kilometers, biked 15 miles at race pace, and ran 4 miles at
a slow tempo. I don't consider myself in bad shape, and I can't help but think
I wouldn't be contending for last place if I lived just about anywhere else in the
country.

I plan to only compete against myself.

Ken

Accuracy of "Overall Rank"?

REGISTER TODAY