login
Defining FOP/MOP/BOP (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-07-18 8:00 PM in reply to: dtoce |
 1502   Katy, Texas |  Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOPTotally agree. Just to be clear, the LB column was not a slight on any athletes, but a friendly jab at LB. I mean, the guy disparages and belittles every athlete below pro level yet spends an inordinate amount of time on a site dedicated to them. I'll just leave that one out there.  |
| 2016-07-18 8:48 PM in reply to: #5191343 |
370  , North Carolina | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Personally, I look at the results of the race I just did. Top 1/3 FOP, middle 1/3 MOP, last 1/3 BOP. I shoot for 50th percentile or better. |
| 2016-07-18 8:53 PM in reply to: 0 |
Veteran 945 South Windsor, CT | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by Nick B Personally, I look at the results of the race I just did. Top 1/3 FOP, middle 1/3 MOP, last 1/3 BOP. I shoot for 50th percentile or better. pink font on< I see you are a real stickler for true Gaussian curves >pink font off Edited by dtoce 2016-07-18 8:54 PM |
| 2016-07-18 9:55 PM in reply to: dtoce |
| 1055 | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Seems to me the closer you get to being FOP the more you realize just how slow you are. So. . . you're pretty much always slow. |
| 2016-07-18 10:50 PM in reply to: ziggie204 |
| 595 | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Very depressing thread... just learn that because I am not paid to be a father or husband I can not describe my self as that anymore. Oh and I'm not a triathlete. Who takes themselves to seriously? |
| 2016-07-19 12:20 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by 3marTotally agree. Just to be clear, the LB column was not a slight on any athletes, but a friendly jab at LB. I mean, the guy disparages and belittles every athlete below pro level yet spends an inordinate amount of time on a site dedicated to them. I'll just leave that one out there. C'mon dude....you asked for that. LOLI guess I shoulda warned you about MY jab.  I'm just having some fun with you.....you are a triathlete bro...stay proud!....and never let it be said that you don't take yourself seriously. (that left is hard to see ain't it )Edited by Left Brain 2016-07-19 12:24 AM |
| 2016-07-19 7:35 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Member 1748 Exton, PA | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by 3mar For a slow Monday, as I would assume this may rile some folks up... We're always using the terms FOP, MOP and BOP but I can't recall ever seeing them actually defined, so I took a shot below. I used the three metrics I could think of, which are USAT score, % of field and time. Now, the time thing is obviously sticky, so this time represents the best possible scenario..i.e. no wind, cool temps, overcast, pancake flat course, wet suit in calm lake swim, easy transitions, bla bla bla...the "perfect" race. However, these would be perfectly measured races. So here are the assumptions/standardizations: 1. % of field includes the pro field 2. No pro field in "local" races 3. National Race >600 participants 4. Times are for "perfect" race conditions. i.e. these would be the BEST times attainable 5. These DO NOT include races where you have to qualify to get in, i.e. AG championships, Kona, 70.3 championships, etc (so no, "at Kona 10 hrs is MOP") 6. Just for fun, I added a "LeftBrain" category based on LB's many posts at the end. LB, feel free to edit!! So chime in... The times you list are not that good, sound like you are making an assumption of a 25-34 year old male with these times. So lets ignore times because that has a lot of variations depending on coarses, age, and conditions. You could say perfect conditions, but in 9 years I think I only raced in those conditions once. Lets also ignore local races because the you don't know who is going to show up. I've had local sprint races(less than 250 people) where I can barely be in the top 50% because all the studs showed up and others where I'm on the podium. Now just look at national size races, you should be looking at more like 1000+ participants because 600 is more like local size. So why should your FOP be a different percentage than your BOP? The only reason I can see is to eliminate the people doing the tri for the first time, not really knowing what they doing yet. So if that it than lets get an estimate of how many that would be for arguments sake lets say 5%. So them the breakdown should be more like this FOP <20% MOP 20%-75% BOP >75% or FOP <25% MOP 25-70% BOP >70% or FOP <15% MOP 15-80% BOP >80% Or is the FOP the people who have a shot at AG podium? In which case you are looking at about 20 age groups with maybe 5 people in each with a shot then the FOP is top 10% in a 1000 person race but only the top 5% in a 2000 person race. and then the rest of the field is the BOP In reality we are all just weekend warriors, unless we have our pro card. |
| 2016-07-19 7:45 AM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by mike761 In reality we are all just weekend warriors, unless we have our pro card. Even with a pro card most are still weekend warriors. All week long they do their 9-5job to pay the bills. Macca used to joke saying that most pros were very fit unemployed people Edited by marcag 2016-07-19 7:47 AM |
| 2016-07-19 8:16 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by 3mar For a slow Monday, as I would assume this may rile some folks up... We're always using the terms FOP, MOP and BOP but I can't recall ever seeing them actually defined, so I took a shot below. I used the three metrics I could think of, which are USAT score, % of field and time. Now, the time thing is obviously sticky, so this time represents the best possible scenario..i.e. no wind, cool temps, overcast, pancake flat course, wet suit in calm lake swim, easy transitions, bla bla bla...the "perfect" race. However, these would be perfectly measured races. So here are the assumptions/standardizations: 1. % of field includes the pro field 2. No pro field in "local" races 3. National Race >600 participants 4. Times are for "perfect" race conditions. i.e. these would be the BEST times attainable 5. These DO NOT include races where you have to qualify to get in, i.e. AG championships, Kona, 70.3 championships, etc (so no, "at Kona 10 hrs is MOP") 6. Just for fun, I added a "LeftBrain" category based on LB's many posts at the end. LB, feel free to edit!! So chime in...
I'm not sure if I agree with this. You have me as an Amateur-Elite; my score is just above 93 for the year, and I'm not that fast. I've only hit 2:10 once, and I was 7th in that race. I hit 2:11 this year and I was 11th. At what you consider a "local" race. |
| 2016-07-19 9:02 AM in reply to: 0 |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP It just depends on your definition of what makes an amateur "elite" among amateurs. I've seen the 90+ referenced as "amateur elite" a couple of times and it was in the baseline I started to table with. I was considering making it 95+ as that is where you tend to see KQers in the competitive AGs. But that would be really whittling it down to the very tip of amateurs. ETA: regarding only hitting 2:10 once...that would mean I put the number where intended. My thoughts were these would be theoretically the best time each group could ever get. Think about it like all the physics problems we did "in a vacuum". I'm pretty sure there isn't a vacuum out there big enough for a giant sling shot. It's a best possible scenario, so it would make sense that you could get close but never actually get there. Edited by 3mar 2016-07-19 9:04 AM |
| 2016-07-19 9:35 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by 3mar It just depends on your definition of what makes an amateur "elite" among amateurs. I've seen the 90+ referenced as "amateur elite" a couple of times and it was in the baseline I started to table with. I was considering making it 95+ as that is where you tend to see KQers in the competitive AGs. But that would be really whittling it down to the very tip of amateurs. ETA: regarding only hitting 2:10 once...that would mean I put the number where intended. My thoughts were these would be theoretically the best time each group could ever get. Think about it like all the physics problems we did "in a vacuum". I'm pretty sure there isn't a vacuum out there big enough for a giant sling shot. It's a best possible scenario, so it would make sense that you could get close but never actually get there. are you saying I've peaked !?!?!?! :P |
| 2016-07-19 9:56 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by 3mar It just depends on your definition of what makes an amateur "elite" among amateurs. I've seen the 90+ referenced as "amateur elite" a couple of times and it was in the baseline I started to table with. I was considering making it 95+ as that is where you tend to see KQers in the competitive AGs. But that would be really whittling it down to the very tip of amateurs. ETA: regarding only hitting 2:10 once...that would mean I put the number where intended. My thoughts were these would be theoretically the best time each group could ever get. Think about it like all the physics problems we did "in a vacuum". I'm pretty sure there isn't a vacuum out there big enough for a giant sling shot. It's a best possible scenario, so it would make sense that you could get close but never actually get there. are you saying I've peaked !?!?!?! :P I wish...it'd give me a chance to catch up. |
| 2016-07-19 10:31 AM in reply to: 3mar |
| 701 | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by 3mar Totally agree. Just to be clear, the LB column was not a slight on any athletes, but a friendly jab at LB. I mean, the guy disparages and belittles every athlete below pro level yet spends an inordinate amount of time on a site dedicated to them. I'll just leave that one out there. I can confirm in significant ways that LB most definitely does not disparage every athlete below pro level. I'm Mid MOP (on a good day) and he's been quite helpful and encouraging to me. Even to the point of offering use of rather expensive gear. I think any belittling is directed at people who play high and mighty.....and in reality aren't so mighty. I'm a big fan of that. I think it's why I watch certain reality TV. To watch bad things happen to bad people. I've been pondering the value of the chart and what we can draw from it. Not much, in the end. It's not at all like a golf handicap. That uses math to create essentially a level playing field between disparate abilities...and put a specific value on. You wind up with a dozen or so values to label someone's ability. I think all FOP/MOP/etc. and this chart do....is highlight the rather small percentage of people that are "good"...or "have a chance" at 'placing'. I wonder how that percentage relates to say bookmaker's odds at the beginning of the MLB season. Maybe 'prognosticators' is better than bookmakers....as fandom/emotion/etc. come into play in making a book. But, I wonder if you took all the preseason 'picks' by sportsters as to who had a legitimate chance to win the World Series....I would bet that you'd get about 3 teams (7%) that people would generally agree on. Still, if the percentages work out (no reason to think they don't....they smell right to me)....it's interesting (I like numbers) to put numbers to what I think most of us more or less know. I know in cycling they have categories. Not sure how those work. Maybe there's a similar that could be made for triathlon. But, it wouldn't matter to the 93% of us that don't have a chance. Well, it shouldn't......but it would be one more thing people could be annoying about. We could sit around and annoy people by repeatedly talking about how we jumped from a Category 47 to a Category 38 last year. I like numbers. But I think that'd be rather silly. |
| 2016-07-19 11:13 AM in reply to: 0 |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Well I think a lot of people that do this sport do so to see improvement. For that, this offers a scale to go up. Just like the tables in swimming that show AAAA, AA, B, C, etc. For a lot of us, we are working to improve and it is nice to have a scale to go by. We really don't have that in this sport. I personally believe that a very large majority of the people in this sport between the ages of 20-50 and with decent health, have the potential to get up to the 90+ range on this chart and it just comes down to whether they want to put the time and work in. Some people may not want to, and that's fine, I don't look negatively on that at all, do what makes you happy. But I believe the potential is there, so I don't think this is exclusionary or high and mighty. I don't personally believe that genetics plays limiting role until you would get in the 95+ range. So it offers a way to gauge performance among your peers for those of us looking to move. I would say that it has use. As opposed to say; if you're not at the absolute top, just throw your watch away and don't worry about it, it means nothing. That's silly. For myself, and a lot of other people, this is something to see how far you can go. Just like everything from playing a video game to learning to play piano, to skiing. It's a challenge and the thrill is getting to that next level. So here are some levels. Edited by 3mar 2016-07-19 11:14 AM |
| 2016-07-19 11:21 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Expert 2852 Pfafftown, NC | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP The only thing I see in this thread as "disparaging".......is slower people making fun of the faster people.....lol. Only in triathlon...... |
| 2016-07-19 11:22 AM in reply to: nc452010 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by nc452010 LB.....do you post on ST? That would be a hoot to read some of those comments. LOL I've been in and out of Triathlon since the mid 80's. My current interest, after the last knee surgery I plan on having, is solely my son's racing....and that's going to end in a couple of weeks for a few years while he runs in college. He may race in some pro fields over the summers.....but my bet is he'll be traveling with a group that will no longer include me....such is life, yeah? To answer your question.....I posted in ST back around 2003-2004. Even then I had a pretty good disdain for the attitudes I saw in most people who ran triathlon.....and that was SUCH a target rich environment. It's funny, because I have actually raised my kid to be the opposite of the way 3mar wanted to portray me. It's not an exaggeration to say that he has won every local race he's been in within 150 miles of our house at one time or another...I'm sure there are some we have missed. He won the Ironkids National Championship, He was top 5 overall at the USAT Sprint Nationals as a 15 and 16 year old. (race age 16 and 17....he's a Dec. baby), was #1 AG ranked 17 year old one year with a 105 ranking score (I think.....somewhere around there anyway). The best compliments I get on him have NOTHING to do with racing.....they always come in the form of "man, it's cool the way your kid sticks around and high fives everyone"....or "I notice that your kid never just takes his award and leaves. he sticks around to clap for everyone"....or "it's refreshing to see your son being so nice to the kids handing out water when he runs by......what a difference from most of these do/uchebags out here" (that's actually an exact quote) I think it's so cool that people do triathlon.....I have enjoyed it for many years and have found that I enjoy sitting in a chair watching a race and drinking a beer about the same. I think it's the opposite of cool when they start running around acting like a "triathlete"......because I've got news for you.....the people who run the timing companies HATE you compared to runners, cyclists, etc. Admittedly, I don't mind trolling a bit when the chance comes up (this was WAY too good to pass up since I was named in the chart LMAO )........it's pretty damn easy (and always a hoot to me) to see how fast "triathletes" run to jump over the cliff. Now I'll let you all get back to seeing how close you are to being triathletes. |
| 2016-07-19 11:32 AM in reply to: 0 |
| 701 | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by 3mar But I believe the potential is there, so I don't think this is exclusionary or high and mighty. I don't personally believe that genetics plays limiting role until you would get in the 95+ range. I totally hear you on this. And....it may be even less than the 95+ range where genetics come in to play. If it were just "running" or "just cycling" or "just swimming".... But, in the end, it's all 3. Yah, I know centers of gravity and stuff can have an impact. But we've seen athletes with less than ideal "builds" excel in various other sports. Here, there's three of them. Firm believer in Outliers. 10,000 hours (of real work, and work on fundamentals, evaluation thereof) Desire to spend those 10k hours Access to instruction And a couple other things that Gladwell lists Of course, I think age is a factor. To get those 10,000 hours in you gotta start early enough to get there before the body is at an age standpoint where it cannot excel. But yeah... I wonder what the sweet spot is. Agewise. Probably pretty easy to find the average age of winners over time. I tend to actually measure myself against the AG. And it's not really by "time" to find out where I am. It's very longitudinal. What percent do I fall in compared to last time? Enough data gets 'inputted' and I can evaluate my improvement against a 'norm'. I can easily see where I've moved from bottom third to middle over time. After my last go, I was able to push it to top 3rd (but still firmly Mid-MOP), but there aren't many in that race and it's very welcoming to people who just want to do something mildly epic. Longer than a sprint, less than an Olympic...open water. Cool venue. I'm pretty sure I got smoked on the bike by a guy on an old 10 speed wearing flip-flops. Fortunately, he was younger than me. Edited by jhaack39 2016-07-19 11:35 AM |
| 2016-07-19 11:37 AM in reply to: 0 |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by Left Brain (this was WAY too good to pass up since I was named in the chart LMAO ) You like to go fishing and so do I. You may have been baited. Originally posted by Left Brain Now I'll let you all get back to seeing how close you are to being triathletes.  |
| 2016-07-19 11:47 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by 3mar You like to go fishing and so do I. You may have been baited. Originally posted by Left Brain (this was WAY too good to pass up since I was named in the chart LMAO )
Originally posted by Left Brain Now I'll let you all get back to seeing how close you are to being triathletes.
Dude......I've been around THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of people who do triathlon for many years......nice try. Edited by Left Brain 2016-07-19 11:48 AM |
| 2016-07-19 11:52 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Hey, if you really want to have fun and fish a bit.......if you're ever at a triathlon spectating and you see someone with a BIG IM logo tatoo....ask them what it is. Those folks are real ambassadors for the sport. LMAO |
| 2016-07-19 11:52 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
| 1300 | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by Left Brain To answer your question.....I posted in ST back around 2003-2004. Even then I had a pretty good disdain for the attitudes I saw in most people who ran triathlon.....and that was SUCH a target rich environment. Well done, that's not an easy task. |
| 2016-07-19 11:59 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP So why do you get so bent out of shape when people want to assess themselves? I don't get it. The point is to improve, so what's so bad about having a scale to improve against? |
| 2016-07-19 12:18 PM in reply to: jhaack39 |
Veteran 945 South Windsor, CT | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by jhaack39 Fortunately, he was younger than me. It's worse when they are older. I saw '74' go by me on the run in my last HIM and he heard me say 'Sh*t, 74?!!??' To which he turned and smiled. At that point, I said, 'great race-I want to be like you when I grow up..!' |
| 2016-07-19 12:20 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
| 701 | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP -Oh, I don't keep score, Judge. -How do you measure yourself against other triathletes? -By height. |
| 2016-07-19 12:21 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Defining FOP/MOP/BOP Originally posted by 3mar So why do you get so bent out of shape when people want to assess themselves? I don't get it. The point is to improve, so what's so bad about having a scale to improve against? Here's my problem......quite a few people who do triathlon rather quickly want to assess themselves against people who are slower then them........and even more to my point......assess themselves against people who don't do triathlon......it's the whole "I'm a triathlete" deal. No, you're not......and I'll say it again, no more then the wed. night softball beer league dude is a "ballplayer". You do some triathlons and that's nice....that guy plays softball and he thinks that's nice too. Hell dude.....go back and look where you TRIED to make the case that people who do triathlon work longer/harder then folks who do other hobbies/sports. That's total bullchit and a trap for you as your times fall in triathlon.......because I can say this without hesitation....there is NO creature in all of sport worse than the guy who wins local triathlons and thinks he's somebody. Stay after it....it's been fun reading about your gains and times. Beware.......the whole "assess yourself" against others is a loser for AG racers, and one of the biggest causes of burnout for some pretty decent racers...because soon enough you're going to find out what a triathlete REALLY is.....and you're gonna feel slow dude......really slow. |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Better Define: BOP/MOP/FOP Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
| |||
| |||
| FOP vs MOP vs BOP Pages: 1 2 |
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK