Kona Qualifying by the Numbers (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2015-10-12 4:07 PM in reply to: 3mar |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Its simple really, once you know the formula! Swim an hour - need to doing 15-18x200 yds on 3:00 or less for 1:00 swim. Bike: 3.5 w/kg on great CDA and closer to 4.0 on decent CDA Run - long run pace around 7:45-8:10 and being able to run off the bike very close to that after riding the bike at 70-75% of FTP. Nutrition plays a key role and so does eliminating weaknesses in the weight room. |
|
2015-10-12 4:17 PM in reply to: mikericci |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by mikericci Its simple really, once you know the formula! Swim an hour - need to doing 15-18x200 yds on 3:00 or less for 1:00 swim. Bike: 3.5 w/kg on great CDA and closer to 4.0 on decent CDA Run - long run pace around 7:45-8:10 and being able to run off the bike very close to that after riding the bike at 70-75% of FTP. Nutrition plays a key role and so does eliminating weaknesses in the weight room. 200 yds on 3:00...I think I could do that indefinitely. My comfortable long run pace is around 8:15-8:20 so that needs some work. 3.5-4.0 w/kg? Haha....I'm about million miles away from that! If I even got close to that, I'd be crawling. |
2015-10-12 4:32 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mikericci Its simple really, once you know the formula! Swim an hour - need to doing 15-18x200 yds on 3:00 or less for 1:00 swim. Bike: 3.5 w/kg on great CDA and closer to 4.0 on decent CDA Run - long run pace around 7:45-8:10 and being able to run off the bike very close to that after riding the bike at 70-75% of FTP. Nutrition plays a key role and so does eliminating weaknesses in the weight room. 200 yds on 3:00...I think I could do that indefinitely. My comfortable long run pace is around 8:15-8:20 so that needs some work. 3.5-4.0 w/kg? Haha....I'm about million miles away from that! If I even got close to that, I'd be crawling. running 8min/mile off the bike gives you a 3h28 IM marathon. IMO, the equivalent is probably a high 36min 10k, or 1h21ish open 1/2marathon. Don't go by your long run pace. 3.5 w/kg is within your reach within a year. PS : 4w/kg @72% bike + 8 min/mile run + 1hswim + tranistions would give you a tad under 10h IM, around 14th in 35-39 Edited by marcag 2015-10-12 4:49 PM |
2015-10-12 4:36 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Elite 7783 PEI, Canada | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mikericci 200 yds on 3:00...I think I could do that indefinitely. My comfortable long run pace is around 8:15-8:20 so that needs some work. 3.5-4.0 w/kg? Haha....I'm about million miles away from that! If I even got close to that, I'd be crawling. Its simple really, once you know the formula! Swim an hour - need to doing 15-18x200 yds on 3:00 or less for 1:00 swim. Bike: 3.5 w/kg on great CDA and closer to 4.0 on decent CDA Run - long run pace around 7:45-8:10 and being able to run off the bike very close to that after riding the bike at 70-75% of FTP. Nutrition plays a key role and so does eliminating weaknesses in the weight room. Sounds like it's time to start putting that P2max to work! |
2015-10-12 5:05 PM in reply to: marcag |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by mikericci Its simple really, once you know the formula! Swim an hour - need to doing 15-18x200 yds on 3:00 or less for 1:00 swim. Bike: 3.5 w/kg on great CDA and closer to 4.0 on decent CDA Run - long run pace around 7:45-8:10 and being able to run off the bike very close to that after riding the bike at 70-75% of FTP. Nutrition plays a key role and so does eliminating weaknesses in the weight room. 200 yds on 3:00...I think I could do that indefinitely. My comfortable long run pace is around 8:15-8:20 so that needs some work. 3.5-4.0 w/kg? Haha....I'm about million miles away from that! If I even got close to that, I'd be crawling. running 8min/mile off the bike gives you a 3h28 IM marathon. IMO, the equivalent is probably a high 36min 10k, or 1h21ish open 1/2marathon. Don't go by your long run pace. 3.5 w/kg is within your reach within a year. PS : 4w/kg @72% bike + 8 min/mile run + 1hswim + tranistions would give you a tad under 10h IM, around 14th in 35-39 That's one thing that really hit me about the IM. My sprint 5k is within a minute of my open 5k, my oly within 2-3 minutes of my open 10k, heck, my HIM run was within 5-6 minutes of my open half yet full? Totally different. |
2015-10-12 5:09 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers No matter what you do, you'll never qualify......I laugh at you. HAHAHAHAHA!!!! (you're welcome) |
|
2015-10-12 5:19 PM in reply to: marcag |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by 3mar running 8min/mile off the bike gives you a 3h28 IM marathon. IMO, the equivalent is probably a high 36min 10k, or 1h21ish open 1/2marathon. Don't go by your long run pace. 3.5 w/kg is within your reach within a year. PS : 4w/kg @72% bike + 8 min/mile run + 1hswim + tranistions would give you a tad under 10h IM, around 14th in 35-39 Originally posted by mikericci 200 yds on 3:00...I think I could do that indefinitely. My comfortable long run pace is around 8:15-8:20 so that needs some work. 3.5-4.0 w/kg? Haha....I'm about million miles away from that! If I even got close to that, I'd be crawling. Its simple really, once you know the formula! Swim an hour - need to doing 15-18x200 yds on 3:00 or less for 1:00 swim. Bike: 3.5 w/kg on great CDA and closer to 4.0 on decent CDA Run - long run pace around 7:45-8:10 and being able to run off the bike very close to that after riding the bike at 70-75% of FTP. Nutrition plays a key role and so does eliminating weaknesses in the weight room.
Depends on the course. 14th in AZ is 5th in LP. I agree 37:00 ish 10k and around 3:00 marathon. The w/kg are going to get you 4:55-5:15 depending on the course though. That's the big variable. |
2015-10-12 5:22 PM in reply to: 3mar |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by marcag That's one thing that really hit me about the IM. My sprint 5k is within a minute of my open 5k, my oly within 2-3 minutes of my open 10k, heck, my HIM run was within 5-6 minutes of my open half yet full? Totally different. Originally posted by 3mar running 8min/mile off the bike gives you a 3h28 IM marathon. IMO, the equivalent is probably a high 36min 10k, or 1h21ish open 1/2marathon. Don't go by your long run pace. 3.5 w/kg is within your reach within a year. PS : 4w/kg @72% bike + 8 min/mile run + 1hswim + tranistions would give you a tad under 10h IM, around 14th in 35-39 Originally posted by mikericci 200 yds on 3:00...I think I could do that indefinitely. My comfortable long run pace is around 8:15-8:20 so that needs some work. 3.5-4.0 w/kg? Haha....I'm about million miles away from that! If I even got close to that, I'd be crawling. Its simple really, once you know the formula! Swim an hour - need to doing 15-18x200 yds on 3:00 or less for 1:00 swim. Bike: 3.5 w/kg on great CDA and closer to 4.0 on decent CDA Run - long run pace around 7:45-8:10 and being able to run off the bike very close to that after riding the bike at 70-75% of FTP. Nutrition plays a key role and so does eliminating weaknesses in the weight room. Your 5k should be within about 20-30 secs, 10k within 75 seconds and 1/2 marathon about 6 minutes. You could improve your overall speed. Sounds like you biked too hard or nutrition was off. Either way, you have what it takes strength wise. |
2015-10-13 8:03 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by Left Brain No matter what you do, you'll never qualify......I laugh at you. HAHAHAHAHA!!!! (you're welcome) LB, that is just disappointing. One of your special talents is putting performance into harsh perspective for us AGers. Come on man. You can get me more riled up that that!! |
2015-10-13 8:26 AM in reply to: tjfry |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by tjfry. I will tell you that the main difference is how each reacted to tedium and burn out. Those who qualified could get out of bed regardless of motivation or energy levels. The others just wouldn't. I had that level of commitment when I did IMLP in 2011. It was a singular goal I held for a couple of years and I let nothing stand in my way. As I age up and do better in my AG, I flirt with the idea of KQ, but I also flirt with injury and other goals and interests in my life. I know a KQ will take that same level of commitment I had for IMLP (albeit more/harder work) and right now I am just not willing to do that. I want to want to.... |
2015-10-13 8:29 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Left Brain LB, that is just disappointing. One of your special talents is putting performance into harsh perspective for us AGers. Come on man. You can get me more riled up that that!! No matter what you do, you'll never qualify......I laugh at you. HAHAHAHAHA!!!! (you're welcome) Well, Ok.......here you go. I'm a big believer in building speed first over endurance. (once you h ave a good base like you do). You have been given some benchmarks, like a 2:05 OLY. You have to be fast to get down there. Anyone can build themselves up to go the distance, but it takes a lot of really focused work to get fast. Your back is against the wall becau8se you are late to the game, especially with regard to running.....it won't be easy for you, and you'll likely need to have some latent talent that you never explored to even get close......in your AG. I think your best bet is to work on getting to AG Nationals in the OLY race......and workiing to get your time down around that 2 hour mark. If you can't make that goal then you can't play....it really is that simple. You will need coaching help. What you are trying to do probably can't be done by yourself. If you CAN get there, then your next step is to build the endurance. You can already swim......building an adequate bike is not rocket science....running will be your downfall if you don't really work that. It's not a matter of being able to run a 36:00 open 10K....it's a matter of going out and running a 36:00 open 10K whenever you feel like it. That's a big step from running a PR one time that completely gassed you. Edited by Left Brain 2015-10-13 8:33 AM |
|
2015-10-13 8:43 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Member 763 | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers I've been following this thread, and I know there is no way that I could qualify (that is unless, everybody in my age group gets busted for PEDs, get sick, drops out, there's alot of DNSs, have mechanicals, decide to skip the rolldown, a massive zombie attack takes out everybody in my AG but me, etc...) and I don't 'qualify' as a jack- chef or movie actor...so, what's up the lottery for us mere mortals? Is there any hope? I know the Legacy program is out there, and I'm working on that part, but I have a ways to go there. So, back to the lottery? It was always a long shot, but at least I had a chance. Any update on what WTC may do going forward? (but to the OP...good luck in your quest to qualify. And thanks to everyone for all the stats, they's good markers and something to work towards.) |
2015-10-13 9:04 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Left Brain LB, that is just disappointing. One of your special talents is putting performance into harsh perspective for us AGers. Come on man. You can get me more riled up that that!! No matter what you do, you'll never qualify......I laugh at you. HAHAHAHAHA!!!! (you're welcome) Well, Ok.......here you go. I'm a big believer in building speed first over endurance. (once you h ave a good base like you do). You have been given some benchmarks, like a 2:05 OLY. You have to be fast to get down there. Anyone can build themselves up to go the distance, but it takes a lot of really focused work to get fast. Your back is against the wall becau8se you are late to the game, especially with regard to running.....it won't be easy for you, and you'll likely need to have some latent talent that you never explored to even get close......in your AG. I think your best bet is to work on getting to AG Nationals in the OLY race......and workiing to get your time down around that 2 hour mark. If you can't make that goal then you can't play....it really is that simple. You will need coaching help. What you are trying to do probably can't be done by yourself. If you CAN get there, then your next step is to build the endurance. You can already swim......building an adequate bike is not rocket science....running will be your downfall if you don't really work that. It's not a matter of being able to run a 36:00 open 10K....it's a matter of going out and running a 36:00 open 10K whenever you feel like it. That's a big step from running a PR one time that completely gassed you. Well, that's the sort of advice I'm looking for, so you earned your keep for the day. I'm more than happy to work on speed. I love the training, and I especially love pushing hard. (Capture.JPG) Attachments ---------------- Capture.JPG (26KB - 11 downloads) |
2015-10-13 9:06 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Also, you'll really enjoy the AG nationals race. It's VERY well done. |
2015-10-13 11:08 AM in reply to: 3mar |
New user 147 Overland Park, KS | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers For comparative purposes don't discount the USAT Ranking system, while it is not perfect, it normalizes well for race conditions and distance, that is, if you can do a 90 in a sprint you should be pretty close to a 90 all the way out to an IM, assuming that your training and preparation is reasonable for the distance (similar to saying to run a 3 hour marathon you need to be able to run a mid-18 5k). I took a look at the USAT rankings going back to 2009 of some fast locals: male, mid 30s to mid 40s, all made the trip to Kona at least once. All of them had at least a mid 90's ranking in their qualifier race, generally 96 or above in the more recent years. 2 of them started racing consistently in 2009 and incrementally improved their rankings by ~20 points over 5-6 years, the others have been racing longer and show injury or life interruptions in their progressions but had similar improvements over the years. Not sure I can get the graph to attach, but the general point is: smart consistent training = steady improvement year after year, same advice most everybody else gives, I'm just putting some more numbers to what is achievable. (KQs.JPG) Attachments ---------------- KQs.JPG (50KB - 14 downloads) |
2015-10-13 11:24 AM in reply to: tjfry |
Champion 7704 Williamston, Michigan | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers I will never KQ. If I could quit my job train full time be at my ideal body weight and be uninjured I would still not KQ. Its just not in my genetic make up to run fast. I actually think I could get my swim and bike to a KQ time but the run....no way, esp as if I am lucky there MIGHT be 2 KQ in my age group and maybe only 1 at most races. I will never win. You can feel free to bash me and tell me I am wrong and all I have to do is try harder but that is not true and I will not respond. Too many injuries and surgeries |
|
2015-10-13 11:43 AM in reply to: mikec123 |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by mikec123 For comparative purposes don't discount the USAT Ranking system, while it is not perfect, it normalizes well for race conditions and distance, that is, if you can do a 90 in a sprint you should be pretty close to a 90 all the way out to an IM, assuming that your training and preparation is reasonable for the distance (similar to saying to run a 3 hour marathon you need to be able to run a mid-18 5k). I took a look at the USAT rankings going back to 2009 of some fast locals: male, mid 30s to mid 40s, all made the trip to Kona at least once. All of them had at least a mid 90's ranking in their qualifier race, generally 96 or above in the more recent years. 2 of them started racing consistently in 2009 and incrementally improved their rankings by ~20 points over 5-6 years, the others have been racing longer and show injury or life interruptions in their progressions but had similar improvements over the years. Not sure I can get the graph to attach, but the general point is: smart consistent training = steady improvement year after year, same advice most everybody else gives, I'm just putting some more numbers to what is achievable. I didn't even know such a system existed. I looked myself up for this year (the only year I have) and I'm at 82. But you're right on the normalization, which is really interesting. I always went by percent of finishers and it never matched up race to race, but looking at the ranking system, they're all right in line. That's pretty cool. (Capture.JPG) Attachments ---------------- Capture.JPG (37KB - 14 downloads) |
2015-10-13 11:59 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers for reference, this is me, and I'm not particularly close to a KQ anytime soon
|
2015-10-13 1:00 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by dmiller5 for reference, this is me, and I'm not particularly close to a KQ anytime soon
Obviously I'm not there. I think that much is clear. I never really thought I was. This whole thing started simply because I read an article that said, if you start at X and do Y for six months you'll get to Z (where Z = Kona). And I'm like, "That sounds weird, I'm at X right now, does that mean I just have to do Y?" Sounded a bit out there, but the guy seemed to know what he was talking about, and what do I know, I just got here. So I asked And you're in my age group I think....slow down and give me a second to catch up, will ya? |
2015-10-13 2:12 PM in reply to: 3mar |
47 New Lenox, Illinois | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Wow, okay. Super new to triathlons, and super slow. That being said, I think I'm in one of the faster age groups, at 30-34 male, so I've got my work cut out for me. I wasn't familiar with the USAT Ranking thing, so I googled it, and came across this (below) on another message board. According to this, I'm "back of back of pack. Like I'm in rehab from morbid obesity". hahaha. I'm not really sure that's entirely accurate, as all the way through HS, I was incredibly active. College was college, finished that in '07, and haven't been overly active, but never really got out of shape (usually hoovered in the low teens % body fat, and was more into strength training than endurance). I guess I'm just rehabbing from beer haha. To be fair, I'm in the upper 50s, so I am close to being an 'off-the couch beginner', at least according to this guy. "40/50=back of back of pack. Like you're in rehab from morbid obesity, cancer, etc... 60's=back of middle of pack. Most off-the couch beginners are in this range. 70's=front of middle of pack. Seasoned triathletes with little time for training, really old people that have been racing for a while, young people with natural athletic ability. 80-85= Back of Front of Pack. An 80-85 usually correlates to something like top-10% overall finish at local races or top 20-25% at a national-caliber race. 85-90=front of front of pack. Usually correlates to top 10 overall finish at local races, or a top 15% finish at a national caliber race. 90-95=usually translates to consistent wins at local races or top-5 if there are a bunch of 90-95 people in your area--low level elite. 95-100=a 95 almost always wins local races, 100 usually translates to competitive finish among elites--good elite 100-105=really good elite--a 105 would win against lot of elites 105+=would win just about everything. Only a few people get scores this high, and I'm not really sure how it's even possible. I think you have to be a really successful long-course athlete. " Anyway, didn't meant to hijack, just found that "standard" and it hit me how much work I really have to put in. Better get at it! |
2015-10-13 2:41 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by dlaude6 Wow, okay. Super new to triathlons, and super slow. That being said, I think I'm in one of the faster age groups, at 30-34 male, so I've got my work cut out for me. I wasn't familiar with the USAT Ranking thing, so I googled it, and came across this (below) on another message board. According to this, I'm "back of back of pack. Like I'm in rehab from morbid obesity". hahaha. I'm not really sure that's entirely accurate, as all the way through HS, I was incredibly active. College was college, finished that in '07, and haven't been overly active, but never really got out of shape (usually hoovered in the low teens % body fat, and was more into strength training than endurance). I guess I'm just rehabbing from beer haha. To be fair, I'm in the upper 50s, so I am close to being an 'off-the couch beginner', at least according to this guy. "40/50=back of back of pack. Like you're in rehab from morbid obesity, cancer, etc... 60's=back of middle of pack. Most off-the couch beginners are in this range. 70's=front of middle of pack. Seasoned triathletes with little time for training, really old people that have been racing for a while, young people with natural athletic ability. 80-85= Back of Front of Pack. An 80-85 usually correlates to something like top-10% overall finish at local races or top 20-25% at a national-caliber race. 85-90=front of front of pack. Usually correlates to top 10 overall finish at local races, or a top 15% finish at a national caliber race. 90-95=usually translates to consistent wins at local races or top-5 if there are a bunch of 90-95 people in your area--low level elite. 95-100=a 95 almost always wins local races, 100 usually translates to competitive finish among elites--good elite 100-105=really good elite--a 105 would win against lot of elites 105+=would win just about everything. Only a few people get scores this high, and I'm not really sure how it's even possible. I think you have to be a really successful long-course athlete. " Anyway, didn't meant to hijack, just found that "standard" and it hit me how much work I really have to put in. Better get at it! It's all relative........and it only crosses over from distance to distance with a lot of work. Last year Jr. scored 101.7 in winning his AG season ranking. He only raced sprint distance races. I suppose in time he will/could get to that same score across distances.....but it will be years. My point is, his score wouldn't be 101.7 if all he did was Oly races....I'd say he would drop to mid 90's. He would drop again for HIM. The idea that you have the potential to win throughout the distances is OK......in practice it's not just a matter of simple numbers.....the training has to change quite a bit. He's no closer to a KQ than you are, 3Mar. Really succesful triathlon (like KQ for instance) is about patience.....you can't get around that. BTW - you only get those big high scores by racing REALLY strong competition.....you won't approach them by winning local races.....I don't care how much you win. He only raced 3 AG races last year: ITU Chicago (3rd overall, 1st AG), AG National Sprint (5th overall, 1st AG), AG World Sprint (11th overall 3rd AG). That should give an idea of what I'm talking about. You can win local races and only get 75-80 pts, depending on who shows up. Edited by Left Brain 2015-10-13 2:51 PM |
|
2015-10-13 3:22 PM in reply to: mikec123 |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by mikec123 For comparative purposes don't discount the USAT Ranking system, while it is not perfect, it normalizes well for race conditions and distance, that is, if you can do a 90 in a sprint you should be pretty close to a 90 all the way out to an IM, assuming that your training and preparation is reasonable for the distance (similar to saying to run a 3 hour marathon you need to be able to run a mid-18 5k). I took a look at the USAT rankings going back to 2009 of some fast locals: male, mid 30s to mid 40s, all made the trip to Kona at least once. All of them had at least a mid 90's ranking in their qualifier race, generally 96 or above in the more recent years. 2 of them started racing consistently in 2009 and incrementally improved their rankings by ~20 points over 5-6 years, the others have been racing longer and show injury or life interruptions in their progressions but had similar improvements over the years. Not sure I can get the graph to attach, but the general point is: smart consistent training = steady improvement year after year, same advice most everybody else gives, I'm just putting some more numbers to what is achievable. This may be the coolest post I've read on here in a while! Thanks for doing this..I assume each bar for each year is one of the guys you're talking about? |
2015-10-13 3:41 PM in reply to: 0 |
1660 | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Actually, I'm pretty sure you can still get high (95-100+) USAT numbers even in local races if you beat the field by enough of a margin. I'm not the one putting down those numbers around here, but I've been in a few smaller local races where the winner scores 101+ because he's so far ahead of the field that shows up. The margin of victory does factor into the USAT score earned per race.
I do agree though that if you want the most reliable measure of how you stack up against the faster folks, racing them head to head is the best measure, regardless of the USAT score. Edited by yazmaster 2015-10-13 3:41 PM |
2015-10-13 3:53 PM in reply to: yazmaster |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by yazmaster Actually, I'm pretty sure you can still get high (95-100+) USAT numbers even in local races if you beat the field by enough of a margin. I'm not the one putting down those numbers around here, but I've been in a few smaller local races where the winner scores 101+ because he's so far ahead of the field that shows up. The margin of victory does factor into the USAT score earned per race.
I do agree though that if you want the most reliable measure of how you stack up against the faster folks, racing them head to head is the best measure, regardless of the USAT score. you can still score high against weak competition if you crush them. However, more competitive races tend to score higher because there will be athletes that normal score highly, that have bad days. This skews the scores up. |
2015-10-13 4:22 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Originally posted by yazmaster Actually, I'm pretty sure you can still get high (95-100+) USAT numbers even in local races if you beat the field by enough of a margin. I'm not the one putting down those numbers around here, but I've been in a few smaller local races where the winner scores 101+ because he's so far ahead of the field that shows up. The margin of victory does factor into the USAT score earned per race.
I do agree though that if you want the most reliable measure of how you stack up against the faster folks, racing them head to head is the best measure, regardless of the USAT score. Oh....I didn't know we were talking about "every once in a while". How much you beat the field by is only part of the equation.......who's in the field (last years ranking) and the "par" score of the field in a particular race carries the most weight. I'd like to see that local race where the winner got a 101.....just out of curiousity. I've seen quite a few local races cruched beyound crushed and never a score that comes close to 101....absolutely not in a sprint race. Edited by Left Brain 2015-10-13 4:24 PM |
|
How to qualify for Kona? Pages: 1 2 | |||
| ||||
|
| |||
|