General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 4
 
 
2015-10-15 11:19 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

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

isn't it the highest conceivable time an amateur athlete should be able to get, or something along those lines.  and they base that on other amateur athletes that have raced that race.  So if you score over 100 you've gotten something like a low level pro time.



2015-10-15 3:50 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

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

Originally posted by Left Brain

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.

IDK, I just read their description (quickly).  You read it and tell me what I overlooked.  I'm sure there was something. 

It sounds like the 'par time' depends on who races.  When fast people show up (and are in the ranking pool), you are likely to get an aggressive par time.

2015-10-15 3:55 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

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

Originally posted by dmiller5

isn't it the highest conceivable time an amateur athlete should be able to get, or something along those lines.  and they base that on other amateur athletes that have raced that race.  So if you score over 100 you've gotten something like a low level pro time.

As I read it, it's supposed to be an estimate of what time the top amateur would achieve.  But it's based upon those athletes actually racing that day (who may or may not have raced it before) and scales their times based on their rankings from the previous year.  Like with any statistical ranking, it gives a better estimate with more observations.  My two best scores were in small field long course dus (low 90s).  Most of my tris cluster in the mid 80s which is probably a better estimate of where I would rank.

2015-10-15 3:56 PM
in reply to: JohnnyKay

User image

Pro
15621
500050005000500100
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by JohnnyKay

Originally posted by Left Brain

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.

IDK, I just read their description (quickly).  You read it and tell me what I overlooked.  I'm sure there was something. 

It sounds like the 'par time' depends on who races.  When fast people show up (and are in the ranking pool), you are likely to get an aggressive par time.

The fastest(and slowest) 10% aren't even considered in the par time.  It's an average of the remaining 80%, who had rankings last year.  If you win the race, then surely you beat the par time, which was an avg. 

Winning a race doesn't guarantee 100 points.  I can site too many examples where that didn't happen....some aren't even close.  Like I said, that may not hold up for HIM and IM.....but I know from experience it holds up in sprints and olys because I know the people who won and I know what their scores were. (we kept really close track in 2014 when Jr. was going for the #1 ranking).

2015-10-15 4:17 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

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

Originally posted by Left Brain

The fastest(and slowest) 10% aren't even considered in the par time.  It's an average of the remaining 80%, who had rankings last year.  If you win the race, then surely you beat the par time, which was an avg. 

Winning a race doesn't guarantee 100 points.  I can site too many examples where that didn't happen....some aren't even close.  Like I said, that may not hold up for HIM and IM.....but I know from experience it holds up in sprints and olys because I know the people who won and I know what their scores were. (we kept really close track in 2014 when Jr. was going for the #1 ranking).

The par time is scaled (that part I didn't work through, so you can have at it) so that it takes time off those that are scored (actually the middle 60% from what I thought I read) in order to get 'par'.  I know you don't automatically get 100 from winning.  So (again, if I understand it correctly) the par is often better than the winning time (it should usually be better, in fact, since the top amateur isn't usually there.  The fact that you can score over 100 shows that the 'par' is not really what the top amateur might actually do at that race--just an estimate based on some other estimates. 

2015-10-15 4:59 PM
in reply to: JohnnyKay

User image

Pro
15621
500050005000500100
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by JohnnyKay

Originally posted by Left Brain

The fastest(and slowest) 10% aren't even considered in the par time.  It's an average of the remaining 80%, who had rankings last year.  If you win the race, then surely you beat the par time, which was an avg. 

Winning a race doesn't guarantee 100 points.  I can site too many examples where that didn't happen....some aren't even close.  Like I said, that may not hold up for HIM and IM.....but I know from experience it holds up in sprints and olys because I know the people who won and I know what their scores were. (we kept really close track in 2014 when Jr. was going for the #1 ranking).

The par time is scaled (that part I didn't work through, so you can have at it) so that it takes time off those that are scored (actually the middle 60% from what I thought I read) in order to get 'par'.  I know you don't automatically get 100 from winning.  So (again, if I understand it correctly) the par is often better than the winning time (it should usually be better, in fact, since the top amateur isn't usually there.  The fact that you can score over 100 shows that the 'par' is not really what the top amateur might actually do at that race--just an estimate based on some other estimates. 

  You're killin' me.



2015-10-15 5:48 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

New user
147
10025
Overland Park, KS
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
This is painful, sorry I mentioned USAT's ranking system

3mar, go ride your bike, a lot, and run too, looks like you don't need to spend much time in the pool. Report back next summer, we expect to see consistent ranking scores in the mid to high 80's
2015-10-15 7:49 PM
in reply to: mikec123

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
Originally posted by mikec123

This is painful, sorry I mentioned USAT's ranking system

3mar, go ride your bike, a lot, and run too, looks like you don't need to spend much time in the pool. Report back next summer, we expect to see consistent ranking scores in the mid to high 80's


Sounds like a plan. I've got Beach to Battleship in a couple days, so let's see if I end up in the low 80's again.
2015-10-18 12:04 PM
in reply to: #5145925

User image


85
252525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
3mar, how was your race? Turned out to be a nice day. That wind was a little tough!
2015-10-18 1:02 PM
in reply to: tjones2k9

User image


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

3mar, how was your race? Turned out to be a nice day. That wind was a little tough!


It went well I think. I finished 36th OA and 7th in my age group with a 4:55. I think the wind slowed everyone down. The winning time was 8 minutes slower than last year. I'm really curious to see what my ranking is for that.

How did it go for you?
2015-10-19 7:44 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Master
3204
20001000100100
ann arbor, michigan
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
Originally posted by 3mar

I appreciate everyone's input, but I certainly won't give up on triathlon, or Kona. If it takes until I'm in the 70 age group, so be it. I want to make that crystal clear. I've been told what I *can't* do my whole life, and it's never stopped me. I always go big, and just keep cranking until I get there. If I ever set a goal I can reach easily (or that doesn't look ridiculous) then I've failed.

You should have saw the look on my college advisor's face when I told him I wanted to be a chemical engineer...I scored around 20% on my chemistry entrance exams. Essentially guessing (I was pretty much guessing as it might as well been in Japanese). Actually, if I remember correctly, I would have got a higher score had I guessed just based on statistics. Heck, I had to take the SATs twice to get a score high enough to get into a summer program to even get into college on a probationary level. But I grew up waaaaay below the poverty level, so if I was working my way through school I wanted the most bang for my buck and I read that chemical engineering had the highest starting salary, even though I really wasn't sure what it was. But I was determined I'd do it. I was told (through laughter) that it was ridiculous. It was the most difficult and competitive undergrad program and there was just no way, not for me, I was miles away. They allowed me to take the 1st year engineering courses anyway. I made dean's list (thanks to the guy laughing), but they still wouldn't let me into the engineering program as they just couldn't get over my test scores (boo Penn State). So I called every other college in a 200 mile radius until I found one that would let me in (go Pitt). This was all while being told I was just too far away, it was ridiculous and even if I got in a program, there was absolutely no way I would finish, even smart kids that didn't work 50 hrs/week couldn't hack it. The head of the ChemE program saw something though...or he was just tired of me calling his direct line every day and let me in. I'm sure you can guess how that story ended.

Point is; when I want to do something, I will do it. No matter how long it takes.

Also, I've been doing this from a little over a year. That oly PR was after 6 months of training. The HIM was after 8. That's from day 1. I'm just getting started .

Is it possible this year? Probably not, and that's fine. Next year? Maybe. The year after? Whatever. It will happen.


I love everything that you wrote here. This is kind of how I view myself; not the most talented but willing to work as hard as it takes.

My perspective on your Kona Qualifying goal......... My first IM was Kona via the lottery program. It was every bit as cool as you think it would be and I was hooked. It became my goal to get back to Kona. All I thought about was how fast I was going to go and how I would get back. The honest truth, it sucked a lot of the fun out of training and racing for me. By IM #4 I realized that, while I was fast, I was just not KQ fast (yet). Instead of constantly worrying about Kona, I worried about training hard and improving and enjoying the process. My goal is still to get back. I haven't given up but I recognize that I am just not there. If I have one of those magical days maybe it will happen, but if I don't, training and racing is still really fun and I don't want to lose sight of that.


2015-10-19 7:50 AM
in reply to: #5147446

User image


85
252525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
Congrats on the race! I was 45th OA and 8th in my AG with 5:00. Seat came loose and nose pitched down at mile 6.. Stupid T1 grimlins got me overnight. Missed the water bottle handoff at the aid station. Cramped like crazy off the bike. First mile was 13 minutes, but I was able to pull it together by mile 3. So I'm pretty happy with that. Really looking forward to next year!
2015-10-19 9:19 AM
in reply to: tjones2k9

User image


85
252525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
Whoops, I went back and looked and I actually took 15:30 for the first mile, and 10:00 for the second. Then I was able to get running.

On a side note.. this was my first half. So is that what they mean by "blowing-up" on the run? Cramps right off the bike? Or is it going out and having a strong first few miles then crashing? Just trying to figure out what went wrong and how to learn from it.
2015-10-19 9:55 AM
in reply to: 0

User image


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

Originally posted by 3mar

I appreciate everyone's input, but I certainly won't give up on triathlon, or Kona. If it takes until I'm in the 70 age group, so be it. I want to make that crystal clear. I've been told what I *can't* do my whole life, and it's never stopped me. I always go big, and just keep cranking until I get there. If I ever set a goal I can reach easily (or that doesn't look ridiculous) then I've failed.

You should have saw the look on my college advisor's face when I told him I wanted to be a chemical engineer...I scored around 20% on my chemistry entrance exams. Essentially guessing (I was pretty much guessing as it might as well been in Japanese). Actually, if I remember correctly, I would have got a higher score had I guessed just based on statistics. Heck, I had to take the SATs twice to get a score high enough to get into a summer program to even get into college on a probationary level. But I grew up waaaaay below the poverty level, so if I was working my way through school I wanted the most bang for my buck and I read that chemical engineering had the highest starting salary, even though I really wasn't sure what it was. But I was determined I'd do it. I was told (through laughter) that it was ridiculous. It was the most difficult and competitive undergrad program and there was just no way, not for me, I was miles away. They allowed me to take the 1st year engineering courses anyway. I made dean's list (thanks to the guy laughing), but they still wouldn't let me into the engineering program as they just couldn't get over my test scores (boo Penn State). So I called every other college in a 200 mile radius until I found one that would let me in (go Pitt). This was all while being told I was just too far away, it was ridiculous and even if I got in a program, there was absolutely no way I would finish, even smart kids that didn't work 50 hrs/week couldn't hack it. The head of the ChemE program saw something though...or he was just tired of me calling his direct line every day and let me in. I'm sure you can guess how that story ended.

Point is; when I want to do something, I will do it. No matter how long it takes.

Also, I've been doing this from a little over a year. That oly PR was after 6 months of training. The HIM was after 8. That's from day 1. I'm just getting started .

Is it possible this year? Probably not, and that's fine. Next year? Maybe. The year after? Whatever. It will happen.


I love everything that you wrote here. This is kind of how I view myself; not the most talented but willing to work as hard as it takes.

My perspective on your Kona Qualifying goal......... My first IM was Kona via the lottery program. It was every bit as cool as you think it would be and I was hooked. It became my goal to get back to Kona. All I thought about was how fast I was going to go and how I would get back. The honest truth, it sucked a lot of the fun out of training and racing for me. By IM #4 I realized that, while I was fast, I was just not KQ fast (yet). Instead of constantly worrying about Kona, I worried about training hard and improving and enjoying the process. My goal is still to get back. I haven't given up but I recognize that I am just not there. If I have one of those magical days maybe it will happen, but if I don't, training and racing is still really fun and I don't want to lose sight of that.


I couldn't agree more. If you don't enjoy the journey, it's just not worth it. Personally, my favorite part is the training. But in that, I need a bigger goal, and Kona seems like a great one to have. You just have to look past the Negative-Nancy's. I realize it's a way out there goal, but whatever, I'm enjoying the heck out of the journey, so if I don't make it, it's still worth it for me.

Edited by 3mar 2015-10-19 9:56 AM
2015-10-19 10:05 AM
in reply to: tjones2k9

User image


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

Whoops, I went back and looked and I actually took 15:30 for the first mile, and 10:00 for the second. Then I was able to get running.

On a side note.. this was my first half. So is that what they mean by "blowing-up" on the run? Cramps right off the bike? Or is it going out and having a strong first few miles then crashing? Just trying to figure out what went wrong and how to learn from it.


Luckily I haven't had that issue, but I know a lot of people do. For me, it's the complete opposite. For some reason, my legs want to fly off the bike and I spend the first part of the run of every triathlon reigning myself in. Even with those first couple steep hills (which were just cruel by the way) out of T2 my first mile was at 7:23 and I was targeting 7:30's for miles 1-10 then picking up the pace if I could for the last 5k.

Half's seem to me to be pretty forgiving as long as you keep up some kind of nutrition on the bike. This was my second and both times I went through the run with nothing more than a couple sips of water and a very little bit of coke. I was getting a lot of lactic acid build up in my quads towards the end of the run and my pace dropped to 8ish for miles 9-12. I picked it up for the last mile and ended up averaging 7:38. It was slightly slower than I wanted, but all in all, I'm happy with it. I felt strong throughout the whole race and honestly had a blast. I'll certainly be back next year.
2015-10-19 11:27 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image


85
252525
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
Thanks for that.. maybe i'll start a new thread instead of derailing this one even further. Nice race! And I agree about that first hill. I had to pinch both my quads above the knee and waddle up the hill to not cramp up. There was a little girl on the corner at the top of the hill and she said "it's all downhill from here". That gave me a good laugh.


2015-10-20 8:08 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Veteran
434
10010010010025
Apex, NC
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
Originally posted by 3mar

Originally posted by tjones2k9

Whoops, I went back and looked and I actually took 15:30 for the first mile, and 10:00 for the second. Then I was able to get running.

On a side note.. this was my first half. So is that what they mean by "blowing-up" on the run? Cramps right off the bike? Or is it going out and having a strong first few miles then crashing? Just trying to figure out what went wrong and how to learn from it.


Luckily I haven't had that issue, but I know a lot of people do. For me, it's the complete opposite. For some reason, my legs want to fly off the bike and I spend the first part of the run of every triathlon reigning myself in. Even with those first couple steep hills (which were just cruel by the way) out of T2 my first mile was at 7:23 and I was targeting 7:30's for miles 1-10 then picking up the pace if I could for the last 5k.

Half's seem to me to be pretty forgiving as long as you keep up some kind of nutrition on the bike. This was my second and both times I went through the run with nothing more than a couple sips of water and a very little bit of coke. I was getting a lot of lactic acid build up in my quads towards the end of the run and my pace dropped to 8ish for miles 9-12. I picked it up for the last mile and ended up averaging 7:38. It was slightly slower than I wanted, but all in all, I'm happy with it. I felt strong throughout the whole race and honestly had a blast. I'll certainly be back next year.


To answer the first question, there are probably a bunch of ways to "blow up on the run". For me, it's similar to this in that I usually start out too fast. I feel really good and look at my watch to find out I'm 20-30 secs faster than my goal pace. I used to just go with it but then I'd pay for it in the latter half of the race. Now I know better and am really strict about my goal pace until mile 7.

I have however also had pretty severe cramps early in the race at times. I just keep running. It doesn't tend to be catastrophic and I can run my way out of them.
2015-10-29 9:25 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers
Not to dredge this one back up again, but the rankings came out for Beach2Battleship today. I've been pretty intrigued by them since they were brought up on this board, so I was really curious to see what I'd end up with.

I finished 36 out of ~900 finishers (I heard there where about 1,000 starters) and that resulted in a score of 83.6. That surprised me a bit as I would think that finishing in the top 4% would yeild a higher score than that (I realize there are a ton of other factors in the algorithm ). Interesting none the less and my highest score to date, so I'm cool with that.
2015-10-29 9:34 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Pro
6005
50001000
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by 3mar Not to dredge this one back up again, but the rankings came out for Beach2Battleship today. I've been pretty intrigued by them since they were brought up on this board, so I was really curious to see what I'd end up with. I finished 36 out of ~900 finishers (I heard there where about 1,000 starters) and that resulted in a score of 83.6. That surprised me a bit as I would think that finishing in the top 4% would yeild a higher score than that (I realize there are a ton of other factors in the algorithm ). Interesting none the less and my highest score to date, so I'm cool with that.

Placing within the the field or your AG is not a factor in the score calculation.  It's based solely on your time relative to the par time for the race.

 

2015-10-29 9:40 AM
in reply to: TriMyBest

User image


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

Originally posted by 3mar Not to dredge this one back up again, but the rankings came out for Beach2Battleship today. I've been pretty intrigued by them since they were brought up on this board, so I was really curious to see what I'd end up with. I finished 36 out of ~900 finishers (I heard there where about 1,000 starters) and that resulted in a score of 83.6. That surprised me a bit as I would think that finishing in the top 4% would yeild a higher score than that (I realize there are a ton of other factors in the algorithm ). Interesting none the less and my highest score to date, so I'm cool with that.

Placing within the the field or your AG is not a factor in the score calculation.  It's based solely on your time relative to the par time for the race.

 




Don't the results of the field adjust the par time? If so, then this would affect it. The winning time this year was significantly slower (on the order of 10 minutes) than last year. If that was due to course conditions (such as the wind) then logic would dictate that the par time be adjusted. Now, if it was strength of the field, I could see it remaining. I guess if that is taken into account, it must have been the latter.
2015-10-29 10:24 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
6005
50001000
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: Kona Qualifying by the Numbers

Originally posted by 3mar
Originally posted by TriMyBest

Originally posted by 3mar Not to dredge this one back up again, but the rankings came out for Beach2Battleship today. I've been pretty intrigued by them since they were brought up on this board, so I was really curious to see what I'd end up with. I finished 36 out of ~900 finishers (I heard there where about 1,000 starters) and that resulted in a score of 83.6. That surprised me a bit as I would think that finishing in the top 4% would yeild a higher score than that (I realize there are a ton of other factors in the algorithm ). Interesting none the less and my highest score to date, so I'm cool with that.

Placing within the the field or your AG is not a factor in the score calculation.  It's based solely on your time relative to the par time for the race.

 

Don't the results of the field adjust the par time? If so, then this would affect it. The winning time this year was significantly slower (on the order of 10 minutes) than last year. If that was due to course conditions (such as the wind) then logic would dictate that the par time be adjusted. Now, if it was strength of the field, I could see it remaining. I guess if that is taken into account, it must have been the latter.

Yes the results of the field adjust the par time, but then it's also being adjusted based on what the theoretical time that an athlete with a 100 ranking could achieve on that course that particular day, then your score is based on your time compared to that theoretical athlete's time, not the field's average or your relative placing within the field.  Here is how scores are calculated (from the USAT document I posted earlier in the thread):

There are six steps used to determine race scores:

  1. Find all possible pacesetters: Determine which participants received an overall score in the previous year. These participants are considered “pacesetters” in this event. (Note: pacesetters are not athletes who competed in the race the previous year as well as this year.  Pacesetters are any athlete who received an overall score based on any three on-road triathlons (2 or more races of any other sport) from the previous year.  An overall score tells us what type of performances the athlete generally puts in.
  2. Convert time into minutes decimal format: We change participants’ times into minutes so they can work in the mathematical formula (example: a time of 00:49:30.0 would change to 49.5)
  3. Find each pacesetter’s calculated time: This is done by multiply each participant’s time in minutes by their pacesetter ranking divided that by 100 (this removes a certain percentage of their time). This tells us how quickly an athlete that is ranked at a 100 could have completed the course. 
  4. Remove top and bottom 20% of calculated times: Drop the top 20% & bottom 20% of calculated times. This removes any extraordinarily great performances (a pacesetter significantly outperforms their previous year pacesetter ranking) and extraordinarily poor performances (causes could be a flat tire or dehydration for example).
  5. Determine Par Time: Average the remaining 60% calculated times to come up with the “par time.”  We are interested in the “par time” as this is what all of the participants’ times will be compared to when calculating their individual rankings.  Competitors are actually racing against the “par time” as far as scoring is concerned.
  6. Determine each individual’s race score: Divide the each participant’s finish time by the par time, invert and multiply by 100. (For example: assume a participant had a finish time of 49.5 and Par Time was set at 45 minutes

Original Score: 49.5/45 = 1.1

Inverted Score: 1/1.1 = .909090

Race Score: .909090*100 = 90.9090

 

 



Edited by TriMyBest 2015-10-29 10:25 AM


2015-10-29 11:49 AM
in reply to: TriMyBest

User image


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

Originally posted by 3mar
Originally posted by TriMyBest

Originally posted by 3mar Not to dredge this one back up again, but the rankings came out for Beach2Battleship today. I've been pretty intrigued by them since they were brought up on this board, so I was really curious to see what I'd end up with. I finished 36 out of ~900 finishers (I heard there where about 1,000 starters) and that resulted in a score of 83.6. That surprised me a bit as I would think that finishing in the top 4% would yeild a higher score than that (I realize there are a ton of other factors in the algorithm ). Interesting none the less and my highest score to date, so I'm cool with that.

Placing within the the field or your AG is not a factor in the score calculation.  It's based solely on your time relative to the par time for the race.

 

Don't the results of the field adjust the par time? If so, then this would affect it. The winning time this year was significantly slower (on the order of 10 minutes) than last year. If that was due to course conditions (such as the wind) then logic would dictate that the par time be adjusted. Now, if it was strength of the field, I could see it remaining. I guess if that is taken into account, it must have been the latter.

Yes the results of the field adjust the par time, but then it's also being adjusted based on what the theoretical time that an athlete with a 100 ranking could achieve on that course that particular day, then your score is based on your time compared to that theoretical athlete's time, not the field's average or your relative placing within the field.  Here is how scores are calculated (from the USAT document I posted earlier in the thread):

There are six steps used to determine race scores:

  1. Find all possible pacesetters: Determine which participants received an overall score in the previous year. These participants are considered “pacesetters” in this event. (Note: pacesetters are not athletes who competed in the race the previous year as well as this year.  Pacesetters are any athlete who received an overall score based on any three on-road triathlons (2 or more races of any other sport) from the previous year.  An overall score tells us what type of performances the athlete generally puts in.
  2. Convert time into minutes decimal format: We change participants’ times into minutes so they can work in the mathematical formula (example: a time of 00:49:30.0 would change to 49.5)
  3. Find each pacesetter’s calculated time: This is done by multiply each participant’s time in minutes by their pacesetter ranking divided that by 100 (this removes a certain percentage of their time). This tells us how quickly an athlete that is ranked at a 100 could have completed the course. 
  4. Remove top and bottom 20% of calculated times: Drop the top 20% & bottom 20% of calculated times. This removes any extraordinarily great performances (a pacesetter significantly outperforms their previous year pacesetter ranking) and extraordinarily poor performances (causes could be a flat tire or dehydration for example).
  5. Determine Par Time: Average the remaining 60% calculated times to come up with the “par time.”  We are interested in the “par time” as this is what all of the participants’ times will be compared to when calculating their individual rankings.  Competitors are actually racing against the “par time” as far as scoring is concerned.
  6. Determine each individual’s race score: Divide the each participant’s finish time by the par time, invert and multiply by 100. (For example: assume a participant had a finish time of 49.5 and Par Time was set at 45 minutes

Original Score: 49.5/45 = 1.1

Inverted Score: 1/1.1 = .909090

Race Score: .909090*100 = 90.9090

 

 




I never understand a calculation until I actually do it, so I created a fake data set of 20 pace setters and ran the calcs to see how it works out. My previous year's scores for my made up athletes obviously didn't jive perfectly as the produced scores don't make 100% sense, but the goal here was just to see how the calcs worked. I also added in obvious outliers just to test it. Interesting.



(image.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
image.jpg (145KB - 8 downloads)
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Kona Qualifying by the Numbers Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 4
 
 
RELATED POSTS

How to qualify for Kona? Pages: 1 2

Started by bendoregon
Views: 4549 Posts: 39

2007-12-04 10:36 PM jcjsc00

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

Started by Scout
Views: 2349 Posts: 33

2007-06-26 8:01 PM Scout

What IM time will qualify you for Kona?

Started by nuorder
Views: 1122 Posts: 8

2006-09-07 8:39 AM amiine

Easy to qualify for Kona?

Started by paTRIck
Views: 1050 Posts: 6

2006-02-26 4:59 PM TH3_FRB

Qualifying for Kona at IMWI

Started by derekh25
Views: 1252 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?