IMRA season 2011

jeffontour

ocnoc wrote: »

So Enduro... any chance of getting Stone Cross to Lug included? Considering its open mountain terrain, long, phyisical, challenging, adverse conditions... Its looking like a difficulty of at least 1.7 to me

I second the call of young ocnoc regarding Stone Cross to Lug. Hard earned points there!

donothoponpop

Howth race has been postponed until the following Sun, 16th January.

ThisRegard

On the bright side, it's another week to get rid of the snow/christmas cobwebs out of the body even if it's only for 5k.

Timmaay

donothoponpop wrote: »

Howth race has been postponed until the following Sat, 16th January.

The 16th is a Sunday

donothoponpop

Now that the weekend is free, anyone who wants a peek at the Annagh Hill course, can meet at the Gap carpark for 10:30am this Saturday 8th Jan, for a recce.

Enduro

ocnoc wrote: »

For those not on the IMRA fourm....



So Enduro... any chance of getting Stone Cross to Lug included? Considering its open mountain terrain, long, phyisical, challenging, adverse conditions... Its looking like a difficulty of at least 1.7 to me

Difficulty would be spat out automatically by the algorithm. The whole thing would probably top out at maximum available difficulty. But, since its a relay (and since there are no individual results in the database) unfortunately it can't get included. Get enough people doing a solo version and you might be onto something though.

If anyone has had a look at the whole points thing, let me know what you think so far. It'll be taken down again (hopefully to be re-instated at a later date) shortly.

donothoponpop

Enduro wrote: »

Difficulty would be spat out automatically by the algorithm. The whole thing would probably top out at maximum available difficulty. But, since its a relay (and since there are no individual results in the database) unfortunately it can't get included. Get enough people doing a solo version and you might be onto something though.

If anyone has had a look at the whole points thing, let me know what you think so far. It'll be taken down again (hopefully to be re-instated at a later date) shortly.

Seems like a fairer representation of how a runner did in a race (as opposed to just a straight % which is skewed by a particularly fast/slow winner. How many outliers are removed (or are you using standard deviation?). Is there a specific function? (Maths and running, my two hobbies;))

jlang

In theory it sounds more appropriate as a measure than % of winners time. In practice I think the presentation needs a little work.

I do prefer baselining to a theoretical middling performance instead of the time of the best guy out there, which can vary wildy depending who shows up on the day. Not so sure the outliers should be disregarded - (do they not have as much right as anyone to influence the average by (1/number of runners)? Potentially, even injuries/DNFs should influence the average downwards.)

Two main problems with the presentation: there are just too many digits on show and I'd like the scales to be more consistent across different views. % of winner's time is imperfect, but easy to understand, and it would be nice if the new scheme was as easy to interpret (even if the maths behind it is not).

In particular, scaling the numbers down from thousand-ish/tenthousand-ish to ten-ish or onehundred-ish would help an awful lot. (Ideally I'd favour scaling that ends up with 100 being average where possible - average performance, average race, average runner, etc. Please starting with 100.0 instead of 1000).

Also it's probably unnecessary to report both base points and race points on a race results page. As I read Enduro's explanation, the multiplier is the same for each runner in a race, and really only comes into play when you start comparing different races - on a runner's results summary (or a league page).

When adding up the top 8 points scores to give the enduro total, it might be better to divide by 8 again to make the scales equivalent between race points and enduro points.

On the definition of "best 8 Race Points from the last two years" - is/should this done by race date (so a result from early 2009 will fall out of the reckoning at the same point in 2011), or by year (best from 2009, 2010 and 2011 so far, 2009 results fall out at end of 2011)?

Not particularly related to the points scheme, but I liked the way the runners page sorted by races run. But clickable column headings to sort by name, number, enduro points, etc would be a welcome upgrade (and defaulting to races run)

One other upgrade request - an easy way to download any table as csv/xls/(anything that can be easily pasted into excel).

Raighne

jlang wrote: »

One other upgrade request - an easy way to download any table as csv/xls/(anything that can be easily pasted into excel).

This can be done already if you have Excel 2007 and upwards:

1. Go to the "Data" tab in Excel
2. Click "From Web"
3. Type in the IMRA url and browse to the part of the site where the table you want is
4. There will be little yellow arrows next to all tables
5. Click the yellow box next to the table you want
6. Click import

The added bonus is that this table is refreshable.

Peterx

It would be good to see at a glance which 8 races were the "best" ones.

Back in fantasy land I'd add a substantial bonus for a win or making an international hillrunning team - winning is hard and should be rewarded.

I'd have different weighting for different races with highest weighting going to good results in trial races, Irish Champs, Regional champs in that order.

Still in fantasy land I'd have an all-time table so the likes of Lenihan, Bryson, McCluskey et al have their achievements compared against the current crop of 2 year olds

Kissy Lips

From IMRA website...
********************************
IMPORTANT RACE POSTPONEMENT NOTICE !!

This Sundays race will be postponed until January 16th.

Howth GAA were subject to a break-in and now have no water available and therefore have asked us to postpone our race until the 16th of January.
********************************

The water thieves strike again !!

WithCheesePlease

So I'm just curious... I'd be tempted to give the Howth run on the 16th a go, but I've never done an IMRA run before and don't really know what to expect. I've done Gael Force, WAR, Roar before so I'd have an idea as to what the trail / mountain running itself is like (hell on hearth) but I'm not sure about the level of the other runners.

Is there any fear you'd turn up to "participate" and be left for dust by everyone else? Or would it be like road race meets where you can take part and you know there's always going to be people behind you?

Doing the off road sections of the adventure races I've done I've typically walked the incline parts, run the level bits and bounced down the declines. Would I be way out of my league next Sunday? I just don't want to be last one home by a mile is all...

nerraw1111

Just go for it WithCheese.

There's a huge range of abilities from the mountain goats out in front, to well, everybody else.

Very friendly and welcoming crowd.

Howth is a great first IMRA race. It was my first race (Summer) and it was a great introduction.

It is very unlikely you'll be left for dust. Howth isn't too difficult so you won't be last by miles, no one really is.

I'd encourage you to show up at Howth. If you hate it, at least you know.

However, if you like it, you'll have 12 months of great races to look forward and you'll see your ranking in Gael Force, Roar etc shoot up.

Results from Howth winter 2009, to give you an idea of times. This year the route is 5km.

http://imra.ie/events/view/tab/results/id/579/

Timmaay

Ha, most people start out with the shorter stuff 1st, then move on to adventure races after, you will have zero problems at all, there is a big spread in standard at the IMRA races and you will have someone to battle with for most the race, even if you're down the field a good bit.

ocnoc

Peterx wrote: »

Back in fantasy land I'd add a substantial bonus for a win or making an international hillrunning team - winning is hard and should be rewarded.

International Hill running team..... how about road running with a bit of climb running team? No off road. Anyone with a bit of pace, never having set foot in the mountains before, can show up and walk there way onto the team.

Peterx wrote: »

Still in fantasy land I'd have an all-time table so the likes of Lenihan, Bryson, McCluskey et al have their achievements compared against the current crop of 2 year olds

Something to aim for...

(i may just be bitter with exams at this moment in time)

Dunebuggy

WithCheesePlease wrote: »

So I'm just curious... I'd be tempted to give the Howth run on the 16th a go, but I've never done an IMRA run before and don't really know what to expect. I've done Gael Force, WAR, Roar before so I'd have an idea as to what the trail / mountain running itself is like (hell on hearth) but I'm not sure about the level of the other runners.

Is there any fear you'd turn up to "participate" and be left for dust by everyone else? Or would it be like road race meets where you can take part and you know there's always going to be people behind you?

Doing the off road sections of the adventure races I've done I've typically walked the incline parts, run the level bits and bounced down the declines. Would I be way out of my league next Sunday? I just don't want to be last one home by a mile is all...

Go for it !! I have had several emails from Novices who are going to their 1st race in Howth. You will definitely have fun !!!! Its a perfect 1st timers course and yes you will prob walk the second climb :-)

There is a competitiveness for sure in IMRA races. But the social running and gathering in the club after and swapping stories is great.

You will be addicted to the website in no time - the Cheap Price may shock you in comparison to other races you have mentioned, but don't let that phase you.

Enduro

donothoponpop wrote: »

Seems like a fairer representation of how a runner did in a race (as opposed to just a straight % which is skewed by a particularly fast/slow winner. How many outliers are removed (or are you using standard deviation?). Is there a specific function? (Maths and running, my two hobbies;))

It should be much fairer than %, as it not dependant on a single runner. Gets rid of that sinking feeling when you see Bazman lining up at the start . It also benifits the winner, as they get higher points for bigger winning margins.

There is a specific maths function. Very simple. I was originally thinking of borrowing the Triathalon Ireland system of having the 33rd percentile time be the anchor time, but since all the times are in the Database we are free to generate it using more a more complex formula than that. The current algorithm essentially uses the average of the middle third of results. My own thinking is that you probably need a minimum of ten results to make the system viable (Just a hunch, more than anything)

Enduro

jlang wrote: »

I do prefer baselining to a theoretical middling performance instead of the time of the best guy out there, which can vary wildy depending who shows up on the day. Not so sure the outliers should be disregarded - (do they not have as much right as anyone to influence the average by (1/number of runners)? Potentially, even injuries/DNFs should influence the average downwards.)

I think it's more repeatable by using the average runners, which is an aim of the system. The extremes tend to vary that bit more compared to the bulk of the field. Trying to hit the middle of the bell curve as best as possible!

jlang wrote: »

In particular, scaling the numbers down from thousand-ish/tenthousand-ish to ten-ish or onehundred-ish would help an awful lot. (Ideally I'd favour scaling that ends up with 100 being average where possible - average performance, average race, average runner, etc. Please starting with 100.0 instead of 1000).

I was wondering about that myself. I think that's probably better presentation wise alright.

jlang wrote: »

Also it's probably unnecessary to report both base points and race points on a race results page. As I read Enduro's explanation, the multiplier is the same for each runner in a race, and really only comes into play when you start comparing different races - on a runner's results summary (or a league page).

Again, I do see what you're saying there. The multipler is indeed a property of the race. My reasoning is that the base points effectively give a similar, but more accurate representation of a runners performance in that particular race. The race points are there simply to show what goes forward to contribute to their final Enduro number. If it's too much info then the Race point could go. Maybe moving the race points columm to the extreme right might also help presentation wise. My worry would be that if you remove Race points, then it becomes harder to see how race results contribute to your Enduro number. I think it needs to be as transparent as possible without being overly complex. Maybe moving it to a runner's details tab might be more effective.

jlang wrote: »

When adding up the top 8 points scores to give the enduro total, it might be better to divide by 8 again to make the scales equivalent between race points and enduro points.

I wouldn't want it to be confused with an average, which would be the main danger there. Interesting point though. Again I do see where you're coming from.

jlang wrote: »

On the definition of "best 8 Race Points from the last two years" - is/should this done by race date (so a result from early 2009 will fall out of the reckoning at the same point in 2011), or by year (best from 2009, 2010 and 2011 so far, 2009 results fall out at end of 2011)?

It gets updated everytime race results are loaded, based on the date of that race, since the figures are calculated and stored, rather than being continually worked out on the fly.

jlang wrote: »

Not particularly related to the points scheme, but I liked the way the runners page sorted by races run. But clickable column headings to sort by name, number, enduro points, etc would be a welcome upgrade (and defaulting to races run)

That's definitely on the to do list.

Thanks for the feedback. Plenty to mull over.

Enduro

Peterx wrote: »

It would be good to see at a glance which 8 races were the "best" ones.

Back in fantasy land I'd add a substantial bonus for a win or making an international hillrunning team - winning is hard and should be rewarded.

I'd have different weighting for different races with highest weighting going to good results in trial races, Irish Champs, Regional champs in that order.

Still in fantasy land I'd have an all-time table so the likes of Lenihan, Bryson, McCluskey et al have their achievements compared against the current crop of 2 year olds

Good suggestion about showing which 8 race results are contributing. Definitely worth adding to a runners profile. Just have to figure out how

I do see what you're saying about winning, but I wouldn't like to see a system that is too elitist. The big improvement in the system is that if a winner really pushes and does get a very fast time indeed, he/she will get rewarded with correspondingly incresed points.

The champs races, by their nature, will tend to have higher weightings anyway, since they already tend to be the longer races, with more difficult terraine and more climb (and that can all be worked out from information already in the database). In fact, that is my main reason for adding the whole race points calculation... to reward runners for taking on the more challenging championship races. Adding additional weightings would be a more manual process. For the moment, I'd like to see the system run itself using information that is already in the database, without adding an additional administrative task, like manually designating additional bonuses.

I very much agree about having an all time best Enduro points listing. The "All years" section from the runners page might be the place where that could go. You can see in a runner's details that their maximim Enduro points are recorded for each runner. The thinking behind that was to get exactly the detials you're looking for... and to give us all something to aspire to (or at least improve our position).

Again, thanks for the feedback. It's appreciated.

Sport101

Just scrolled through the years events, can't wait to leg it up and down some hills.

An "add to Google Calendar" button would be a great addition to the site IMO for each event, although that may be just because I always manage to double book myself. No idea if these are difficult to add to a site or not, and I realise we shouldn't be making it easier for Google take over the world, but its dead handy.

Ar Strae

OK...gotta say I freaked out seeing the Enduro points and the loss of my precious percentages but beginning to come around to it now.

Gutted though,. initially when I looked at it yesterday my Enduro max points were over 100000. Take that race-pack leaders! Unfortunately I see this typo has been corrected today

I see how two point scores gives more visibility into the process (and allows for the arguments of "I can't believe race X has a higher weighting than race Y") but I think it would be simpler with just the one score.

Out of interest is weather taken into account in the weighting? Or more specifically Winter vs Summer.

I agree with the scaling... 100s rather than 1000s would be nice I reckon.

But the beauty of the scheme to me is that it encourages people to try for the longer, tougher runs. Nothing like the whole "Dammit, Z is ahead of me. But if I just quietly turn up to the Avonbeg Circuit without mentioning I'm going to run it..."

And yeah being able to easily see the 8 runs contributing to the Enduro Points would be good (whether it's an Enduro rank number stored with the race results or whether you get to it from clicking on your Max Enduro Points.

Anyway, good to see that once again IMRA isn't happy with resting on their laurels and is trying new schemes and plans!

Ronan

Krusty_Clown

Sport101 wrote: »

Just scrolled through the years events, can't wait to leg it up and down some hills.

An "add to Google Calendar" button would be a great addition to the site IMO for each event, although that may be just because I always manage to double book myself. No idea if these are difficult to add to a site or not, and I realise we shouldn't be making it easier for Google take over the world, but its dead handy.

It's already do'able, but takes a bit of tweaking. If the data representation of the events calendar was changed a little, it would be a lot easier.

How to do it:

• In Excel, click on [Data] [From Web].
• Insert the URL for the IMRA events page (http://www.imra.ie/events/) and click on Go.
• Select the Yellow Table arrow icon, and click on Import. This will import the events table into Excel.

Now we need to reformat the table so that Google Calendar understands it.

• Rename the Date column header to Start Date
• Rename the Time column header to Start Time
• Rename the Venue/Event header to Subject
• Move the Subject column to the first column
• Erase all of the columns except for the first three (which should be: Subject, Start Date, Start Time)
• Reformat the dates so they are an accepted standard, e.g. US date format (MM/DD/YYYY)
• Finally, save the file as a Comma Seperated value file (CSV)

Now we import it into Google Calendar:

• In Google Calendar, click on [Other Calendars] [Add] [Import Calendar]
• Select your CSV file, and click on [Import]

Alternatively, just use the calendar attached to this post (note: this is a static list, so if dates change these changes will not be reflected in your Google Calendar).

Sport101

Cheers Krusty, good skills!

T runner

I think the new base points system is excellent. It is fair, well defined and accurate.

The overall race points is anything but. The statistical accuracy of the base points goes out the window with absolutely massive variations based on the completely subjective "difficulty" of the race.

The difference in difficulty of 1 is equal to a massive difference of 100 points (thats 5-9% of race points) based on a base score of 1000. Its just too much of a variation.

Also difficulty is directly affected by other conditions, weather conditions, gradient, hill lenght, hill frequency etc

The idea of the metric is at the end of the day to give runners an accurate reflection of their performance. To this end base points are mosta accurate, followed by percentages with overall race points a distant third and only really relevant within an individual race (which base points cater for anyway).

An example:

By comparing race points: Last year, winning the tough Maulin race was the equivalent in race points of finsihing 33rd in the Caurauntoohil race (36 minutes behind the winner). I cant see how these should be viewed as equivalent under any circumstances.

ocnoc

Just a quick thought...

In orienteering, at World Ranking events, the World Cups and World Champs world ranking points are multiplied by 0.005 and 0.01.
Could that be used for adding points to the big races?

(World Cup = regionals, World Champs = irish)

(I haven't really had a chance to drill down and number crunch much so this maybe a bad idea)

sean_84

T runner wrote: »

I think the new base points system is excellent. It is fair, well defined and accurate.

The overall race points is anything but. The statistical accuracy of the base points goes out the window with absolutely massive variations based on the completely subjective "difficulty" of the race.

The difference in difficulty of 1 is equal to a massive difference of 100 points (thats 5-9% of race points) based on a base score of 1000. Its just too much of a variation.

Also difficulty is directly affected by other conditions, weather conditions, gradient, hill lenght, hill frequency etc

The idea of the metric is at the end of the day to give runners an accurate reflection of their performance. To this end base points are mosta accurate, followed by percentages with overall race points a distant third and only really relevant within an individual race (which base points cater for anyway).

An example:

By comparing race points: Last year, winning the tough Maulin race was the equivalent in race points of finsihing 33rd in the Caurauntoohil race (36 minutes behind the winner). I cant see how these should be viewed as equivalent under any circumstances.

I agree with this that the base points are more relevant than the race points for comparing an individuals performance across races.

It's still not perfect as for races with smaller fields it can be really skewed depending on who turns up on the day, but this affect percentages of the winning time as well, where even one very fast person turning up can have a massive difference :-)

ocnoc

I don't mean to change topic but has any boardie (or anyone!) run this baby in Scotland....

The Isle of Jura

Epic is too small a word to describe this race... It looks positively deathlicious!! :eek:

A step too far into the world of insanity maybe? Or a race made in heaven for only the worthy?

Sub 3:30 will bring you close to glory? sub 4 an acceptable time?

iamjenko

Dunebuggy wrote: »

Go for it !! I have had several emails from Novices who are going to their 1st race in Howth. You will definitely have fun !!!! Its a perfect 1st timers course and yes you will prob walk the second climb :-)

There is a competitiveness for sure in IMRA races. But the social running and gathering in the club after and swapping stories is great.

You will be addicted to the website in no time - the Cheap Price may shock you in comparison to other races you have mentioned, but don't let that phase you.

Howth will be my first IMRA event too, toyed with the idea of getting into it last season but was playing rugby and training for marathons so never got araound to it! Looking forward to it now!

Slogger Jogger

ocnoc wrote: »

I don't mean to change topic but has any boardie (or anyone!) run this baby in Scotland....

The Isle of Jura

Epic is too small a word to describe this race... It looks positively deathlicious!! :eek:

A step too far into the world of insanity maybe? Or a race made in heaven for only the worthy?

Sub 3:30 will bring you close to glory? sub 4 an acceptable time?

I've heard Joe Lalor talk about it before. Whether he took the plunge or not I don't know. He spoke about it when we were away doing the 3 Peaks race 2 years back. Theres another race worth a go for a challenge.

Raighne

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

I've heard Joe Lalor talk about it before. Whether he took the plunge or not I don't know. He spoke about it when we were away doing the 3 Peaks race 2 years back. Theres another race worth a go for a challenge.

I remember that conversation, think he referred to the race as the "Bens of Jura" and yes it seems to be one of the most challenging over there, terrain-wise. But tough fell races are really a dime a dozen in Scotland and England.

Having run several parts of both the Borrowdale and Wasdale race routes, I can attest that both terrain and distance is on an altogether different scale than any of the races currently run in Ireland. The main difference is the amount of cliff and rock, particularly around the Scafell massiff which both the two "dale" classics take in which only Croagh Patrick matches here and on a much smaller scale.

I have heard the other Lakeland Classics: Three Shires, Ennerdale, Dudder Valley and Langdale. Navigation is notably easier, though, with paths being clearer, more cairns having been erected by the endless walkers, and mountain peaks being more distinct from each other. This undoubtedly does not apply to Scotland.

You may enjoy reading of the Lakeland Classics Trophy here, after all its meant to be a reward for someone specialising in these "old school" mountain challenges: http://www.lakelandclassicstrophy.org.uk/