(Men) 10 Round Numbers- how many of these can you run in 2012?

Krusty_Clown

04072511 wrote: »

There's no doubt that a sub 5 mile is a stronger performance than a sub 60 400m but some interesting comments on there. It really depends on the person with regard which target comes easier.

Haven't read the thread, but I'd imagine it's really a question of perspectives. Coming from a history of long distance running, the 400m target sounds a lot tougher. What does the IAAF table have to say?

*Edit* answering my own question:
Iaaf points tables say-

401 points for sub-60 400m
465 points for sub-5 MILE (recall in hs you probably ran 1600m, so 450 points for 5:01.7)

RayCun

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Right now, I don't have immediate plans to do a 400 or 800m, as I would be better off targeting 5k and 10k on the back of the marathon training period

I don't think you'd need much specific training, but you might need a few attempts to get used to the starts and get your pacing right. You won't have time to read your Garmin, work out your finish time, and recover from a slow start

pconn062

menoscemo wrote: »

Keep an eye on the graded meets calendar Krusty.
The meet on the 23rd may has a 400m, 1 mile and 3000m.
On the 6th june there is a 400m and 800m, on the 4th July there is a 400m and 10k etc etc.

There are a good few chances for you to knock off a few targets in one go. With your mile time I honestly can't see how you wouldn't get a sub 60 400m but you'll never know unless you give it a bash.

Just in regards to that meet on the 23rd, has anyone any thoughts on doing both the 400m and the 3k in the one night. Neither would be goal races for me but I'd love to give them a go, the 3k as I think I run best around 5k so a 3k would be interesting and the 400m just to see what I could do for that distance. There's about an hour and a half between the events, good idea/bad idea?

Krusty_Clown

RayCun wrote: »

I don't think you'd need much specific training, but you might need a few attempts to get used to the starts and get your pacing right. You won't have time to read your Garmin, work out your finish time, and recover from a slow start

You mean I'd have to use starting blocks for the 400? :eek:
Would you use starting blocks for an 800?

Timmaay

Defo not for an 800! You do start in lane for the 800 though, and get to cut in at 100m. If I was to hope into a 400 now just for for a sub60 I wouldn't bother with blocks either 2bh.

Larry Brent

Just to clarify, not using the blocks for 400m is not an option in the graded meets. Blocks compulsory the last time I was there and a few long distance fellows wanted to just do a standing start they weren't allowed.

menoscemo

pconn062 wrote: »

Just in regards to that meet on the 23rd, has anyone any thoughts on doing both the 400m and the 3k in the one night. Neither would be goal races for me but I'd love to give them a go, the 3k as I think I run best around 5k so a 3k would be interesting and the 400m just to see what I could do for that distance. There's about an hour and a half between the events, good idea/bad idea?

Can't see the problem with that. Plenty of time to recover from the 400.

dna_leri

menoscemo wrote: »

pconn062 wrote: »

Just in regards to that meet on the 23rd, has anyone any thoughts on doing both the 400m and the 3k in the one night. Neither would be goal races for me but I'd love to give them a go, the 3k as I think I run best around 5k so a 3k would be interesting and the 400m just to see what I could do for that distance. There's about an hour and a half between the events, good idea/bad idea?

Can't see the problem with that. Plenty of time to recover from the 400.

If you give everything in the 400 you won't be able to give everything in the 3k, IMHO.

Timmaay

dna_leri wrote: »

If you give everything in the 400 you won't be able to give everything in the 3k, IMHO.

I was going to do one after an 800 last year, about 20mins between races, I bailed from the 3k, I felt so bad ha!

pconn062

dna_leri wrote: »

If you give everything in the 400 you won't be able to give everything in the 3k, IMHO.

OK cheers, well it would be my first time racing a 400m so I don't know how much I have to give! :pac: I've done shorter sprints before, 60 80 and 100m, never longer than that. To be honest I would rather run the 400m to try it so could see how I feel after that and then see about the 3k, an hour and a half might be long enough.

HelenAnne

RayCun wrote: »

'Too soft' is another argument, but I agree that those times don't need to be changed for a women's table. Rather than adding 10% to each time, pick ten round numbers that are on the whole at the right level. For example

400m - 70 seconds
800m - 3 minutes
Mile - 6 minutes
3k - 12 minutes
5k - 20 minutes
5 miles - 35 minutes
10k - 40 minutes
10 miles - 70 minutes
Half - 100 minutes
Marathon - 3.20 (200 minutes)

Thanks, Ray! I haven't hit any of those times yet, but they are more achievable for me than the first set. The mile & the 5 mile times I'd hope to hit within the next year anyway. Thanks!

Pisco Sour

pconn062 wrote: »

Just in regards to that meet on the 23rd, has anyone any thoughts on doing both the 400m and the 3k in the one night. Neither would be goal races for me but I'd love to give them a go, the 3k as I think I run best around 5k so a 3k would be interesting and the 400m just to see what I could do for that distance. There's about an hour and a half between the events, good idea/bad idea?

Bad idea. I'm never able for very much after 400s. They have it as the last event of the day on our regular programme, and for good reason.

If it was a 100 or 200 you could do the 3000 after no bother, but after a 400 your 3K would suffer badly.

Kurt Godel

donothoponpop wrote: »

Name|400m<75 secs|800m<2:25|1 mile<6 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<2000secs|10k<40m|10miles<100mins|Half Marathon<100mins|Marathon<3hrs (based on 3*100min decimal clock)

Avg Boardsie||||||||||

Since everything needs to be boxed, diluted, and achievable by all, its only fair to relax more of the numbers, so more joggers don't feel left out. Now I can maybe hit a few more myself, the others were too hard! (except for the ones that I could already hit). Maybe one for the ladies too? Wouldn't want to think there are many girls faster than me, lol!

RayCun

The point is not 'targets for joggers', it's targets that are as average/aspirational for female club runners as the original set were for male club runners.
In Dublin last year 181 MS runners were under 3 hours, but only 14 FS runners.
At the MSB 5k 108 men were under 20 minutes, only 18 women.
And while there are women on boards who have hit some of the targets in the list above, I'd guess there are only a handful in the country who can hit all of them. No disrespect to Krusty, but any woman hitting all 12 is running at a far higher level than him.

Pisco Sour

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

You mean I'd have to use starting blocks for the 400? :eek:

LOL

It's not a big deal if you don't know how to use them. You can just use them as a prop. Over 400m your start is less critical than over 100m and 200m. Just rest in the blocks, wait for the gun, and run! Simple. Don't think about it. Maybe do a few practice runs of it before the race to get comfortable. But in the end of the day if you don't go under 60 it would be due to other reasons rather than losing a couple of tenths at the start.

Pisco Sour

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Since everything needs to be boxed, diluted, and achievable by all, its only fair to relax more of the numbers, so more joggers don't feel left out. Now I can maybe hit a few more myself, the others were too hard! (except for the ones that I could already hit). Maybe one for the ladies too? Wouldn't want to think there are many girls faster than me, lol!

Kurt Godel

RayCun wrote: »

The point is not 'targets for joggers', it's targets that are as average/aspirational for female club runners as the original set were for male club runners.
In Dublin last year 181 MS runners were under 3 hours, but only 14 FS runners.
At the MSB 5k 108 men were under 20 minutes, only 18 women.
And while there are women on boards who have hit some of the targets in the list above, I'd guess there are only a handful in the country who can hit all of them. No disrespect to Krusty, but any woman hitting all 12 is running at a far higher level than him.

Can we look forward to further dilution and categorization, for M40's? Same logic, there's less M40's that could hit them than M's. Ditto F50's, under12 boys, asthmatics...

Is it now acceptable for mods to change the direction of the original post and thread, without asking the original poster? Any female's, M40's, juniors, whatever, are welcome to try and hit these numbers. Ticking the box though, isn't the point of the thread, which didn't seem broken before you went tinkering.

shels4ever

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Can we look forward to further dilution and categorization, for M40's? Same logic, there's less M40's that could hit them than M's. Ditto F50's, under12 boys, asthmatics...

Is it now acceptable for mods to change the direction of the original post and thread, without asking the original poster? Any female's, M40's, juniors, whatever, are welcome to try and hit these numbers. Ticking the box though, isn't the point of the thread, which didn't seem broken before you went tinkering.

Maybe include some targets for people over weight also .

RayCun

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Can we look forward to further dilution and categorization, for M40's? Same logic, there's less M40's that could hit them than M's. Ditto F50's, under12 boys, asthmatics...

Has anyone suggested this? Argued for this? Started a thread about it?
No.
Are you suggesting that the numbers in this thread are reasonable targets for women? As average or aspirational as they are for men?

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Is it now acceptable for mods to change the direction of the original post and thread, without asking the original poster? Any female's, M40's, juniors, whatever, are welcome to try and hit these numbers. Ticking the box though, isn't the point of the thread, which didn't seem broken before you went tinkering.

This thread hasn't changed. Another, similar thread has started. Ignore that one if you like.

And when the big 8 thread started last year the original poster seemed to be okay with having a list of targets for women

donothoponpop wrote: »

1 mile - 5.30 mins
3k - 11:15 mins
5k - 23 mins
5miles - 35 mins
10k - 44 mins
10miles - 70 mins
Half Marathon - 1:45 hours
Marathon - 3:30 hours

most of them easier than the ones I came up with.

In last year's challenge, Seres was the only woman to post times in the table. Perhaps a separate table for women will encourage female posters on here to challenge themselves by providing targets that are difficult but achievable.

Kurt Godel

RayCun wrote: »

This thread hasn't changed. Another, similar thread has started. Ignore that one if you like.

Perfect. If this thread hasn't changed, remove that (Men) tag you put at the front. I'll ignore the other one.

Kurt Godel

HelenAnne wrote: »

Are the 10 round numbers for men or women or are they unisex?

The thread was started with the intention that these goals are open to everybody, male or female, old or young. The main purpose of the thread was to focus debate on the faster runners on the forum, rather than have different classes of times that would be achievable by different abilities. No problem if someone wants to start another thread with easier targets, that's their business. But this thread was started by me (under a different name) with the intention that the times were there for everyone to hit.

I'm pretty pissed off that its been segregated, again for the reason of "everyone's a winner" on this forum. There's plenty of female runners here who could aim for those times, no reason they should be excluded. Ditto veterans or juniors- should they also be excluded and given a set of easier tasks?

Pisco Sour

Kurt Godel wrote: »

The thread was started with the intention that these goals are open to everybody, male or female, old or young. The main purpose of the thread was to focus debate on the faster runners on the forum, rather than have different classes of times that would be achievable by different abilities. No problem if someone wants to start another thread with easier targets, that's their business. But this thread was started by me (under a different name) with the intention that the times were there for everyone to hit.

I'm pretty pissed off that its been segregated, again for the reason of "everyone's a winner" on this forum. There's plenty of female runners here who could aim for those times, no reason they should be excluded. Ditto veterans or juniors- should they also be excluded and given a set of easier tasks?

Very good points.

Can we bring the 800m time down from 3 minutes to 2:30 or 2:20 though as it is not a fast time in a relative or an absolute sense?

pconn062

Meh, to be honest I thought this was a good thread to start out with, but I'm losing interest with all the bitching and moaning going on this and the women's version. People really will argue over the stupidest of things, it's only meant to be a bit of fun lads.

ocnoc

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But as seen as there is a bit of debate on a "good" club time. Here's my input.

400m - 49.9 sec
1 mile - 4:10 mins
3k - 8:00 mins
5k - 14:00 mins
10k - 29 mins
10miles - 50 mins
Half Marathon - 65 mins
Marathon - 2:20 hours

Pisco Sour

ocnoc wrote: »

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But as seen as there is a bit of debate on a "good" club time. Here's my input.

400m - 49.9 sec
1 mile - 4:00 mins
3k - 8:00 mins
5k - 14:00 mins
10k - 29 mins
10miles - 50 mins
Half Marathon - 65 mins
Marathon - 2:20 hours.

:eek: A sub 4 minute mile is a tad better than a "good" club time. How many Irish people have achieved that in history?

ocnoc

An Irish athlete has gone under four minutes 40 times.
Maybe its a bit on the quick side :rolleyes:

Pisco Sour

ocnoc wrote: »

An Irish athlete has gone under four minutes 40 times.
Maybe its a bit on the quick side :rolleyes:

Just a smidge

Getonwithit

ocnoc wrote: »

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But as seen as there is a bit of debate on a "good" club time. Here's my input.

400m - 49.9 sec
1 mile - 4:00 mins
3k - 8:00 mins
5k - 14:00 mins
10k - 29 mins
10miles - 50 mins
Half Marathon - 65 mins
Marathon - 2:20 hours.

Fairly ambitious
If your club was called Olympic athletes club then these would be relevant.
The sub 8 3k and sub 50 10miler are the easiest! Most of these times would minimum get you a medal at the national championships

ocnoc

Is that not the point of a good club runner?
To medal at the National Championships??

Generally, the Irish Elites don't race the National Championships.

Getonwithit

ocnoc wrote: »

Is that not the point of a good club runner?
To medal at the National Championships??

Generally, the Irish Elites don't race the National Championships.

Yeah so your club would be only made up of internationals! I don't agree with the celebration of mediocrity so prevalent in Irish athletics but these times are not what I'd consider 'club' runner times

Pisco Sour

ocnoc wrote: »

Is that not the point of a good club runner?
To medal at the National Championships??

Generally, the Irish Elites don't race the National Championships.

All quite subjective.

The reality is that elite athletes do not post here. Why? Because there is nothing to be gained from posting here. There have been the odd exceptions, but in general you wont see an elite athlete logging in to make comments on this forum. Many read the forum, probably because this is the only forum which discusses Irish athletics, though very little of it is actually about that which is an awful shame.

The people who do post here are extremely average. None of us, at this current stage, or ever, would be anywhere close to the standard that you are referring to. If we were we wouldn't be posting here looking for advice etc. So while none of these times in the Big 10 are earth-shattering, they are the standards that the faster runners here will achieve, and would be aspirational targets for people below that level to try achieve.

HelenAnne

shels4ever wrote: »

Maybe include some targets for people over weight also .

Sorry, angry boardsies! I wasn't complaining about the original round numbers, I was only asking if they were achievable targets for the average female runner or if they were originally conceived with male runners in mind. I'll move over to the women's thread now and stop interfering with your thread!

Pisco Sour

HelenAnne wrote: »

Sorry, angry boardsies! I wasn't complaining about the original round numbers, I was only asking if they were achievable targets for the average female runner or if they were originally conceived with male runners in mind. I'll move over to the women's thread now and stop interfering with your thread!

They'd be tough targets for the average female runner, no doubt about that. Some are much more achieveable, such as 800m (fairly easy) and 5K (very doable), and half marathon (also doable) but others are tough. On an average grassroots track meet down here in Melbourne, of about 60-80 women who may run a 400m race, only about 4-5 will go under 60. In the Victorian State Championships recently (for a state with a 6million population) 58 high or 59 low made the final.

Though women are renowned for being better at endurance events than over shorter distances ,given the fact the world records over the longer distances are relatively close to the men's in comparison to the difference over the sprints (when you take the drugged up GDR times out of the equation), so perhaps the sub 3 hours would be more achieveable for your average female than the sub 60.

Just because you can't hit them now doesnt mean you can't be part of the thread and aspire to reaching some of these targets. This shouldn't be for just men, it is for everyone.

shels4ever

HelenAnne wrote: »

Sorry, angry boardsies! I wasn't complaining about the original round numbers, I was only asking if they were achievable targets for the average female runner or if they were originally conceived with male runners in mind. I'll move over to the women's thread now and stop interfering with your thread!

not an angry boardsie at all . Just feel that making one target on a hard list is better than making them all on an easier list. The game is all about doing your best and we dont need tables etc to tell us that we gave 100%

Kurt Godel

shels4ever wrote: »

not an angry boardsie at all . Just feel that making one target on a hard list is better than making them all on an easier list. The game is all about doing your best and we dont need tables etc to tell us that we gave 100%

Absolutely, this thread is about aspiring to these goals, rather than shifting the targets to make them more achievable. You want to hit them, train harder, the purpose is to shine a light on the faster runners here. There's more than enough equality and inclusivity as it is, why does that have to apply to every single thread?

Having a moderator change the gist of my original intentions is pretty annoying, my opening post has been edited to read that it's okay for equivalent threads to be set up. That's directly against my original intent. The original targets were set up for anybody at the faster end of things here to aspire to and beat, not to be changed because someone- slow, female, vet, fatty, whatever- finds them too hard.

HelenAnne

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Absolutely, this thread is about aspiring to these goals, rather than shifting the targets to make them more achievable. You want to hit them, train harder, the purpose is to shine a light on the faster runners here. There's more than enough equality and inclusivity as it is, why does that have to apply to every single thread?

Having a moderator change the gist of my original intentions is pretty annoying, my opening post has been edited to read that it's okay for equivalent threads to be set up. That's directly against my original intent. The original targets were set up for anybody at the faster end of things here to aspire to and beat, not to be changed because someone- slow, female, vet, fatty, whatever- finds them too hard.

1) re your original post / intentions etc, sorry if you feel it's been changed on my behalf. I only intended to ask a question -- I wanted to know whether the round numbers were intended for men, women, both etc. You've answered my question, thanks; they were intended for anyone who wanted to aspire to them. I'll keep them in mind & hopefully hit some of them some day!

2) I'm sure you'll disagree, and you're perfectly entitled to, but I think you're over-reacting a bit. I think RayCun, as a moderator, just thought that having two threads might get more people (including slow, fat, veteran women, probably) interested in trying to hit targets. I don't know him and can't speak for him, but I doubt he intended it as an assault on anyone's freedom of speech or anything. If I'd thought of it, I should have just set up my own '10 targets for beginners (or something)' thread, except I genuinely didn't know what kind of times would be reasonable to aim for (which is why I asked my original question).

I know this is a discussion forum, and if I post something people will talk agree / disagree etc, but I kind of resent being responded to as if I was trying to force 'the faster end of things' to run 50 minute 10ks to make me & the other slowcoaches feel better! I love to see how well faster people are doing / to have faster times to aspire to. I genuinely don't understand why this thread got so up in arms about mediocrity / pandering to slow people etc. Anyway, thanks again for answering my original question, and best of luck to everyone hitting the numbers this year!

Kurt Godel

HelenAnne wrote: »

1) re your original post / intentions etc, sorry if you feel it's been changed on my behalf. I only intended to ask a question -- I wanted to know whether the round numbers were intended for men, women, both etc. You've answered my question, thanks; they were intended for anyone who wanted to aspire to them. I'll keep them in mind & hopefully hit some of them some day!

2) I'm sure you'll disagree, and you're perfectly entitled to, but I think you're over-reacting a bit. I think RayCun, as a moderator, just thought that having two threads might get more people (including slow, fat, veteran women, probably) interested in trying to hit targets. I don't know him and can't speak for him, but I doubt he intended it as an assault on anyone's freedom of speech or anything. If I'd thought of it, I should have just set up my own '10 targets for beginners (or something)' thread, except I genuinely didn't know what kind of times would be reasonable to aim for (which is why I asked my original question).

I know this is a discussion forum, and if I post something people will talk agree / disagree etc, but I kind of resent being responded to as if I was trying to force 'the faster end of thing' to run 50 minute 10ks to make me & the other slowcoaches feel better! I love to see how well faster people are doing / to have faster times to aspire to. I genuinely don't understand why this thread got so up in arms about mediocrity / pandering to slow people etc. Anyway, thanks again for answering my original question, and best of luck to everyone hitting the numbers this year!

There was nothing at all wrong with your question, it was a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.
I'm annoyed at my original intentions being changed in my original post, especially since I dislike the growing "medals for everyone" vibe on forum. Once the tri forum starts I'll bugger off there.
Every thread aimed at the faster runner gets swamped before long by slower runners, usually what rankles is when those slower runners want parity of esteem. The forum is seen as a joke by any club runners or race directors I've talked to, as a forum full of goodybaggers who complain their mid pack race position doesn't tally with what their garmin says. I started this thread as an attempt to focus on faster times, training, results, etc, not as a list of times that just need to be ticked, and certainly not as a list of times that should be diluted because slower runners can't hit them.
That answers not going to suit everyone, but that's the spirit behind the thread.

eoinín

Kurt Godel wrote: »

The original targets were set up for anybody at the faster end of things here to aspire to and beat, not to be changed because someone- slow, female, vet, fatty, whatever- finds them too hard.

An obvious consequence of making such a "one size fits all" list means that you are going to have 10 times as many men on the list as women. (See RayCun's stats at the bottom of page 11)

Most people are aware that men and women of an equivalent fitness level will achieve differing times*, so it seems rather ridiculous that you insist on maintaining your rather exclusive table and have such a problem with an equivalent women's thread being set up.

*see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Qualification#Qualifying_Standards for differing olympic qualification times for men and women.

pconn062

Well I think this thread has been dragged off topic for long enough so if no one has any objections I'm going to ask a question about hitting another one of the targets on the table!
It's in relation to the sub 1.30 half, I've been training exclusively for the Dundalk 1/2 marathon for the last 11 weeks or so and the race is on Wednesday week. Throughout the training I have been aiming for a 1.30/1.31 finish with all my race pace miles done around 6.55/54 pace which would give me a 1.30 finish. My original intention was to run the first mile a bit easier to settle in (around 7.00 pace) and then move up to 6.55 and aim for 1.30 and target 1.2X later in the year.
So my question is should I just ditch that plan and go for broke and start at 6.52 pace (which I think is the minimum required to hit 1.29) and just try and hang on and sneak under the 1.30 mark? My PB is a soft 1.37 from last September but I've run some times recently that suggest I should get under 1.30, mostly 18:40 for 5k and 39.17 for 10k last week. It's a pretty fast, flat course, good for quick times if the weather behaves. Anyone any suggestions?

Kurt Godel

pconn062 wrote: »

Well I think this thread has been dragged off topic for long enough so if no one has any objections I'm going to ask a question about hitting another one of the targets on the table!
It's in relation to the sub 1.30 half, I've been training exclusively for the Dundalk 1/2 marathon for the last 11 weeks or so and the race is on Wednesday week. Throughout the training I have been aiming for a 1.30/1.31 finish with all my race pace miles done around 6.55/54 pace which would give me a 1.30 finish. My original intention was to run the first mile a bit easier to settle in (around 7.00 pace) and then move up to 6.55 and aim for 1.30 and target 1.2X later in the year.
So my question is should I just ditch that plan and go for broke and start at 6.52 pace (which I think is the minimum required to hit 1.29) and just try and hang on and sneak under the 1.30 mark? My PB is a soft 1.37 from last September but I've run some times recently that suggest I should get under 1.30, mostly 18:40 for 5k and 39.17 for 10k last week. It's a pretty fast, flat course, good for quick times if the weather behaves. Anyone any suggestions?

6:52 is the minimum pace to hit 1:30, so you'd want to be careful. In reality though, you won't run the true line, so running at 6:45- 6:50 pace would be insurance to hit your goal.

See this http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/index.php/site/calculator

menoscemo

pconn062 wrote: »

Well I think this thread has been dragged off topic for long enough so if no one has any objections I'm going to ask a question about hitting another one of the targets on the table!
It's in relation to the sub 1.30 half, I've been training exclusively for the Dundalk 1/2 marathon for the last 11 weeks or so and the race is on Wednesday week. Throughout the training I have been aiming for a 1.30/1.31 finish with all my race pace miles done around 6.55/54 pace which would give me a 1.30 finish. My original intention was to run the first mile a bit easier to settle in (around 7.00 pace) and then move up to 6.55 and aim for 1.30 and target 1.2X later in the year.
So my question is should I just ditch that plan and go for broke and start at 6.52 pace (which I think is the minimum required to hit 1.29) and just try and hang on and sneak under the 1.30 mark? My PB is a soft 1.37 from last September but I've run some times recently that suggest I should get under 1.30, mostly 18:40 for 5k and 39.17 for 10k last week. It's a pretty fast, flat course, good for quick times if the weather behaves. Anyone any suggestions?

Having just hit a 1:29:xx half I think you'll have no problem. When I ran mine last december I Ran a 19:26 5k the week before (flat out, fastish course). A sub 40 10k time is tougher than a sub 1:30 half IMO so I think you'll have no problem. Give it a lash!!

Krusty_Clown

pconn062 wrote: »

Well I think this thread has been dragged off topic for long enough so if no one has any objections I'm going to ask a question about hitting another one of the targets on the table!

It's a fine line; risk versus achievement. Are you willing to sacrifice 11 weeks of training and not hit your goal? If so, go for the sub 1:30 target and you've a decent chance of making it (or getting damn close). On the other hand, if you absolutely must get some return from your training investment, then start conservatively, and pick up the pace as you move through the race.

I've gone for broke in the past, and I got so close to my target that I was delighted with the outcome. I've also done races where I wished I'd gone out more conservatively. It's unlikely you'll regret going for it and failing. You might regret running conservatively. Pick a strategy and stick with it, and be determined with your choice.

pconn062

Kurt Godel wrote: »

6:52 is the minimum pace to hit 1:30, so you'd want to be careful. In reality though, you won't run the true line, so running at 6:45- 6:50 pace would be insurance to hit your goal.

See this http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/index.php/site/calculator

Yeah I threw my 10k time in to this and it gave me 1.27 but McMillan can be generous once you go up the distances. Appreciate what you say about the pace though, 6.50 is probably the minimum, might just do what Meno says and go for it. I've been reading a few of tunguska's posts on here and I like his racing attitude, just put it all on the line and go for it, if it goes wrong so be it, just dust yourself down and try again!

pconn062

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

It's a fine line; risk versus achievement. Are you willing to sacrifice 11 weeks of training and not hit your goal? If so, go for the sub 1:30 target and you've a decent chance of making it (or getting damn close). On the other hand, if you absolutely must get some return from your training investment, then start conservatively, and pick up the pace as you move through the race.

I've gone for broke in the past, and I got so close to my target that I was delighted with the outcome. I've also done races where I wished I'd gone out more conservatively. It's unlikely you'll regret going for it and failing. You might regret running conservatively. Pick a strategy and stick with it, and be determined with your choice.

Cheers Krusty, I think this is the key, knowing what I'm going to do and going with that. I wouldn't be disappointed with 1.30 so long as I know I couldn't have gone any harder, and that I put everything into the race.

menoscemo

pconn062 wrote: »

Cheers Krusty, I think this is the key, knowing what I'm going to do and going with that. I wouldn't be disappointed with 1.30 so long as I know I couldn't have gone any harder, and that I put everything into the race.

If there are no pacers at the race (pacers are great :pac:) wear a paceband. As kurt says, you often need to run faster than you think as the Garmin will measure the course slightly long most of the time.

Use your garmin as a stopwatch and a loose pace projector and check your progress off against the mile/km markers.

Kurt Godel

pconn062 wrote: »

Yeah I threw my 10k time in to this and it gave me 1.27 but McMillan can be generous once you go up the distances. Appreciate what you say about the pace though, 6.50 is probably the minimum, might just do what Meno says and go for it. I've been reading a few of tunguska's posts on here and I like his racing attitude, just put it all on the line and go for it, if it goes wrong so be it, just dust yourself down and try again!

McMillan works best if you are training for the specific distance, which you are. I'd tend to agree with meno that your 39:xx 10k is tougher than sub 1:30 half, especially since you've been training long. Good place to be, you should have confidence going into this race!

pconn062

Cheers lads, lots of food for thought there, hopefully I'll be back on Wednesday week sticking a 1.29 into the table! (and then giving a full account of my training just to make sure I don't get into trouble ).

Pisco Sour

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Once the tri forum starts I'll bugger off there.

Ah don't. Your opinions are a refreshing change from the norm here. It brings a bit more balance to things.

Pisco Sour

Kurt Godel wrote: »

The forum is seen as a joke by any club runners or race directors I've talked to, as a forum full of goodybaggers who complain their mid pack race position doesn't tally with what their garmin says.

Unfortunately this is very much how the forum is perceived. It is a shame, as it has the potential to be a great place for discussion, but discussions on athletics at the top end of things is in the minority, and everything under the sun is classified as "elitism" it seems.

ocnoc

Getonwithit wrote: »

Yeah so your club would be only made up of internationals!

European Mens standards. Just to rock the boat a little bit.
No internationals. Doesn't mean people wouldn't be trying to get close to it.
Aim low. Achieve low.

46.70 400m
1:47.80 800m
3:41.40 1500m
13:40.00 5000m
28:55.00 10,000m

Aim high, overtrain :pac::pac:
People were dropping the stakes, so I raised them.
Oh wait, thats elitism... woops