|
Dec 2019
8:58am, 10 Dec 2019
5,928 posts
|
jda
So it’s not at all surprising that a slow XC race will contribute, since the scoring system is deliberately designed to account for course difficulty. My local hilly long HM also usually contributes as I run it as a test just before a marathon.
|
|
Dec 2019
9:17am, 10 Dec 2019
29,785 posts
|
SPR
Indeed. One of my clubmates has the XC race from November (hilly, muddy, terrible weather) as his top performance. He does fell and other stuff which isn't on there but his XC performance is way better than his road stuff so the system has worked perfectly.
|
|
Dec 2019
9:30am, 10 Dec 2019
33,598 posts
|
Merry Christmas & Happy New G(rrr)
I see SPR. The ones with the + beside them? On the graph though, the 23 Nov is def an improvement point (you know how you can tell where the graph goes up, as the handicap reduces?) Anyhooo....!
Remind me, is it high SSS means it was a rubbish performance? And high vSSS means it was good against those who were there on the day?  G
|
|
Dec 2019
10:07am, 10 Dec 2019
5,929 posts
|
jda
The + is the current 5 counters. Obviously at different times in the past, different races will have counted. Add &debug=y to the end of the URL and read my blog for more info...
|
|
Dec 2019
11:58am, 10 Dec 2019
9,723 posts
|
larkim
Agree that the debug=y view is the best to look at.
Then you can see the scores for each event and work out the handicap yourself (it's the average of the 5 "+" scores).
The easiest way I find to read the RBR tables is to look at the "Basic" score (i.e. the arbitrary score given to a performance over a particular distance which Tim Grose has created a data set for - I suppose not dissimilar to the points score IAAF tables), then deduct the "SSS" score (the RBR calculated score which says "on this day, running that race was easy / hard / medium", with the highest score being the "hardest" and the lowest being the "easiest") then deduct (well, technically add, but it is a negative number) the "TP" score which is the factor Tim Grose uses to keep your handicap current and filter out old performances. I think the max deduction is 1.5, and that reduces differently for different distances.
So, e.g. HG's 9k XC race - 12.5 performance score minus 3.8 SSS minus 1.5 = 7.2
HG's most recent parkrun - 10.7 performance score minus 3.2 SSS minus 1.5 = 6.0
Why the "plain view" of the RBR site doesn't show this baffles me as I think people would understand it a little more.
Your current average of 6.3 = (5.6+5.7+6.0+7.0+7.1)/5
|
|
Dec 2019
12:04pm, 10 Dec 2019
9,724 posts
|
larkim
(and read JDA's blog!)
|
|
Dec 2019
1:18pm, 11 Dec 2019
2,431 posts
|
J2R
Once again I find that parkrun really distorts the handicap. I ran a pretty indifferent parkrun on Saturday, marred by the lingering effects of a migraine, with my time probably 30-40 seconds down on what I should have done. But I ended up in 2nd place and, bingo!, it goes straight to the top of my 5 qualifying runs for the handicap.
|
|
Dec 2019
4:19pm, 11 Dec 2019
29,786 posts
|
SPR
It's not the placing, it's the performance of others vs their capability measured against the same for you. Obviously there must have been a few joggers at your parkrun. Telford 10k was this weekend and is a pretty big race.
|
|
Dec 2019
6:24pm, 11 Dec 2019
2,435 posts
|
J2R
Yes, SPR, I know that's how it's supposed to work, but I so often find that if I get a good placing (i.e., top 3) in a parkrun it benefits me more than it really should considering my actual time. I don't know believe there were any significant big races on the Sunday, something which I know can distort things a little (as the faster runners tend to hold back if they do the parkrun). All a bit odd.
|
|
Dec 2019
7:20pm, 11 Dec 2019
29,787 posts
|
SPR
Telford is a significant big race which was on Sunday.
The placing itself isn't the issue though, it's whether more runners turn up and jog. That might result in a higher placing than but the cause of both the high placing and the RB result is a the joggers.
|
