The Sub 3:15 Marathon Thread
1 lurker |
334 watchers
May 2020
4:42pm, 11 May 2020
7,679 posts
|
chunkywizard
but you are only allowed to play with someone from your household I believe
|
May 2020
4:51pm, 11 May 2020
11,016 posts
|
larkim
That's OK, I don't do golf. But I did enjoy the 4.78 miles from tee to green x 18 last night, and if they re-open I think that opportunity will have disappeared. Ant+ USB stick has arrived in the post today though, so I'll see how immersive some of this turbo trainer stuff gets - though without a properly smart trainer, I doubt it wll be great. |
May 2020
4:51pm, 11 May 2020
4,588 posts
|
Windsor Wool
no, clarified to include one person not from your household as long as you distance. I've seen plenty of runners deciding that they too can run with a friend 2 metres apart. There's going to be some fun to be had this weekend out there!! |
May 2020
4:58pm, 11 May 2020
260 posts
|
JR
Thanks for info ref WAVA settings. Just set mine back to 2010 and have now jumped back up to just under 81% for my most recent 5km - delighted with that after a rather bleak spell in 2019.
|
May 2020
7:26pm, 11 May 2020
16,108 posts
|
Chrisull
Well done JR, in the 80s is a cracking achievement.
|
May 2020
11:28am, 12 May 2020
6,790 posts
|
paul the builder
I never was much of a WAVA-watcher, so I don't really know what the effect has been. I know what WAVA is supposed to do, and how the numbers work.... but it's trying to tell me that a 3:04 (+5 years) is a better performance than a 2:56. Even allowing for the big arbitrary number between the two; that feels like bollocks to me. WW - not only a ridiculous injury, but an absurd way to sit too. How can any runner possibly be that flexible?  Not sure if golf (and everything else) is opening up over here at the same pace as England. Probably not. Also, I think I'm going back to work next week, which is disappointing. This mini-window in to early retirement has been a good one. Lark - run on the course all you like from my POV, but I hope you stayed off the greens.... |
|
May 2020
11:41am, 12 May 2020
11,023 posts
|
larkim
Always off the greens. I grew up next to a golf course, and though I've never played I do respect the work the greens-staff do. Having said that, the greens that I did run around wouldn't be out of place on a municipal pitch and putt course, so there's work for thie rstaff to do. WAVA and marathons don't make happy bedfellows I think. I took a quick look at the actual factors yesterday, and from half marathon upwards they are identical, whilst being individualised for most of the shorter distances. That tells me that either not a lot of thought has gone into the marathon wava factors, or the work was done and our intuition about marathon progress vs age isn't correct. Cracking 80+ JR! |
|
May 2020
9:17am, 15 May 2020
11,053 posts
|
larkim
I don't know if this is interesting / correct / just waffle or not, but Fetch's change to the WAVA tables meant I had the factors to hand, so I was curious to look at whether the equivalence given to performances over distances inherent in WAVA fitted with normal expectations. I know these things are fraught with problems, and really they aren't important at all, they are just indicators. But with the usual rule of thumb of Reigel calcs broadly suggesting that values in the range 1.06 to 1.08 are a decent starting point, I wanted to see how the WAVA tables reflected that. There are two points. Firstly, for a 25year old the relationship between the distances and times is set by the scratch times used, as there are no adjustments for age at that point. So on the attached spreadsheet if you use 25 as the base age you can see how the implied Reigel factors differ between those scratch differences. Secondly, you can input an age and the table will recalc those factors, as adjusted for the age adjustment factors. I've presented all the factors as 0.0x rather than 1.0x for no really good reason and only done men for the time being (sorry!) Does this interest anyone at all? It seems to me that WAVA, because of the base data, implies Reigel factors closer to 1.04 or 1.05, especially when extrapolating 5k to marathon for example. But more "normal" ranges of 1.06-1.08 are expected for HM to Mar (which is no surprise). Though it does seem that middle-aged males have a tougher time of it with more aggresive implied conversion rates. docs.google.com |
May 2020
9:38am, 15 May 2020
30,132 posts
|
SPR
Isn't WAVA based on actual achievement of the best of the bunch though? It can give easier conversions for amateurs just because they don't usually convert as well.
|
May 2020
9:47am, 15 May 2020
7,365 posts
|
jda
The problem is the 2h (2h30) "barrier" that hits mortals but doesn't affect the top pros. It's just the way things are. But my highest WAVA is still my marathon and it seems to be over 82 even in the new scheme so I'm not really that bothered
|
Related Threads
-
RW sub3/3.15
Feb 2025
-
Sub 3Hr Marathon
Feb 2025
-
The sub 3.30 marathon thread
Feb 2025
-
Sub-4hr marathon support and celebration thread
Dec 2024
-
Sub 2:30 Marathon
Oct 2024
-
The sub 2.45 marathon thread
May 2024
-
The sub 3.45 Marathon Thread
Oct 2023
-
The sub-5 hour marathon thread
Apr 2022
-
5:43 Marathon to Sub 5hrs
Dec 2018
-
Sub 3.05 Marathon Plan / Advise - Help please
Aug 2016