Is it "wrong" to count official split times as PRs? (Read 541 times)

    Well, RA doesn't do it, but I think strava will. Of, course, the splits are all based on your watch uploads.  According to strava my Marathon PR also includes my 10 mile PR, 20K PR, 1/2 marathon PR and 30K PR. Garmin watch feeds both Strava and Running ahead.  I also have official splits from race results too and they will differ from what the watch says, e.g.  1/2 marathon watch 1:36:19, timing mat 1:35:47


    Ray

     

      Sort of. Strava gives you "estimated best efforts" which are calculated from GPS splits and are never all that accurate. It also lets you input your real PR's manually.

      Runners run.


      I've got a fever...

        The bump this classic thread produced waves of nostalgia not unlike the waves of nausea I experienced at the conclusion of the Michigan - Ohio State Game, which led me to find this classic thread on the subject:

         

        https://www.runningahead.com/forums/topic/29c08b31457f4a3ba990014267038d46/0

         

        And nestled within that thread is a downright legendary bit of RA PR drivel:

        https://www.runningahead.com/forums/topic/2d4e12dd9dfe42c58b7f4c1586920e39/0

        On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office.  But you will wish that you'd spent more time running.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

          'Sup Globule? That 2nd thread was one of the all time greats. It sits in the pantheon of RA threads. This was one of my favorite posts ever on these boards:

           

          For those of us who do not PR in random workouts and whose PRs represent one triumph that stands out over a lifetime of struggle, failure, half-successes, and heartbreaking injuries most of your questions are pretty moot.

           

          Then there's the other quote. The one that's been turned into memes and motivational posters and been shared all over the internet. One of the greatest pieces of writing this fetid pisspool has ever produced:

           

           

          I can't speak for anyone else, but at a certain point the experience of running surpassed in value, and by a pretty wide margin, my desire to make sense out of it. I don't know why I run. I don't know why I race. I don't know why I pursue PR's. I don't know why I compete. I don't need to know. Because running means more to me than curiosity. It goes deeper than knowledge. I run. I compete. I move on down the line. I'm a runner. This is why I say that for those of us who have reached this sort of place, your questions are moot. Not because they may not be interesting, or important, from a certain point of view, but because we've left the question of the meaning of running behind. We've made a decision. After all the questions have been asked, and all the answers given, in spite of the disagreement on essences, physiology, rationales, training strategies, trail running, road racing, i-pod wearing, mid-foot striking, turnover cadences, arm carriages, Jack Daniels, Arthur Lydiard, 20 miles a week or 100, 5k or the marathon, whether it's really the miles of trials or the trials of miles, after all the words have been spoken and keyboards have been pounded and ideologies subverted... After all this, we bend down and tighten the laces, open the door, brace for the cold and are renewed: another godawful, glorious, and meaningless 8 miler. Runners run.

          Runners run.

            This was also quite good in the pure snark category:

             

            I think it's along the same lines as the idea that to the "baseball community," a homerun can only be hit in a baseball game. But if you want to go out and hit a bunch of balls over the fence just to see if you can, I guess you can still call them homeruns and change your batting average. However, a lot of people like to look at running as an actual sport and, as a result, tend to like to make their performances count during an actual game (aka "race") as opposed to a private backyard event. mta: Tanya

            Runners run.

            JimR


              On a related note, shipo (the OP) hasn't been heard from since the great treadmill debacle of 2014.

                Wow. That went on a lot longer than I remembered.

                JimR


                  Wow. That went on a lot longer than I remembered.

                   

                  You might like this one, Bob.

                   

                  http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/442302-effect-of-level-on-aspa-with-figures/

                   

                  This was an older thread on CN that got bumped.  It created some heated debate related to the level of a telescope in relation to polar alignment, but specifically around a technology Celestron applies to the goto scopes called 'ASPA', or All Star Polar Alignment.  I got drawn into the bump from another thread (I'm easy to spot), considered the OP's position flawed, but eventually had to admit my wrongness with a lengthy explanation why.

                   

                  Fun stuff.

                    On a related note, shipo (the OP) hasn't been heard from since the great treadmill debacle of 2014.

                     

                    https://www.runningahead.com/forums/topic/11b1ce899a8f4c7c9eec66c08e823ff1/1

                     

                    That was a good one.

                     

                    Oh yeah, he's around...   https://www.runningahead.com/forums/topic/72d87ba471a34467b808a70e4f922fb9/resume#focus

                    JimR


                       

                      Oh yeah, he's around...  

                       

                      Good to know.  I deleted my link then, no point in raising history on someone active in the forum.

                        It will be more fun when they start selling smart treadmills that you can connect to Strava, etc.


                        Options,Account, Forums

                           

                          I don't feel like copying and pasting the entire road / track / indoor results for men and women so here is just a snippet. Men Outdoor

                          junior men ratified 10 mi 51:30 Thom Hunt 18
                          open men ratified 10 mi 49:05 Dick Beardsley 26
                          40-44 men ratified 10 mi 51:48 Earl Owens 43
                          40-44 men 10 mi 52:24 Ray Hatton 44
                          45-49 men ratified 10 mi 53:53 Paul Noreen 46
                          50-54 men ratified 10 mi 55:45 Peter Mundle 50
                          55-59 men ratified 10 mi 55:42 Alex Ratelle 56
                          60-64 men ratified 10 mi 59:24 Clive Davies 61
                          65-69 men ratified 10 mi 1:13:29 Ross Bolding 67
                          65-69 men ratified 10 mi 1:16:53 Gary Rech 68
                          70-74 men ratified 10 mi 1:10:36 William Andberg 70
                          75-79 men ratified 10 mi 1:15:53 Ed Benham 77

                           

                          The USATF does count the 10 mile as an official record.

                           

                          By the way, I found rule 261 in IAAF (distances counted for official world records) and it does not include 10mi.

                           

                          It doesn't include any non-metric distances, apparently, except only the Mile.

                           

                           

                          https://media.aws.iaaf.org/competitioninfo/d3fcb7ee-52b7-49ab-8ded-203215084a20.pdf

                          IAAF rule 261


                          https://www.iaaf.org/download/download?filename=89ed4cba-6b5e-49fe-a43e-9f5487b77a84.pdf&urlslug=IAAF+Competition+Rules+2016-2017%2C+in+force+from+1+November+2015

                          pg 275

                          10mi is not on the list.

                          There are several lists, for both genders, and then U20s for both genders at least.

                          But it appears to me that 10mi never makes the cut.

                          Here is an excerpt:


                          Men Running, Combined and Race walking events: F.A.t. only: 100m; 200m; 400m; 800m; 110m Hurdles; 400m Hurdles; 4 × 100m Relay; 4 × 200m Relay; 4 × 400m Relay; Decathlon.

                          F .A.t. or H.t.: 1000m; 1500m; 1 Mile; 2000m; 3000m; 5000m; 10,000m; 20,000m; 1 Hour; 25,000m; 30,000m; 3000m Steeplechase; 4 × 800m Relay; Distance Medley Relay; 4 × 1500m Relay; Race walking (track): 20,000m; 30,000m, 50,000m.

                          F .A.t. or H.t. o r t.t.: Road Races: 10km; 15km; 20km; Half Marathon; 25km; 30km; Marathon; 100km; Road Relay (Marathon distance only); Race walking (Road): 20km; 50km.

                           

                          Wonder if they used to count more imperial distances?

                          It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.


                          Cattywumpus

                             

                            Good to know.  I deleted my link then, no point in raising history on someone active in the forum.

                             

                            So good to see you around JimR 

                             

                            Running is stupid

                              By the way, I found rule 261 in IAAF (distances counted for official world records) and it does not include 10mi.

                               

                              It doesn't include any non-metric distances, apparently, except only the Mile. 

                               

                              Wonder if they used to count more imperial distances?

                               

                              The IAU maintains "world best performances" for ultra distances, including 100 miles (the only non-metric distance). These are effectively world records, and are generally referred to as such.

                                 

                                You might like this one, Bob.

                                 

                                http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/442302-effect-of-level-on-aspa-with-figures/

                                 

                                This was an older thread on CN that got bumped.  It created some heated debate related to the level of a telescope in relation to polar alignment, but specifically around a technology Celestron applies to the goto scopes called 'ASPA', or All Star Polar Alignment.  I got drawn into the bump from another thread (I'm easy to spot), considered the OP's position flawed, but eventually had to admit my wrongness with a lengthy explanation why.

                                 

                                Fun stuff.

                                 

                                I think you should have brought biomimetics into the discussion.

                                Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject. - S.J.