49 replies to this topic

[hatless]

Hi everyone,

I hope everyone is getting fired up for 6FT 2012.

Every year we get a lot of questions about the wave allocations and so I thought it best to put everything into one single thread.

Why do we allocate waves?
The start of the track is very narrow and so we send runners down in groups of around 250 to ease congestion at the start, and also on the single track between Pinnacle Hill and Coxs River.

Also, we will ensure that any runner (male or female) that has any realistic chance of making it on to the podium is selected in Wave 1.

How are runners allocated to waves?
The wave allocation process is designed to be completely objective, transparent and automated.

Every runner will be allocated to a wave based on their previous history. We are changing the process a bit this year and so every runner (whether 6FT experienced or not) can use any qualifier since December 1, 2010 to improve their wave. In other words, past 6FT glories from 2010 and earlier will count for naught and a new time will be needed.

Attached is a small spreadsheet to help you pick which race is the "best" for you. Type in your times (and distance) in the blue cells to see what the best 6FT equivalent time is. If at all possible, try to include a time that conforms to this spreadsheet. It makes our lives much easier in sorting everyone into waves.

What can I do to improve my wave?
Train harder and race faster in a qualifier. Glenbrook, Two Bays and Six Inch in WA are your last chances to improve your qualifying time.

I would like to run with my mates. Can this be arranged?
Yes - we are always happy to arrange this. You will be allocated to the lowest wave from the group. From about mid January (after the entry lists are getting finalised) we will sort all this out.

I think I should be in a higher wave do to recent training / bad day in qualifying race / positive noises from my coach / general sense of entitlement etc?
Sorry, but thems the rules.

Every year we get lots of begging emails from people to be bumped up from, say, Wave 3 to Wave 2. Some people send in references from coaches with phone numbers to call etc. Everyone working on this is a volunteer, and we simply to not have the time to go calling everyone, so please don't bother. After last race we went back and looked at the people who were most adamant about their right to a higher wave and most of them performed wayyy below their expectations.

The course is the same distance for every wave (a seemingly little-known fact), so just be happy to be out there and enjoy the race.

If you still feel aggrieved, then channel that anger into running a sensational time and qualify yourself for a better wave for next time.

How can I make the organisers' lives easier?
Please make sure that you fill in your details (date of birth etc) correctly. This makes the process a lot of better.


If anyone has anyone has any specific questions about the waves, please ask them here. I will try to answer them in a timely fashion.

Happy training,

h.

EDIT: Version 3 of calculator with changes to road marathon ratio

Attached Files

•  Entry criteria v3 xl03.xls   35K   250 downloads

Edited by hatless, 09 November 2011 - 11:29 AM.

[Paul Every]

Just put in a couple of my PBs (2:49 marathon and 3:18 Ironman marathon) and they come up with a projected 6 Foot times 21 and 25 minutes slower than my PB. I have to type in a road marathon time of 2:36 to give me my 6 Foot PB.

Either I have severely underperformed on the road or I was a demon 6 Foot runner!  

(BTW, that's a fun calculator, Hatless).

Edited by Paul Every, 08 November 2011 - 01:59 PM.

[Colin]

Paul Every, on 08 November 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

Just put in a couple of my PBs (2:49 marathon and 3:18 Ironman marathon) and they come up with a projected 6 Foot times 21 and 25 minutes slower than my PB. I have to type in a road marathon time of 2:36 to give me my 6 Foot PB.

Either I have severely underperformed on the road or I was a demon 6 Foot runner!  

I get what you are saying.

What we have always used as an average conversion for wave 1 was 1.5 x which gives you 4:12...your PB?? Your 2:49 gives you 4:33 from the calculator which uses 7:00/4:20 (1.6) instead.
History tells us that the W1 go anything from 1.3 (at front) to 1.6 times mara, so my preference for that factor is 1.5. However at BOP the conversion isn't better than 1.6.
Ben and myself can have a look at this because it would mean that marathon qualifiers will have a worse chance of W1.

Another way of looking at it is that the marathon qual is too hard, but remember I already moved it from 4:00 to 4:20 and not sure how a 4:40 would go in terms of DNFs
Hope I'm making sense here.

Edited by Colin, 08 November 2011 - 02:57 PM.

[GoldCoastRunner]

I think there may be an issue with the calculator.

I put in my Wild horse Crit time of 2.24 for 32k and it gave me this


Your best qualifier is Wildhorse Criterium (32 kms) 12
Your Six Foot equivalent time is 2:35:05 2:35:05


I dunno but 2.35 for the 6 ft track would make me faster than a speeding bullet.

[hatless]

GoldCoastRunner, on 08 November 2011 - 03:28 PM, said:

I think there may be an issue with the calculator.

Thanks GCR - there was indeed an error. There are two Wildhorse Criterium runs and the calculator was mixing them up.

Please find the amended calculator attached.

Cheers,

h.

Version 3 of calculator with changes to road marathon ratio

Attached Files

•  Entry criteria v3 xl03.xls   35K   74 downloads

Edited by hatless, 09 November 2011 - 11:30 AM.

[flyingemu]

I am JUST a W2 runner based on last year's 5:19, and my marathon pb is 3:42 (this year), so a conversion of 1.43.  Last year I ran 5:42 as a newb when I had a marathon pb of 3:55 which is a conversion of 1.45.... pretty much the same!

So I guess I should always use roughly that conversion rate to predict my current form

[rodthehornet]

I am with Paul, very cool calculator.  I think Paul is onto something re the road marathon conversion, but it is a hard gig as how do you factor the relative strengths of the runners.  

It is fairly easy applying a mixture of objective/subjective test on 32 runners.  Bit harder doing it with 900 runners.

Make sure we resurrect the split calculator Hatless.  That was your best invention.

Keep on handing out the groovy gadgets.  Now is there a market for 6ft iphone apps????

[Colin]

rodthehornet, on 08 November 2011 - 06:03 PM, said:

I am with Paul, very cool calculator.  I think Paul is onto something re the road marathon conversion, but it is a hard gig as how do you factor the relative strengths of the runners.  

Rod, already noted in my response to Paul. The calculation for marathon won't be as on calculator.

The problem is that most - and 45% of field are newbies- underachieve at 6FT.
A 3:20 marathoner that cannot run faster than 42:30 10km, is already running as fast as they can at the marathon. That works out to 5hr for 6ft at 1.5 'times'. If that person only does MP flat work then they probably will go slower than 5hrs. However, the person who concentrates on 6FT work and runs the course exactly right can do 4:30 and there is evidence of both.
The thing is that there is not enough data to know what is a good time, and there is much more room to improve on a 6Ft course than in a flat marathon where you are at your limit.

When the record was 3:24 I speculated it was very soft- it was done by a 2:40+ guy who specialised in hilly trails. Even at 3:15 I still believe it is soft. A Wyatt at his best (2:10 and mountain champ) could have gone under 3hrs...we don't know.

And that is one of the reasons people keep coming back. You always believe that you can tweak more out of the course.

rodthehornet, on 08 November 2011 - 06:03 PM, said:

Make sure we resurrect the split calculator Hatless.  That was your best invention.

Thought that was Jo Blake's work, or is there another one?

Edited by Colin, 09 November 2011 - 08:46 AM.

[hatless]

Ok, another minor revision to the calculator. The road marathon ratio is now 1.5.

The adjustable split bracelet is here.

Cheers,

h.

Attached Files

•  Entry criteria v3 xl03.xls   35K   113 downloads

[dickyboy]

The calculator shows me that I am a lazy sod by never having given a road marathon a good shot.

What is odd is that I need to run 3hrs flat at the Glenbrook marathon later this month to get 4hrs flat for the 6ft (roughly my PB), against last year's Glenbrook winner of 3.17. Something a bit haywire there - I was just using it to see what sort of time I should/could do later this month.

[Colin]

dickyboy, on 09 November 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

The calculator shows me that I am a lazy sod by never having given a road marathon a good shot.

What is odd is that I need to run 3hrs flat at the Glenbrook marathon later this month to get 4hrs flat for the 6ft (roughly my PB), against last year's Glenbrook winner of 3.17. Something a bit haywire there - I was just using it to see what sort of time I should/could do later this month.

Looks right to me.

On your first point though, any marathon calculator using your 10km times would have told you likewise

[Adz]

Interesting stuff.  I either massively overperform on six foot track, or underperform in every other race I do as my 6ft pb is 22 mins quicker than equiv time for my marathon pb, and 31 mins on my w2b pb.  Am doing Glenbrook in a couple of weeks so will be interesting to see how it compares as my fitness is pretty similar to previous years i've done 6ft.

I guess my w2b times will be a bit off, as I've never tapered for it, using it as a training run for sydney marathon.  Same will apply to Glenbrook, as it'll just be a 6ft training run.

For me the marathon is off and I don't think i'll ever do an equiv to my best 6ft time, but I know i'm a better bush runner than road runner, whereas most are the other way round.

[TropicThunder]

dickyboy, on 09 November 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

The calculator shows me that I am a lazy sod by never having given a road marathon a good shot.

What is odd is that I need to run 3hrs flat at the Glenbrook marathon later this month to get 4hrs flat for the 6ft (roughly my PB), against last year's Glenbrook winner of 3.17. Something a bit haywire there - I was just using it to see what sort of time I should/could do later this month.

Agree, on paper the data reads like Glenbrook is a tough qualifier.

I've entered Glenbrook and looked at last years results of the runners I know and their times at Glenbrook (although a small sample) to get an idea of what time i should aim for.

From the sample I looked at, when they ran 6ft all well and truly beat the times given by the qualification calculator by around half an hour.

Edited by TropicThunder, 09 November 2011 - 09:07 PM.

[rodthehornet]

Colin, on 09 November 2011 - 08:35 AM, said:

Thought that was Jo Blake's work, or is there another one?

Definitely another one.  Jo's was only splits to river, Pluvi, Deviation???.

Hatless did one last year with some historical data that was able to give individual km splits.  I keep all my km race splits on a spreadsheet so that I can compare years (yes I am a number nerd at heart) and Hatless' calculator was pretty accurate at giving a guide of how hard to go on each km.  You could punch in a finish time, but also % for various parts of the course.  Default was 30/30/40 split of times over the course, but you could do 29/31/40 or any combination depending on your strengths of down/up hill running.  Easy to laminate and use as a wrist band on race day - can come in handy for some.  Was uploaded I believe to 6ft website.

Only number nerds can truly appreciate this sort of stuff.   

EDIT:  Doh!!! Hatless put the link above.

DOUBLE EDIT:  Check your Deep Space conversion.  Last year I did a 4:40 down there and did 4:39 at 6ft.  Consensus has always been times are similar.  I punched in my 4:40 and it came up with 5:56 projecteed time.  Not sure how the new course will play down there.

Edited by rodthehornet, 09 November 2011 - 03:36 PM.

[hatless]

rodthehornet, on 09 November 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

Check your Deep Space conversion.  Last year I did a 4:40 down there and did 4:39 at 6ft.  Consensus has always been times are similar.  I punched in my 4:40 and it came up with 5:56 projecteed time.  Not sure how the new course will play down there.

Thanks Rod.

The ratios are (nearly) all based off the qualification criteria. Deep Space has a 5:30:00 qualification cut-off, which is then equated to a 7:00:00 6FT. So if the times are roughly equal, then why is the cut-off 90mins faster? (Having never run Deep Space, I can't objectively comment.)

If the RD signs off on a change of qualification cut-off, then we'll change the calculator.

Cheers,

h.

[TheLogicDump]

hatless, on 09 November 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

Thanks Rod.

The ratios are (nearly) all based off the qualification criteria. Deep Space has a 5:30:00 qualification cut-off, which is then equated to a 7:00:00 6FT. So if the times are roughly equal, then why is the cut-off 90mins faster? (Having never run Deep Space, I can't objectively comment.)

If the RD signs off on a change of qualification cut-off, then we'll change the calculator.

Cheers,

h.

Deep Space has a time limit of 5:30:00 so I assume that is why the cut off is 5:30:00 & not because of difficulty.

[hatless]

TheLogicDump, on 09 November 2011 - 04:28 PM, said:

Deep Space has a time limit of 5:30:00 so I assume that is why the cut off is 5:30:00 & not because of difficulty.

Thanks for that. I'll put that on the list of things to look into. I guess it is good to have more opportunities for qualification, but it means that there are more quirks and idiosyncrasies that get thrown up.

Cheers,

h.

[Colin]

TheLogicDump, on 09 November 2011 - 04:28 PM, said:

Deep Space has a time limit of 5:30:00 so I assume that is why the cut off is 5:30:00 & not because of difficulty.

Yep, the qual cut offs have been in consultation with RDs of the races and runners who ran there plus time equivalents at both. Deep Space has a sharper cut off than ours so hence that is the qual time, but the equivalents are exact or slightly harder as Rod indicates.

[rodthehornet]

TheLogicDump, on 09 November 2011 - 04:28 PM, said:

Deep Space has a time limit of 5:30:00 so I assume that is why the cut off is 5:30:00 & not because of difficulty.

Spot on.  Confirm with John H, but my understanding was they do a very early start and a tight cut to avoid the potential heat down there.  Cut has nothing to do with course difficulty or 6ft qualification.  Most will vouch the 1:1 ratio is a safe bet.  

They have removed Mt Tennant out/back this year and it is double out/back into Ororal Valley.  Not sure of distance now or how the times will line up.

[Rico]

I think the new course has removed 1/3 of the ascent/descent, so they won't be nearly as comparable from this weekend on.

[hatless]

Ok, hot off the presses:

Here is how the wind is blowing on the wave for 2012. Big caveat that all these are subject to the race director, so he may wish to tweak some equivalence factors etc...

Cut-offs will be something like:

W1 men: 4:38
W1 women: 4:58
W2: 5:16
W3: 5:43
W4: 6:06

So there you have it.

Happy training / tapering...

h.

[AaronR]

Being that Excel hates me, anyone want to punch in a 3.27.21 at Willy2Billy, I'm curious to see if i will be wave 3 or 4?

Thanks!

[arrtgrrl]

punched it in for you gives you a six foot time of 5:55 which i think looks like wave 4
Naomi

[AaronR]

Thanks Arrtgrrl, I was a little worried I may have been in Wave 3 and so I am happy to know there's no chance!

[arrtgrrl]

ha ha no worries at all

[Unlikelyrunner]

I am happy to be in Wave 3 again this year, and with the W2 time being 5:16 I am going to challenge myself to run under that time this year with the hope that I can then get W2 in 2013.

[Colin]

The cut off times are probably going to be a touch under those posted above. Trying to work my way through the allocations today/tonight.

A number of especially W1 gun runners unallocated will affect that cut off and spill over, a number of fast runners wanting a wave well back on their form- they will be given waves based on form rather. I am inclined to do away with the flexibilty here and remove that 'choice' in future. Some runners do it because they run 'psychologically well' if they pass slower runners - and this is a general request/reason I get- but the idea behind our waves is to minimise congestion and if we ever are going to get extra numbers this needs to be smooth. So 6Ft is probably not the sort of race for that strategy.

So if you get a wave higher than requested, that will be based on form and past history, intentions etc.

Edited by Colin, 22 February 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[Adz]

Looks like i'll be starting in wave 4 but looking to finish at the tail end of a wave 2 time, I must be deluded!

[Mudguts]

As someone who requested a "slower" wave for the exact reasons as outlined by Colin, I do concede his thinking is correct. Having properly "seeded" waves will make for a better race.

[johnnyboyrun]

Adz, on 22 February 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Looks like i'll be starting in wave 4 but looking to finish at the tail end of a wave 2 time, I must be deluded!

You never know.. Cruise down to the river with enough cash, and then you spend it all the way the way home and you can do wave 2 times easy... Spend your cash before you get to Cox's you will be starting in Wave 7 next year

[David C]

Colin, on 22 February 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

The cut off times are probably going to be a touch under those posted above. Trying to work my way through the allocations today/tonight.

A number of especially W1 gun runners unallocated will affect that cut off and spill over, a number of fast runners wanting a wave well back on their form- they will be given waves based on form rather. I am inclined to do away with the flexibilty here and remove that 'choice' in future. Some runners do it because they run 'psychologically well' if they pass slower runners - and this is a general request/reason I get- but the idea behind our waves is to minimise congestion and if we ever are going to get extra numbers this needs to be smooth. So 6Ft is probably not the sort of race for that strategy.

So if you get a wave higher than requested, that will be based on form and past history, intentions etc.

I can understand the logistics problems of wave allocations.  A number of years ago I volunteered to drop a wave simply because I knew that on my current form I wasn't really going to keep up with the quicker runners - and thought it reasonable to give the place to another person.  Still, it isn't a major issue.

[Rico]

Heh, I'm the opposite.  I like to think that last year (5.16) was an off day and that I've done more than twice as much training this year and will go way under that.  But there are probably a lot of us telling ourselves that, so I can see why the system isn't based on that.

[Colin]

Finally put the wave allocations to bed and off to printers, no more changes.

Was a bit of a nightmare this year, did pretty much nothing else last night and today to get it finalised and get all the formatting right. Definite need for an entry cleark next year because the entries suck a lot of RD time that could be spent on actually organising the race kind of stuff, or maybe even earning a living. Should also talk to ActiveNet (or whomever does it next) re smorgasbord of choices and qualifiers being easier to format plus make our qualifiers more clearcut.
Suggestions welcome.

Cut off are slightly changed:
W1 80 under 4:31, plus top 20 females
W2 5:15
W3 5:42
W4 6:07

Waves 2 to 5 are around 196, possibly under 190 on day so with 10min intervals (5min W1 to W2) it should be less congested than last year.
Also, if spread of finish is similar to form then we should see 480 arrive from 10:15am to 1:15pm with the other 380 between 1:15pm and 2:35

Edited by Colin, 29 February 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[runhard]

Looks great and well done on the effort to organise it!  

For those interested, I started in a wave back last year. Quite enjoyed it too. was able to do alright (for me) in the end. A number of people also achieved sub 5 from wave three.  Although I thought it a big deal at the time, in looking back it was great and found it much easier. Didnt use too much juice at the start.  Point of my post is dont panic if you are not in the fast wave you dreamed of being in. Just enjoy the race!!!!

[Colin]

Waves and numbers here

Attached Files

•  Waves by number.pdf   94.7K   94 downloads
•  Waves by name.pdf   100.51K   151 downloads

Edited by Colin, 29 February 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[Arfadent]

runhard, on 29 February 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

A number of people also achieved sub 5 from wave three.

Well I am the other way around.
I have a 3:25 road marathon and just got seeded in Wave 2 but I am only aiming at a sub 6 because although I can run ok on the flat, I am still weak in the hills.
Hopefully I can just stay out of the way of all the fast people now. Don't forget to wave as you all go speeding by!
Arfa,

[Jogger]

wave 5 - I didn't even know there WAS a 5th wave.

[Supersam1979]

I am wave 2 and happy that I am not further back in the pack since I am a novice at six foot, I thought I might be shoved in the back.

Good to see them putting top 20 girls in wave 1 to give more a go at the podium.

Not too worried though as from what I have seen, it is entirely possible to run 4.30 (6mins or under per KM) and under from wave 2 or even 3. Bring on a day of fun!

[Colin]

Jogger, on 01 March 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

wave 5 - I didn't even know there WAS a 5th wave.

There always were though

Was also in the previous emails

Supersam1979, on 01 March 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

I am wave 2 and happy that I am not further back in the pack since I am a novice at six foot, I thought I might be shoved in the back.

Good to see them putting top 20 girls in wave 1 to give more a go at the podium.

Not too worried though as from what I have seen, it is entirely possible to run 4.30 (6mins or under per KM) and under from wave 2 or even 3. Bring on a day of fun!

Wave allocation is based on qualification time irrespective of novice status. A vet that ran a shocker last year still had a chance to submit 'better' quals, but it can't be given on a time from 'way back'.
Yes, 20 ladies so that there is a 'race' in the front but also the fact that podiums can only be won from the same wave i.e. they have to 'race' each other physically and visually not in a time trial fashion.

cheers

[Paul Every]

Colin, are the numbers allocated in any specific order within the waves, i.e. I noticed that Wave 1 is allocated 101 to 200 and Wave 2 kicked in at 201?  Did #201 put in the fastest Wave 2 qualifier or are the numbers within the "non-elite" waves allocated fairly randomly?

Just curious to know if my #209, is a motivator for moving up a wave next year.

[Colin]

Generally speaking yes, the guys behind you have slower 6Ft equivalents in the past year. The cut offs are a good indicator of what you need.

[caleb]

To put all of you worried about wave you are in at rest:
I have done 4:35 from wave 4, 4:33 from wave 1, 4:24 from wave 2, 4:38 from wave 1 and a 4:37 from wave 2. May I suggest unless you are going for sub 4 hrs (and even then)  it really does not matter what wave you are in. Just enjoy the hills and dont feel like a dead duck by pluvio.

[b06]

Is an ironman marathon considered simply a road marathon? It would seem the 6 hours of near threshold swimming and cycling count for nothing when submitting a time.
Sleep Train ran a 3 hour ironman marathon. At this rate he would just scrape in to wave 1. What's the closest anyone has ever come to his 3:15 6 foot?

[hatless]

b06, on 01 March 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

Is an ironman marathon considered simply a road marathon? It would seem the 6 hours of near threshold swimming and cycling count for nothing when submitting a time.
Sleep Train ran a 3 hour ironman marathon. At this rate he would just scrape in to wave 1. What's the closest anyone has ever come to his 3:15 6 foot?

A standard road marathon has a 1.5x factor to get a 6FT equivalent.

An ironman marathon has a 1.4x factor.

Cheers,

h.

[Colin]

b06, on 01 March 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

Is an ironman marathon considered simply a road marathon? It would seem the 6 hours of near threshold swimming and cycling count for nothing when submitting a time.
Sleep Train ran a 3 hour ironman marathon. At this rate he would just scrape in to wave 1. What's the closest anyone has ever come to his 3:15 6 foot?

To further clarify what hatless said, previously it was an 'ironman under 17hrs', which with all due respect is quite different in completion ability vs 6ft.

When we moved the standard marathon from 4hrs to 4:20 we also instituted the "marathon leg of completed IM in 5hrs". Someone like Tim Molesworth with a sub 3 IM mara would get a difference of about 5min on that basis vs his std mara.

However this is a qualifier to give people who don't want to run one of the many others another chance. If you are really keen on improving your wave then bang out the qualifiers and submit the best.

[b06]

Colin, on 01 March 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

b06, on 01 March 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

Is an ironman marathon considered simply a road marathon? It would seem the 6 hours of near threshold swimming and cycling count for nothing when submitting a time.
Sleep Train ran a 3 hour ironman marathon. At this rate he would just scrape in to wave 1. What's the closest anyone has ever come to his 3:15 6 foot?

To further clarify what hatless said, previously it was an 'ironman under 17hrs', which with all due respect is quite different in completion ability vs 6ft.

When we moved the standard marathon from 4hrs to 4:20 we also instituted the "marathon leg of completed IM in 5hrs". Someone like Tim Molesworth with a sub 3 IM mara would get a difference of about 5min on that basis vs his std mara.

However this is a qualifier to give people who don't want to run one of the many others another chance. If you are really keen on improving your wave then bang out the qualifiers and submit the best.

No need to defend the system. Just clarifying it.
3hour IM marathon = 4 hour 15min 6 foot right?
If that's the case then sleep train beat the system by an hour.

[hatless]

b06, on 01 March 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

3hour IM marathon = 4 hour 15min 6 foot right?
If that's the case then sleep train beat the system by an hour.

True, SL does beat the system by an hour. But basing your stats off the outliers is never going to give good results.

At the end of the day it's just a wave allocation. Same course.

Cheers,

h.

[Colin]

b06, on 01 March 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

Colin, on 01 March 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

To further clarify what hatless said, previously it was an 'ironman under 17hrs', which with all due respect is quite different in completion ability vs 6ft.

No need to defend the system. Just clarifying it.
3hour IM marathon = 4 hour 15min 6 foot right?
If that's the case then sleep train beat the system by an hour.

Didn't I say 'clarify' above?

Your example of Sleep Train is not an outlier because you are misleading here. Sleep Train ran 2:22 at M7-Cities. You don't accept that I clarified but you still mislead, so perhaps I should attack rather than defend.

Not sure why this is an issue to you, I don't think anyone in W1 submitted an IM marathon, they would all be serious runners surely?

Edited by Colin, 02 March 2012 - 09:00 AM.

[Colin]

BTW, in other news as Terry M pointed out I have seen that we missed Matt Robbie who ran a shocker last year. Will have to figure the best way to allocate a W1 for him, but that's where he will go in case anu CC guys can tell him so.

[b06]

Colin, on 02 March 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

b06, on 01 March 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

Colin, on 01 March 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

To further clarify what hatless said, previously it was an 'ironman under 17hrs', which with all due respect is quite different in completion ability vs 6ft.

No need to defend the system. Just clarifying it.
3hour IM marathon = 4 hour 15min 6 foot right?
If that's the case then sleep train beat the system by an hour.

Didn't I say 'clarify' above?

Your example of Sleep Train is not an outlier because you are misleading here. Sleep Train ran 2:22 at M7-Cities. You don't accept that I clarified but you still mislead, so perhaps I should attack rather than defend.

Not sure why this is an issue to you, I don't think anyone in W1 submitted an IM marathon, they would all be serious runners surely?

Clear as mud!
Actually very confused.
The ratio sounds right 2.22 rd Mara : 3:00 IM : 3.15 6 foot.