Register | Login
Attackpoint - performance and training tools for orienteering athletes

Discussion: breaking 50

in: Yvonne; Yvonne > 2016-12-09

Dec 13, 2016 5:57 PM # 
I have no idea why times were off this year. Seemed like ideal conditions, but the stopwatch sure didn't agree. If anything, this was a slightly slow year (though certainly not slow enough for me to use that as the excuse for not being under an hour).
Dec 14, 2016 12:32 PM # 
Yeah, looking at the results it seems like things were a bit "slow". Strange. I guess Justin rolled his ankle, stopped for a bit, then decided to continue on despite potential injury.
Dec 14, 2016 9:47 PM # 
Maybe contributing factors? I thought a lot of people over-dressed and then overheated. Also, the ground was really hard - feet took a beating and the shoes loosened up on the downhills. With the ground as hard as it was, I didn't feel like I could go as fast as I wanted on the descents.
Dec 15, 2016 2:17 AM # 
Hmmm. I thought the ground was surprisingly soft. Not frozen solid like I expected. Plenty firm enough for fast times, but I've certainly run on harder. Overdressing may have been an issue for some, though I didn't see many in wave 0 wearing much more than me (tights and a long-sleeved tech shirt).
Dec 16, 2016 1:04 PM # 
Well -- congrats on your PR Bill! Conditions must not have been too off. I conclude random/coincidental issues experienced by all the front-runners (new/existing injuries, fitness/training issues, etc.) resulting in nobody having a great day.
Dec 16, 2016 1:44 PM # 
You may be right about that. Modeling the number under an hour as a Poisson random variable with mean=17, there's a 13% chance that 12 or fewer break the hour. Not particularly unlikely. If you let the mean be a random variable indicating the fact that the expected number changes each year due to field composition, the probability is even higher. So, quite possibly a normal year with a confluence of off results at the front of the field. At any rate, a PR is a PR, so I'll second the congrats to Bill without qualification.
Dec 16, 2016 4:33 PM # 
matzah ball:
Actually if you throw out first place, the next 9 finishers were collectively only 7 seconds slower than 2015.
Dec 17, 2016 11:28 PM # 
Umm, I'm not terrbily familiar w/ the Poisson random variable methodology, but I knew I could count on Eric for some data to back up my hypothesis. That's awesome, thank you for that! :)

Interesting analysis re: 2015, however, if I recall correctly it was unseasonably warm and humid. To me, those conditions would be an automatic pace-killer so it seems like 2015 should be slower than 2016 based on conditions alone.
Dec 18, 2016 2:46 PM # 
Yeah, random variables aside, the fact that 2015 was actually faster than 2016 would argue that this was a legit slow year. Still, random samples can be misleading, as anybody who's lived in this country for the last 6 months should know.
Dec 23, 2016 5:42 AM # 
Womp womp

This discussion thread is closed.