(I went to bed last night and realized I wrote this from a completely male perspective, which is a very.... male thing to do. I must admit, I simply don't know what the time standards are for the women but obviously the same concept could be used for the smarter sex)
We had an interesting discussion on standards during this mornings long run.
Most federations, I assume, have standards. These standards are used for talent ID, for race entry and in some cases directly for funding.
Remember the following "time budget" is about talent ID and race entry, it's not about who can go head to head with Jonathan Brownlee tomorrow.
From what I understand and correct me if Im wrong on any detail in this blog post, most federations don't do a cycling standard for ITU racing. Although I'm sure there are lab geeks out there with V02 test results done on the bike and this is possibly given some weight.
Either way, how about this.
start with swim and run and have a "time budget".
18mins and 00 seconds,
a 750meter swim (short course pool, 1 person per lane).
a 3000meter run on the track.
tests done separately but must be done within 3 weeks of each other.
FOR EXAMPLE, if you swim 9:00 for 750meters, you'll need to run 9:00 for 3000 meters, 9mins+9mins = 18:00
a fast swimmer who swam 8:15 would only need to run 9:45 for 3000meters. a weak swimmer swims 9:30 better be a good runner and bang out a 8:30/3000m. for talent ID purposes I'd want both of those athletes in the system.
athletes would be simply ranked within a country by total time and everyone would need a moderately easy to achieve bike standard. Lets be honest, cycling is the easiest to improve and the least important, one sport has to be, just is what it is. [back in the day, before draft legal racing, you could be a weak swimmer and still compete, now you can be fairly weak on the bike but you'd better have that swim/run nailed].
When the "budget" has been met the athletes do a standardized bike test done to confirm their "rank". It's done as a set watts per kilo (watts/kg) for a 30min TT on a calibrated power meter. OR a gps file w/HR, spd and cadence done on an out and back 20km TT course, say 33mins? for 20km out and back? Remember this is talent ID and race entry. Standards are usually done in the winter as athletes prepare for races. note; a 68kilo rider holds 300 watts for 30mins is riding at 4.41watts/perKG. Is 4watts/kg for 30mins (275watts for a 150lbs rider) fair? 3.8 watts/kg?
right now with our federation the athletes don't have to do a bike standard and they can do the swim/run tests within a calendar year (correct me if I'm wrong).
the standard for World Cup entry is;
800meter swim; 9:36
5000meter run; 15:40
in "time budget" terms that's 9:36+15:40 = 25:16 (prorated to 750m/3000m that's 9:00 + 9:24 = 18:24 budget... bit loose that, especially considering there's no bike standard and they can be done 6 months apart...).
so where are the gaps?
right now this scenario exists,
athlete A swims 9:35 and runs 15:39, he's neither a very good swimmer or a very good runner but technically he has 2 standards, off to the races he goes (and gets crushed.....).
athlete B swims 8:40 but runs 15:41, he's a far superior swimmer and basically the same runner as athlete A. but he only has 1 standard and athlete A goes to the races while athlete B sits at home.
in a "time budget" scenerio,
athlete A - 9:35+15:39 = 25:14
athlete B - 8:40+15:41 = 24:21
which athlete would you rather have at a world cup? who should be "ranked" higher, who is a better talent?
in an 18min time budget, when that "budget" is met then the athlete needs to perform a 3.8watts/kg? 30min TT or equivalent 20km TT (for those without access to a power meter the federation ships a gps with hr/cadence monitor).
Athletes are ranked by the national office in order and entered into WC's/WCS races according to ranking, standards must be met within 8 weeks? 6 weeks? of the race an athlete wishes to enter, with a cut of date dictated by the entry cut off date set by the ITU.
athletes need to "prove" fitness at least once per year, athletes can improve their ranking simply by.... redo'ing the standard (can keep their best time?).
how about that? what am I missing?
Simon
* if anyone thinks this is about them, it's not, it's just me "thinking outloud"and it's really not a criticism of TRICAN as it's very easy to sit on the outside and piss inwards.
* the ?'s are there because I can admit I don't know the answers, this is simply a suggestion, a "would this work" scenario.
* if the math is off I only have a high school diploma and likely some sort of learning disability considering, how many, comma's I use (and brackets).
oh and I don't know what I would have done when I was 21 (IN 1996!!!!) for 800/5000, maybe 9:35 and 14:35 in peak fitness (or a "TIME BUDGET" of..... 8:59 and 8:20-:25 (i was fast but not very strong) ranking me at 17:25ish.
Whatmyphonesaw
tri-blog rolls
-
Week Summary: May 28 - June 3 - 05-28-2012 *Mon-AM: 2:39, 5000' ~ Mt. Massive (14,421')* From the Halfmoon Creek Trailhead with Joe. Ran up the CT before ascending the east face of Massiv...
-
Triathletes & Swimmers - do not read unless you need another reason to miss swim practice.. - http://www.marksdailyapple.com/dear-mark-swimming-pool-chemicals-washing-veggies-and-carb-blockers/#axzz1ws6XZKCH
-
Unfit for Life: All Aboard the Pain Train, Next Stop Delusion - Yesterday was a lovely day in Brooklyn, New York. As usual, I woke up to the sounds of the roosters cockledoodydooing in my chicken coop. Next, I pulled...
-
Week in Review–June 4th, 2012 - [image: WeeklyMailbagIcon_thumb4]The Week in Review is a collection of both all the goodness I’ve written during the past week around the internet, as we...
-
Dear Mark: Swimming Pool Chemicals, Washing Veggies, and Carb Blockers - Who doesn’t like a lovely day at the pool? Unless you can’t swim, there’s no reason not to love the cool water, the bright sun, the ping pong (every swimmi...
-
Four quick thoughts on Comrades 2012 - *Four quick thoughts on the 2012 Comrades Ultra-marathon* A more "South African-centric" post today, since it covers a very South African race. Hopeful...
-
Australian men’s team named for London 2012 Olympic Games - Beijing Olympians Brad Kahlefeldt and Courtney Atkinson will make their second Games appearance, joined by young-gun Brendan Sexton, after the Australian O...
-
I would like to welcome our new zombie overlords - Over the last day or so, I have been desperately trying (and failing) to catch up with my online reading. And I cannot help but notice a trend: the zombie ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sunday, February 20, 2011
how about a TIME BUDGET.
Labels:
very random
(I went to bed last night and realized I wrote this from a completely male perspective, which is a very.... male thing to do. I must admit, I simply don't know what the time standards are for the women but obviously the same concept could be used for the smarter sex)
We had an interesting discussion on standards during this mornings long run.
Most federations, I assume, have standards. These standards are used for talent ID, for race entry and in some cases directly for funding.
Remember the following "time budget" is about talent ID and race entry, it's not about who can go head to head with Jonathan Brownlee tomorrow.
From what I understand and correct me if Im wrong on any detail in this blog post, most federations don't do a cycling standard for ITU racing. Although I'm sure there are lab geeks out there with V02 test results done on the bike and this is possibly given some weight.
Either way, how about this.
start with swim and run and have a "time budget".
18mins and 00 seconds,
a 750meter swim (short course pool, 1 person per lane).
a 3000meter run on the track.
tests done separately but must be done within 3 weeks of each other.
FOR EXAMPLE, if you swim 9:00 for 750meters, you'll need to run 9:00 for 3000 meters, 9mins+9mins = 18:00
a fast swimmer who swam 8:15 would only need to run 9:45 for 3000meters. a weak swimmer swims 9:30 better be a good runner and bang out a 8:30/3000m. for talent ID purposes I'd want both of those athletes in the system.
athletes would be simply ranked within a country by total time and everyone would need a moderately easy to achieve bike standard. Lets be honest, cycling is the easiest to improve and the least important, one sport has to be, just is what it is. [back in the day, before draft legal racing, you could be a weak swimmer and still compete, now you can be fairly weak on the bike but you'd better have that swim/run nailed].
When the "budget" has been met the athletes do a standardized bike test done to confirm their "rank". It's done as a set watts per kilo (watts/kg) for a 30min TT on a calibrated power meter. OR a gps file w/HR, spd and cadence done on an out and back 20km TT course, say 33mins? for 20km out and back? Remember this is talent ID and race entry. Standards are usually done in the winter as athletes prepare for races. note; a 68kilo rider holds 300 watts for 30mins is riding at 4.41watts/perKG. Is 4watts/kg for 30mins (275watts for a 150lbs rider) fair? 3.8 watts/kg?
right now with our federation the athletes don't have to do a bike standard and they can do the swim/run tests within a calendar year (correct me if I'm wrong).
the standard for World Cup entry is;
800meter swim; 9:36
5000meter run; 15:40
in "time budget" terms that's 9:36+15:40 = 25:16 (prorated to 750m/3000m that's 9:00 + 9:24 = 18:24 budget... bit loose that, especially considering there's no bike standard and they can be done 6 months apart...).
so where are the gaps?
right now this scenario exists,
athlete A swims 9:35 and runs 15:39, he's neither a very good swimmer or a very good runner but technically he has 2 standards, off to the races he goes (and gets crushed.....).
athlete B swims 8:40 but runs 15:41, he's a far superior swimmer and basically the same runner as athlete A. but he only has 1 standard and athlete A goes to the races while athlete B sits at home.
in a "time budget" scenerio,
athlete A - 9:35+15:39 = 25:14
athlete B - 8:40+15:41 = 24:21
which athlete would you rather have at a world cup? who should be "ranked" higher, who is a better talent?
in an 18min time budget, when that "budget" is met then the athlete needs to perform a 3.8watts/kg? 30min TT or equivalent 20km TT (for those without access to a power meter the federation ships a gps with hr/cadence monitor).
Athletes are ranked by the national office in order and entered into WC's/WCS races according to ranking, standards must be met within 8 weeks? 6 weeks? of the race an athlete wishes to enter, with a cut of date dictated by the entry cut off date set by the ITU.
athletes need to "prove" fitness at least once per year, athletes can improve their ranking simply by.... redo'ing the standard (can keep their best time?).
how about that? what am I missing?
Simon
* if anyone thinks this is about them, it's not, it's just me "thinking outloud"and it's really not a criticism of TRICAN as it's very easy to sit on the outside and piss inwards.
* the ?'s are there because I can admit I don't know the answers, this is simply a suggestion, a "would this work" scenario.
* if the math is off I only have a high school diploma and likely some sort of learning disability considering, how many, comma's I use (and brackets).
oh and I don't know what I would have done when I was 21 (IN 1996!!!!) for 800/5000, maybe 9:35 and 14:35 in peak fitness (or a "TIME BUDGET" of..... 8:59 and 8:20-:25 (i was fast but not very strong) ranking me at 17:25ish.
We had an interesting discussion on standards during this mornings long run.
Most federations, I assume, have standards. These standards are used for talent ID, for race entry and in some cases directly for funding.
Remember the following "time budget" is about talent ID and race entry, it's not about who can go head to head with Jonathan Brownlee tomorrow.
From what I understand and correct me if Im wrong on any detail in this blog post, most federations don't do a cycling standard for ITU racing. Although I'm sure there are lab geeks out there with V02 test results done on the bike and this is possibly given some weight.
Either way, how about this.
start with swim and run and have a "time budget".
18mins and 00 seconds,
a 750meter swim (short course pool, 1 person per lane).
a 3000meter run on the track.
tests done separately but must be done within 3 weeks of each other.
FOR EXAMPLE, if you swim 9:00 for 750meters, you'll need to run 9:00 for 3000 meters, 9mins+9mins = 18:00
a fast swimmer who swam 8:15 would only need to run 9:45 for 3000meters. a weak swimmer swims 9:30 better be a good runner and bang out a 8:30/3000m. for talent ID purposes I'd want both of those athletes in the system.
athletes would be simply ranked within a country by total time and everyone would need a moderately easy to achieve bike standard. Lets be honest, cycling is the easiest to improve and the least important, one sport has to be, just is what it is. [back in the day, before draft legal racing, you could be a weak swimmer and still compete, now you can be fairly weak on the bike but you'd better have that swim/run nailed].
When the "budget" has been met the athletes do a standardized bike test done to confirm their "rank". It's done as a set watts per kilo (watts/kg) for a 30min TT on a calibrated power meter. OR a gps file w/HR, spd and cadence done on an out and back 20km TT course, say 33mins? for 20km out and back? Remember this is talent ID and race entry. Standards are usually done in the winter as athletes prepare for races. note; a 68kilo rider holds 300 watts for 30mins is riding at 4.41watts/perKG. Is 4watts/kg for 30mins (275watts for a 150lbs rider) fair? 3.8 watts/kg?
right now with our federation the athletes don't have to do a bike standard and they can do the swim/run tests within a calendar year (correct me if I'm wrong).
the standard for World Cup entry is;
800meter swim; 9:36
5000meter run; 15:40
in "time budget" terms that's 9:36+15:40 = 25:16 (prorated to 750m/3000m that's 9:00 + 9:24 = 18:24 budget... bit loose that, especially considering there's no bike standard and they can be done 6 months apart...).
so where are the gaps?
right now this scenario exists,
athlete A swims 9:35 and runs 15:39, he's neither a very good swimmer or a very good runner but technically he has 2 standards, off to the races he goes (and gets crushed.....).
athlete B swims 8:40 but runs 15:41, he's a far superior swimmer and basically the same runner as athlete A. but he only has 1 standard and athlete A goes to the races while athlete B sits at home.
in a "time budget" scenerio,
athlete A - 9:35+15:39 = 25:14
athlete B - 8:40+15:41 = 24:21
which athlete would you rather have at a world cup? who should be "ranked" higher, who is a better talent?
in an 18min time budget, when that "budget" is met then the athlete needs to perform a 3.8watts/kg? 30min TT or equivalent 20km TT (for those without access to a power meter the federation ships a gps with hr/cadence monitor).
Athletes are ranked by the national office in order and entered into WC's/WCS races according to ranking, standards must be met within 8 weeks? 6 weeks? of the race an athlete wishes to enter, with a cut of date dictated by the entry cut off date set by the ITU.
athletes need to "prove" fitness at least once per year, athletes can improve their ranking simply by.... redo'ing the standard (can keep their best time?).
how about that? what am I missing?
Simon
* if anyone thinks this is about them, it's not, it's just me "thinking outloud"and it's really not a criticism of TRICAN as it's very easy to sit on the outside and piss inwards.
* the ?'s are there because I can admit I don't know the answers, this is simply a suggestion, a "would this work" scenario.
* if the math is off I only have a high school diploma and likely some sort of learning disability considering, how many, comma's I use (and brackets).
oh and I don't know what I would have done when I was 21 (IN 1996!!!!) for 800/5000, maybe 9:35 and 14:35 in peak fitness (or a "TIME BUDGET" of..... 8:59 and 8:20-:25 (i was fast but not very strong) ranking me at 17:25ish.
7 comments moderated by someone else:
Simon,
ReplyDelete
I think you are onto something here. Kudos. There are many dynamics to each race as we've seen over the past years; some dictate fast swimming, some fast running, most races a combo of both. Why eliminate athletes just because they are a few seconds outside a certain arbitrary standard?
If I had to equate myself when I was coming out of the JR ranks, my 750m swim at the time would have been 8:10 (16:20 1500m) and I ran 9:08 for 3000m in high school. My times ranks me at 17:18 (these weren't done within 3 weeks of each other though). That certainly put me at a federation talent level, but I was never able to place top 10 at a world JR championship as you were able to do. As I soon learned though (given my life choices after high school), it takes specific dedication to triathlon to move beyond those levels. That is an individuals decision though, and I applaud the dedication that it takes.
Some athletes take longer to develop into world-class athletes. Why close the avenues early, just because they are a few seconds off the swim or run standard? I realize there are certain guidelines that must be established, but you need to keep certain avenues open.
Given your examples above, I would much rather take athlete "B" onto the WC or WCS circuit; they are much more likely to have a pronounced impact on the outcome of the race.
Ideas like this can only help to move the sport of triathlon forward in Canada. i wouldn't be surprised to hear that we have numerous athletes that are close to Triathlon Canada swim/run standards in the country that don't even realize it.
DanoI agree with Dano. And with your concept. I think a bike standard is also important, because a guy with a TON of swim/bike talent (think Colin Jenkins) can be a real asset at an international race, even moreso than someone who is a swim/run talent but who lacks the bike ability.
ReplyDelete
I think 20km is probably a bit long given the criterium style racing of what you do. I would think 5min @ 5w/kg would be a reasonable standard. 5min power is probably much more relevant to ITU racing than 20min or 30min power.
If you had a common course - say The Observatory or Durrance Hill in Victoria - either of those would be good additions to the "Time Budget" standard you proposed. So let's say a time budget of 25min including The Observatory. I think that'd be a sound and balanced assessment of potential.
Simon - you bend the ear of Tri-Canada and I will volunteer my time to help create a fully fleshed out proposal based on your thinking above. For sports like track and swimming there are time standards that are used successfully by many national sports organizations. My suggestion is that there are two parts to this proposal - one for talent ID to get access to national training centres and the second for ranking athletes (also with race results) to get selected for different levels or racing (i.e. national level events, continental cups, world cup, etc.).
ReplyDeleteI am starting my own Juniors Club in the US. I am trying to come up with Performance Benchmarks for triathletes. I have looked at the US standards as well as GB, Canada and Australia. I think you hit the nail on the head with your post. Regarding bike power, I agree with Rapp and A-Russ. The bike is more crit style with 5 minute power to cover gaps out of corners or bursts more important. I would be very interested in how this moves forward. And would be grateful to be part of it.
ReplyDelete
This is a very interesting idea. I don't know enough about triathlon to comment on the times, etc, but a question that is coming up in track and field, wrt standards, is age-grading. How do you incorporate that? In track, for example, an 18-year-old woman who runs, say, 15:50, might get carded, while a 27-year-old who runs 15:30 might not. It's a tough call. How do you reconcile that here?
ReplyDelete
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Simon,
ReplyDeleteI think you are onto something here. Kudos. There are many dynamics to each race as we've seen over the past years; some dictate fast swimming, some fast running, most races a combo of both. Why eliminate athletes just because they are a few seconds outside a certain arbitrary standard?
If I had to equate myself when I was coming out of the JR ranks, my 750m swim at the time would have been 8:10 (16:20 1500m) and I ran 9:08 for 3000m in high school. My times ranks me at 17:18 (these weren't done within 3 weeks of each other though). That certainly put me at a federation talent level, but I was never able to place top 10 at a world JR championship as you were able to do. As I soon learned though (given my life choices after high school), it takes specific dedication to triathlon to move beyond those levels. That is an individuals decision though, and I applaud the dedication that it takes.
Some athletes take longer to develop into world-class athletes. Why close the avenues early, just because they are a few seconds off the swim or run standard? I realize there are certain guidelines that must be established, but you need to keep certain avenues open.
Given your examples above, I would much rather take athlete "B" onto the WC or WCS circuit; they are much more likely to have a pronounced impact on the outcome of the race.
Ideas like this can only help to move the sport of triathlon forward in Canada. i wouldn't be surprised to hear that we have numerous athletes that are close to Triathlon Canada swim/run standards in the country that don't even realize it.
Dano
I agree with Dano. And with your concept. I think a bike standard is also important, because a guy with a TON of swim/bike talent (think Colin Jenkins) can be a real asset at an international race, even moreso than someone who is a swim/run talent but who lacks the bike ability.
ReplyDeleteI think 20km is probably a bit long given the criterium style racing of what you do. I would think 5min @ 5w/kg would be a reasonable standard. 5min power is probably much more relevant to ITU racing than 20min or 30min power.
If you had a common course - say The Observatory or Durrance Hill in Victoria - either of those would be good additions to the "Time Budget" standard you proposed. So let's say a time budget of 25min including The Observatory. I think that'd be a sound and balanced assessment of potential.
I agree with Jordan regarding the bike standard. A shorter duration at higher power output would be a better indicator for ITU racing.
ReplyDeleteTime budget sounds good. It opens the doors to more potential talent being noticed from one sport athlete backgrounds, ie. Andy Potts.
Simon - you bend the ear of Tri-Canada and I will volunteer my time to help create a fully fleshed out proposal based on your thinking above. For sports like track and swimming there are time standards that are used successfully by many national sports organizations. My suggestion is that there are two parts to this proposal - one for talent ID to get access to national training centres and the second for ranking athletes (also with race results) to get selected for different levels or racing (i.e. national level events, continental cups, world cup, etc.).
ReplyDeleteI am starting my own Juniors Club in the US. I am trying to come up with Performance Benchmarks for triathletes. I have looked at the US standards as well as GB, Canada and Australia. I think you hit the nail on the head with your post. Regarding bike power, I agree with Rapp and A-Russ. The bike is more crit style with 5 minute power to cover gaps out of corners or bursts more important. I would be very interested in how this moves forward. And would be grateful to be part of it.
ReplyDeleteSimon - you might want to check out my recent post on our bike TT in Clermont, gives some perspective as to how the up and comers are doing in the saddle and what kind of a bike standard should be put into play. Really interesting topic.
ReplyDeletehttp://colestewart-triathlete.blogspot.com/
This is a very interesting idea. I don't know enough about triathlon to comment on the times, etc, but a question that is coming up in track and field, wrt standards, is age-grading. How do you incorporate that? In track, for example, an 18-year-old woman who runs, say, 15:50, might get carded, while a 27-year-old who runs 15:30 might not. It's a tough call. How do you reconcile that here?
ReplyDelete