Basically, it also shows;
Field Placement: 321 / 2368 (13.6%)
Age group: 45 – 49
Group Placement: 33 / 159 (20.8%)
Gender Placement: 280 / 1285 (21.8%)
With yesterday's time being what it was, I hope that this is a real hope that I can accomplish what I need to do in Chicago, and not just a cruel and false sense of hope. There are a couple of school's of thoughts one is great and one is not so great.
Good News School of Thought:
The Performance Level Percentage Calculator. This is a tool that measures your performance against others who share the same gender, age, and race distance as you.
Basically if you are over 60% you are doing great. Take a look
100%= Approximate World Record Level
Over 90%= World Class
Over 80%= National Class
Over 70%= Regional Class
Over 60%= Local Class
For yesterday's race, I placed in the 64.2% range.
By the same token, I would only need to place in the 63.3% range to qualify for Boston (3:30:59)
Here is the link to this useful tool: http://www.compuscore.com/agegrade/calculator.php
Of course, that's the Good News.
Here's the Not-So-Good School of Thought:
Race Time Predictor
The predictor gives an estimate of your time for a given distance using data from your recent races.
This formula was first published in the August 1977 issue of Runner's World. Your overall pace slows as you run longer distances. The coefficient (Coef) describes this slow down. A larger value will produce a longer predicted time.
If you enter a second distance, the predictor will automatically make use of this second value to create a personalized coefficient, which will improve the accuracy of the predicted time. You can also type in your own performance factor to adjust the calculation. Typical values are 1.06 to 1.10.
The estimator uses the following formula devised by Pete Riegel:
T2 = T1 x (D2 / D1)Cwhere:
D1 = distance you already raced
T1 = time for the known distance
D2 = distance you want to predict the time
T2 = predicted time for the new distance
C = performance degradation coefficient
Of course, this did not take into consideration the fact that both courses vary greatly. The 18 mile course was hills all the way, whereas the Liberty run was totally flat. This was further proved with an auto-generated degradation co-efficient of 1.209, far beyond the normal range. With Chicago flat and all, I decided to see what would happen if I had just put in the info pertaining to the Liberty run only. This is what came up instead;
Oh My God. This is even worse. I would miss Boston by 24 seconds.
Of course, this is assuming a degradation factor of 8%. The range is between 6 to 10%. Question is am I going to suck wind, and do 10% (or worse) degradation. Be middle of the road, do 8%, and come home in trememdous mental pain, or grow yet another set of brass cohones, and try for even 7% degradation. With 7%, I would get this;
Surely that looks better. I would qualify to the Boston Marathon with just a degradation coefficient of 7%.
But then again, there is a saying in Spanish, "El papel aguanta lo que le pongas". In other words, A piece of paper will hold anything you want to write. It's really useless to try and convert the will of the mind into a statistical probability.
I just know ONE thing. I get my ONE chance to KILL this Chicago 'Bull' Run in less than 13 days.
One thing that should help will be my placement in the race. I just learned that I was accepted into Corral C. That's generally reserved for people who have run between 3:36:00 and 3:55:59. Depending on my lineup in the corral, there can be anywhere between 4,500 to 8,500 people in front of me. So, if I can line up close to the front, I should be ahead of 90% of the people in the starting line, making for hopefully an unclogged start. They are also predicting around a 4 minute delay before I cross the starting line too.