It's always tough to gage on time as the courses and conditions are all very different around the country, but I guess that is true of the competition as well. I know USAT does age group "rankings". Maybe some additional criteria that would take rankings into account or perhaps next season add some sort of points system. I'd have to look around and give it some thought. Maybe add some fields to the profile for individual top race results so others can view those as well as a reference.

Any ideas are welcome.

I was thinking something along the line off...

Running - 10= sub 5:30 mile pace
9= sub 5:45 mile pace
8= sub 6 min mile pace

Bike - 10= 26+ mph
9= 24.5 mph

You get the gist. And it would vary with sex and age group

I don't think it matters too much... it can be intersting to see the numbers people match with their egos and times, but not too critical to discussions and community.

Shaun, as for your pace idea, that could work -- would be nice when looking for a training buddy. But why bother relating them back to numbers? Why not just have average workout paces?

I like the idea for matching up abilities for possible training partners is great, as opposed to the info backing up a Peeing contest. :cool:

And this is the entire reason for the pace scale. Base your level upon you and what you can swim/bike/run. Not in comparison to race results. I can run a 6:45 pace...then I'm an 8. Where that ends up in the race will depend on the race. Same can be said for the swim and the bike.

And other's who say it's not important or critical are right....but it never hurts to have as much info as people are willing to provide. Some members haven’t filled out what is currently asked so leaving a few more fields blank wouldn’t be a big deal. But for the frequent users and advice givers it might be nice to see that people are capable of what they say they are. I know I'm more likely to take advice from a reputable source than from some random dude. Might help separate valid advice from random opinion if we were able to provide some more background in our profile.

It’s all optional anyway :)

*grin* this is complicated!
I know I have a pace I often train at for each event, and then a pace I often end up racing at... but sprinters and IMers will have different ideas on pace...

So, In effect, the scale would have to consist of a pull down menu (sprint, Oly, 1/2 IM, IM) and the pace fields, with the pull down menu determining which scale is used.

we all have 'specialties' that we are stronger at the others and i do think that would be another thing to look at. how can you really gage time and effort?

well put triumph
racing to some is not about who you beat,how fast you can go or how good your prs are, its how hard you push your own body regardless of time....
marzian

Hey Tribro...anyway to delete just endurance levels in our profile? Or, do I have to suck it up and rank myself with my flawed human judgement?
Have a great day!

Well, tribro, I think you should make displaying that info mandatory before you can post at all!

That way people dropping by to throw out vague questions which can't be answered meaningfully without context, might have to think a bit before they post their query. This ought to help put some meaning and value into threads regarding training needs.

A little serious introspection never hurt anybody. :)

PoC

I think the function of displaying endurance levels is to illustrate your relative strengths and weaknesses. That is to say your swimming endurance relative to your running and biking.
It also may reflect how you perceive your endurance relative to your age group peers as a whole.

Example: If I am a stronger swimmer than I am a biker and poor runner compared to my own biking, then: 4,3,2, would show that. If I happen to be dominant in my age group then these scores would slide up the scale and it would read: 10,9,8.
Of course this would only make sense in a sprint distance competition, but it is just an example.

I rate myself a better swimmer than I am a biker, and about the same competence as a runner, who, at IM distance, struggles in my age group so I show 3,2,3.
It gives a rough impression of ability and I am OK with that.
My scores at the International distance would be different, but I made IM my primary goal for this period of time.

I like to see what others are playing at/concentrating on, in their training but I don't place a whole lot of weight on such skimpy statistical data.

I think on the forum it gives important context to queries such as we see here from time to time.

If you simply don't display the numbers, then we just have to ask the question anyway before attempting to reply meaningfully to your post, and that becomes tedious, so better to put up some numbers - as accurate as possible within the limitations, than to have no information at all.

PoC

Tried to delete my #'s and couldn't for some reason....Maybe because I'm still stuck in the 20th century.:)So I'll keep em' and accept them as flawed.

I hate numbers...math is the bain of my existance...I destest that we as a culture demand some kind of quantification when it comes to people.
"She's a 10"... "She's a 2" "You have a 2.7"..."She has a 4.0".."Your IQ is lower than Forrest Gump."
I see it all the time working in the school system...and to be honest,more often than not, there are kids being pidgon holed and passed by because their numbers aren't as good as others.
And they are good kids that work hard..
There are athletes out there that work hard and are awesome people but will never ever be fast.If we base "endurance levels" on speed, it is just a quantification that some nerds like me see as one more smack down.
How many of those posted levels are acurate? One persons 8 is anothers 5. How many folks post something high because they can't bear to post what they really are?
Why do we have to "ask the question" anyway?

90 degrees and 90% humidity here in the Mid-Atlantic...gag...makes for some nasty training..

POC, best of luck at IMC!

Not sure it matters that much. Really not the intention of the numbers to grade ones ability to offer advice. As Kyilee points out not all coaches can claim high endurance numbers but still are knowledgeable advice givers. Chris CarMichael for example is probably a 2,7,6 - but arguably would be a great brain to pick. Joe Friel was probably highly ranked in cycling and running at one point, but maybe not so high any longer as he gets older. That wouldn't discredit his ability to provide information.

Additionally not all posts require training/race knowledge. Many are just general discussions. I don't think It should be a mandantory thing.

Good point Triumph,...
The last time I was at an actual race and was speaking actual words to other friendly triathletes in my midst like, "Hey man, how do like those new Michelin Pro Race 2's you got ?" I didn't interrupt his reply with "Excuse me, but before you answer that question I'm going to need to know how many races you've done and how you placed, so I'll know how qualified you are." That would seem rude, and one would probably be left standing all alone with their ipod at the bike rack while others chatted happily, slurped gatorade and set up their transition towels.