click on image to see full size |
By this data, runners whose point falls above the line (Nick C., Ryan, Cat, Tina, me) have marathon times that are disproportionately faster than their Towers PR. Runner's whose point falls below the line (Sam, Jenn, Slusher, Kyle, Felix) have had faster runs up Towers than in a marathon by comparison to the mean.
Of course this comparison has many flaws (insufficient data points, marathons were run on different courses, data does not have a sufficient spread over the times, etc.) but there is enough information to make some statements or predictions about a runners' potential in one event when compared to the other. For instance, to run a 3 hour marathon, one should be able to run 33:40 on Towers. Likewise, someone who can run a 30 minute ascent on Towers should be able to run a 2:46 marathon.
If you have a recent marathon time and a Towers time and I have not included you in the plot, please let me know, I can always use more data. A 5K/Towers plot and a 1/2 marathon/Towers plot would be interesting as well, so if you have that data please send it my way. And next time you see Nick on Towers and he runs anything slower than 27:30, be sure and ask him, "What happened?"
Nice work, Alex. I think I'll start talking to real mountain runners only and ignore posers like you and Nick. Oh, and I'll be at the track tomorrow AM.
ReplyDeleteEvidently I have my work cut out for me if I ever plan on running a road marathon. That graph suggests my marathon time should be about 10-15 minutes faster than I have even thought about running (and 45 min faster than my 2 year old PR)
ReplyDeleteI can add a point, although they were set quite a few years apart - towers: 29:26 (2016), marathon: 2:36:26 (Boston 2009). Haha, that is insanely close to Nick's!
ReplyDeleteMy bad - didn't realize this was posted so long ago, ha. Someone just shared it on fb.
Delete