Does anyone care about these? I do because it gives me a year to year measuring stick to see my progress or lack there of.
I did 2 races in back to back weeks on the same course and my ranking was different by the 2nd decimal point… So all considered, the ranking system appears to be relatively accurate.
Does anyone care about these? I do because it gives me a year to year measuring stick to see my progress or lack there of.
I did 2 races in back to back weeks on the same course and my ranking was different by the 2nd decimal point… So all considered, the ranking system appears to be relatively accurate.
I look at them
Did 2 races 1 month apart different courses
2nd race I was MUCH faster than the first even compared to others who did both
Scored 10 points LOWER on the faster race lol
Does anyone care about these? I do because it gives me a year to year measuring stick to see my progress or lack there of.
I did 2 races in back to back weeks on the same course and my ranking was different by the 2nd decimal point… So all considered, the ranking system appears to be relatively accurate.
I look at them
Did 2 races 1 month apart different courses
2nd race I was MUCH faster than the first even compared to others who did both
Scored 10 points LOWER on the faster race lol
Funny… My 2nd race in above scenario was a sprint and the week before was longer… But when I compare my time on that sprint to that same time on the sprint the week prior (which I didn’t do) on the same course in similar weather my ranking was like 5 points lower… So not a perfect science… But year to year over the big picture I think its a great way to measure progress…
Raw time doesn’t matter. It’s based off your time compared to the other racers.
I personally believe that the ranking system is hands down the best measuring stick to gauge performance as it normalizes race conditions, course, and just about every other variable by looking at a huge amount of data.
Short rant: Every time this comes up, there are a ton of opinions and statements from people that have NEVER ACTUALLY DONE THE MATH. So be careful. If you haven’t actually created a program to simulate the algorithm (a simple excel sheet with a macro is more than sufficient) thrown in data from a race to make sure your math is correct THEN played with a data set to see what does and doesn’t affect the scoring system, then your opinion on the matter is about the same as someone telling you the best route to the airport in a city they’ve never set foot in. Rant over.
Having actually spent a good deal of time vetting the system, I think it’s as good as anything that could be done. It normalizes performance on any given race by looking at how everyone did then comparing their performance at that race to all their previous races, which were in turn, were compared to everyone in those races, and so on. It’s like those (cheesy) commercials from the 90’s about safe sex, where they say, you’re not just having sex with your partner, but you’re having sex with everyone they have had sex with, and everyone that those people have, etc etc until the screen is filled with thousands of people. Same thing here; you’re not just comparing how you did against everyone else, but everyone they’ve raced against and everyone those people have raced against, until you get a really good average from the sheer number of it all.
The few limitations I’ve found are:
When there is less than 200 people in a race, the results can be skewed if there are too few pace setters (people with enough scores from the previous year to set the bogie). So be weary of any score from small races.
The longer the race, and especially in rough conditions, the more the thick part of the bell curve gets pushed back. So on a hot day, the FOP of a HIM will be done before the real heat of the day starts, and off the bike course before wind picks up. So the top scores will be higher. Also, stronger athletes are less affected by conditions, so that inflates their score as well (and arguably, as it should). So a sprint in nice weather will have lower high end scores.
Other than that, I think it’s as good as it can be.
If a USAT offers a self selected “Elite” Field that starts first, do you still get a USAT ranking for this race?
Everyone who completes a race gets a score. It doesn’t matter what wave you start in. Pros get them too, and actually its one of the ways to qualify as a pro. If memory serves, it’s getting three scores over a set value (it changes year to year, but it’s around 103) in a single year.
I did a race recently with an elite wave and they have this posted on their site:
“Since inception, the Elkhart Lake Triathlon has sought to attract beginners, novices, elite, and professional men and women athletes. That is why we have always had a special wave for elite participants.We know that racing with the best is important to many of you, **but you also do not want to sacrifice your USAT Ranking. **That is why we offer an Elite event. It is an ‘event within an event’.”
I did not understand the context of the bolded sentence and it lead me to believe those in the elite wave would not have a score factored into their USAT ranking.
I don’t understand that statement either. I recently did a local tri in an elite wave and got a score. So that doesn’t make sense to me.
This string has sort of used “USAT Ranking” and “USAT Score” interchangeably. A USAT Score is a numerical value that you get for any given race. Everyone that participates in a USAT sanctioned event gets a score for that race. The “Ranking” is the yearly summation of those scores and how you then ranked vs your peers. In order to get ranked at the end of the year, you need to complete (I believe the number is 3) races for that year. So the ranking isn’t worth all that much in my opinion as it won’t count people that don’t do enough races. The true value in this system is the individual score you get for any given race. It could be that if you race elite you don’t get that towards your year end ranking, but as noted, I personally don’t see any loss there. The score is what tells you how you actually did on any given race.
I don’t place a high value on USAT All American but I would kind of like getting it this year. Last year, my score would have qualified me, but I did not sign up for an annual membership (did three one day passes instead) so I was not eligible. This year I did an annual membership, and I am doing 4 races, but 3 of which I am racing the elite field. I guess I will find out if I am eligible this year…
What is considered an average score? 80?
There was a post years ago in which someone (I’m not on here enough to know if he/she is still around an active) posted a snarky but pretty accurate break down. Let me google it…
It was by ZackCapets. This was from back when the ranking system algorithm was slightly different than the one used today, but overall it still holds true. Except the top end. Pros typically rank from 100-115 and it typically takes a pro a score of 110+ to win a big race.
“40/50=back of back of pack. Like you’re in rehab from morbid obesity, cancer, etc…
60’s=back of middle of pack. Most off-the couch beginners are in this range.
70’s=front of middle of pack. Seasoned triathletes with little time for training, really old people that have been racing for a while, young people with natural athletic ability.
80-85= Back of Front of Pack. An 80-85 usually correlates to something like top-10% overall finish at local races or top 20-25% at a national-caliber race.
85-90=front of front of pack. Usually correlates to top 10 overall finish at local races, or a top 15% finish at a national caliber race.
90-95=usually translates to consistent wins at local races or top-5 if there are a bunch of 90-95 people in your area–low level elite.
95-100=a 95 almost always wins local races, 100 usually translates to competitive finish among elites–good elite
100-105=really good elite–a 105 would win against lot of elites
105+=would win just about everything. Only a few people get scores this high, and I’m not really sure how it’s even possible. I think you have to be a really successful long-course athlete”
I agree that it is well structured and reasonably accurate. It is much, much better than the ranking system used by USA Cycling.
There was a post years ago in which someone (I’m not on here enough to know if he/she is still around an active) posted a snarky but pretty accurate break down. Let me google it…
It was by ZackCapets. This was from back when the ranking system algorithm was slightly different than the one used today, but overall it still holds true. Except the top end. Pros typically rank from 100-115 and it typically takes a pro a score of 110+ to win a big race.
“40/50=back of back of pack. Like you’re in rehab from morbid obesity, cancer, etc…
60’s=back of middle of pack. Most off-the couch beginners are in this range.
70’s=front of middle of pack. Seasoned triathletes with little time for training, really old people that have been racing for a while, young people with natural athletic ability.
80-85= Back of Front of Pack. An 80-85 usually correlates to something like top-10% overall finish at local races or top 20-25% at a national-caliber race.
85-90=front of front of pack. Usually correlates to top 10 overall finish at local races, or a top 15% finish at a national caliber race.
90-95=usually translates to consistent wins at local races or top-5 if there are a bunch of 90-95 people in your area–low level elite.
95-100=a 95 almost always wins local races, 100 usually translates to competitive finish among elites–good elite
100-105=really good elite–a 105 would win against lot of elites
105+=would win just about everything. Only a few people get scores this high, and I’m not really sure how it’s even possible. I think you have to be a really successful long-course athlete”
I agree with this on the nose!
As I saw someone else note, I assume you mean scores and not rankings as you compared races and not years.
Yes, I care. After you’ve been in the sport a while, it’s something to keep things interesting. To measure progress and incorporate into goals. I pretty much always finish top 10 AG at WTC events and rarely top 5; inevitably I always race a competitive year and would’ve been on the podium if I raced year prior or subsequent, so a high USAT score - and end of season ranking among the fasties - is usually my consolation prize. If you’ve been racing a while, sometimes you have to stretch to things like USAT race scores and EOY rankings to stay/get excited and motivated. IMO, whatever keeps getting you out of bed and off your couch!
Generally, I agree with the post about what the score ranges equate to but will add that if you live in CA or CO or somewhere with a lot of fast triathletes, you often see athletes with EOY scores 90+ who sometimes miss the podium at local races but are still All American. Some places are just stacked with talent.
This is very accurate. The top pros will go over 110. Go look at LS’s score from St. George. It was 124. Crazy.
Anyway, I love this ranking system. It’s how I stalk my competition. I’ve been 90+ the past few years and then 95+ since last year. I won my AG at Choo 70.3 and almost got that elusive 100 points. I was so close.
There was a post years ago in which someone (I’m not on here enough to know if he/she is still around an active) posted a snarky but pretty accurate break down. Let me google it…
It was by ZackCapets. This was from back when the ranking system algorithm was slightly different than the one used today, but overall it still holds true. Except the top end. Pros typically rank from 100-115 and it typically takes a pro a score of 110+ to win a big race.
“40/50=back of back of pack. Like you’re in rehab from morbid obesity, cancer, etc…
60’s=back of middle of pack. Most off-the couch beginners are in this range.
70’s=front of middle of pack. Seasoned triathletes with little time for training, really old people that have been racing for a while, young people with natural athletic ability.
80-85= Back of Front of Pack. An 80-85 usually correlates to something like top-10% overall finish at local races or top 20-25% at a national-caliber race.
85-90=front of front of pack. Usually correlates to top 10 overall finish at local races, or a top 15% finish at a national caliber race.
90-95=usually translates to consistent wins at local races or top-5 if there are a bunch of 90-95 people in your area–low level elite.
95-100=a 95 almost always wins local races, 100 usually translates to competitive finish among elites–good elite
100-105=really good elite–a 105 would win against lot of elites
105+=would win just about everything. Only a few people get scores this high, and I’m not really sure how it’s even possible. I think you have to be a really successful long-course athlete”
This sounds about right to me. I think migrating the scales 5 points higher in each category would make the most sense. Last year was my first year in triathlon and I had an average score of just over 80. This year I have an average score of 87 and have been top 10-20% in my age group in the three races I have done so far. (M30-34 in an escape series tri, ironman 70.3, and really big sprint in Florida…I would consider those national calibur races)
EDIT: At what point do you start registering for races as ELITE? I see the words low level elite, elite, and good elite. What is elite…is that the same as pro?
Registering as an “elite” is an option in some races, where you start in the first wave with others that have registered as such. You forgo any age group awards though and can only get overall awards. It’s nice in that it allows the FOP racers the ability to race together regardless of age group. It also means that you don’t have to swim through the slower swimmers of waves ahead of you, or deal with people that are lollygagging in the transition area. It’s purely self selected though, so you can be slow as dirt and still start in the elite wave. Other than that, the term “elite” is a bit ambiguous. Sometimes it’s used to note professionals, other times, really fast age groupers.
I did a race recently with an elite wave and they have this posted on their site:
“Since inception, the Elkhart Lake Triathlon has sought to attract beginners, novices, elite, and professional men and women athletes. That is why we have always had a special wave for elite participants.We know that racing with the best is important to many of you, **but you also do not want to sacrifice your USAT Ranking. **That is why we offer an Elite event. It is an ‘event within an event’.”
I did not understand the context of the bolded sentence and it lead me to believe those in the elite wave would not have a score factored into their USAT ranking.
It could be that by creating an Elite event/wave, this opens more spots for qualification to AG Nationals. So if you are in the 40-44 AG for example and there are 30 total people in that AG, Nationals take the top 10%, or 3 of you. But if two of those athletes are in the Elite Division, then the person that finished 3rd actually finishes 1st in AG, then two more athletes in the 40-44 AG qualify for nationals. The actual ranking itself I don’t think changes but maybe what the RD’s intention was that more people can qualify for nationals. Just a guess I could be completely off base but just wanted to throw that out there.
Good summary! I’ve come to appreciate these scores more and more over the years. They tell a pretty good story for me of how I’m improving (since even courses for the same race are different year over year). They also make me feel a little better when I’m getting my ass kicked in what I believe is a fast AG (30-34) in a fast region (Bay Area). Also helps to make sense of unusual race distances like Escape or even to confirm that the race course changed from a previous year. SuperSEAL bike was almost 2 miles long this year so I kissed my chances of a PR goodbye but was happy with my USAT points.
I wrote a Python script to calculate scores given a CSV of race results if anyone is interested in it. It still requires some massaging to obtain and properly format the race results for processing, but not usually too difficult.