No I get that I just got my lowest score rating of the year from Sunday & was definitely in better shape than early season races & definitely executed better but because the middle of the race did relatively well I somehow was worse compared to my early season races. My highest rating on the year comes from a Sprint I did on a horrible weather day a few weeks before my goal 70.3. I went in with no taper/with really high volume. I peaked for the 70.3 a few weeks later & crushed it (fast time, good weather day) but scored lower than the Sprint. Should I have peaked for the Sprint because I could have done even better and scored even higher than what I did? I was 1 point off of the elite standard at the Sprint but 4 off at the 70.3. I beat some pros at the 70.3 & know I would have been closer to them at the 70.3 than the Sprint if any had been in that race. I know I performed better at the 70.3 but I didn’t perform better compared to the masses because the weather was decent. You get a higher score when others fall off versus when you have a good race. It’s making me rethink what races should be important.
I do think it’s kind of odd that you can’t look at two 70.3’s and know who had more fitness on the day. At 70.3 Maine, the top-39 AGers scored 100+. At Oregon, the top-23 scored 100+. Are you telling me nobody from Oregon 24-39 beats anybody from Maine if lined up on the same day? Obstri doesn’t seem to think so. The way I’m understanding the rankings is that a 106 from Maine could be a 102 in Oregon. But then why not have a system where those numbers are the same because the athlete is getting the score based on one of them?