I know its the best system they have come up with but to me its a waste of time to even follow.
Why?
Quite simple. The numbers dont really mean much when you look at guys in your age group who are “ranked” below you and you know for a fact that they could (and did) kick your butt in a race over the last season.
Am I the only one who thinks this way or is my thinking flawed here.???
From an absolute “how good are you standpoint” yes, they are probably not very meaningful. I will be much ,ore interested to see them when they are age graded and regionally adjusted. That might be more germane as the pool is smaller. My highest ranking race was the TIMEX Triathlon, a large Olympic race which debuted here in Tempe AZ this year. I was 9th overall, 4th AG’er overall, and 1st in my AG and recieved 89.937 points while the AG winner got 96.337. Then I go on to the SOMA Half, which had nearly 1700 participants, a major event, and finished 19th overall, 7th AG’er, and 3rd in my AG (a few min. behind Mr. Stover :), and only got 88.307 points. I was sure that, due to the size of the race, I would score higher but there were 10 Pro’s and the winner finished in 3:58 to my 4:26, so they grading changes.
Since the number is so effected by the Pro perfomance, I agree that it doesn’t have a lot of meaning for me as I try to be a competetive age group athlete so I am more interested in the numbers which they will provide after Dec 31.
it’s “Couldn’t care less”
You sound like my Grandmother…
I stand gramatically corrected
I don’t think the Pro results have any bearing on the rankings. Isn’t everything based off pacesetters derived from ag’ers? I don’t think the top AG score for an individual race can be derived as a percentage of their time versus a pro in same race at least as I understand the new system.