Tegenkamps best performance

[run]

Of the past 3 amazing races Teg has run, what performance in your opinion was most superior?

[Saint Ashlar]

13:04 5k FTW!!!

[homeless]

I voted 5k, but according to IAAF scoring the 3k is worth 7 points more...:D

[Transient]

5k is better. IAAF gives it more points because the 3k is rarely run which creats a skewed equivalancy.

[homeless]

5k is better. IAAF gives it more points because the 3k is rarely run which creats a skewed equivalancy.
based on your sig I'm gonna go with your second sentence being the meaningless half :D

[Mrr82]

Well let's look at it a few other ways

AR WR Teg AR Teg WR
730 720 4 14
1258 1237 6 27

Using the AR's as the bases the 5k is more impressive, using the WR's as the basis the 3k is more impressive.

[Iron Man]

Well let's look at it a few other ways

AR WR Teg AR Teg WR
730 720 4 14
1258 1237 6 27

Using the AR's as the bases the 5k is more impressive, using the WR's as the basis the 3k is more impressive.
Urgh. I can't stand how people do this. Teg is 14 seconds off the WR in the 3k, now, if somebody ran 11.77 in the 100m, that would just be 2 seconds off the WR. Which is more impressive?


It's a lot easier to get within the WR in a shorter race.

[Jolly Farm]

Urgh. I can't stand how people do this. Teg is 14 seconds off the WR in the 3k, now, if somebody ran 11.77 in the 100m, that would just be 2 seconds off the WR. Which is more impressive?


It's a lot easier to get within the WR in a shorter race.

Notice how he said that in relation to the AR, the 5k is more impressive, even though he is farther away than in the 3k? He took distances into consideration.

[Iron Man]

Notice how he said that in relation to the AR, the 5k is more impressive, even though he is farther away than in the 3k? He took distances into consideration.
No he didn't. He compared the two using the AR and WR. I pointed out the major flaw in his method.

[miler]

Teg article: http://www.kimbia.net/newsarticle000113.html . Has some of his training in there.

[Beans]

5k by far, it was the most unexpected. I mean nobody really though the was gonna run that fast. the 7:34 was very expected. 3:36 was solid but we all think he couldve ran under 3:35

[Jolly Farm]

No he didn't. He compared the two using the AR and WR. I pointed out the major flaw in his method.

Did you even read the first sentence of my post? He said that in relation to ARs, the 5k was more impressive. He is 6 seconds away from the AR in the 5k, and 4 seconds away in the 3k. To come to the conclusion that the the 5k is more impressive, the distance of the races would have to be taken into account (the 5k is 67% longer than the 3k, but Teg was only 50% farther away from the AR).

[Iron Man]

Did you even read the first sentence of my post? He said that in relation to ARs, the 5k was more impressive.

Yes, and then he said the 3k is more impressive using the WR.


Using the AR's as the bases the 5k is more impressive, using the WR's as the basis the 3k is more impressive.


He is 6 seconds away from the AR in the 5k, and 4 seconds away in the 3k. To come to the conclusion that the the 5k is more impressive, the distance of the races would have to be taken into account (the 5k is 67% longer than the 3k, but Teg was only 50% farther away from the AR).
If this had of been said, I would not have disagreed.


However, Mrr82 never chose a side.

[Achilles]

Yes, and then he said the 3k is more impressive using the WR.





If this had of been said, I would not have disagreed.


However, Mrr82 never chose a side.
you're wrong, Mrr82 did that. He specifically said 5k in terms of America and 3k in terms of world. I tend to disagree though. 3k is just run way way less and even though he did it by time the 3k record can be approached much easier than the 5k record.

I dont believe the added distance + added time scenerio is linear. I think if someone is say 20 seconds off in the 5k, that equals like 10 seconds off in the 3k. Sort of like Kennedy. Kennedy would be pretty much equally competitve in both races i think.

13:04 is more competitive than 7:34.9 imo.

[Iron Man]

you're wrong, Mrr82 did that. He specifically said 5k in terms of America and 3k in terms of world. I tend to disagree though. 3k is just run way way less and even though he did it by time the 3k record can be approached much easier than the 5k record.

I dont believe the added distance + added time scenerio is linear. I think if someone is say 20 seconds off in the 5k, that equals like 10 seconds off in the 3k. Sort of like Kennedy. Kennedy would be pretty much equally competitve in both races i think.

13:04 is more competitive than 7:34.9 imo.
Yeah, he said 5k was better in America, 3k was better in world. Distances were not taken into consideration.

[king99]

3K ..off by 14+ from WR

5K WR off by..............

You make the call

[Iron Man]

3K ..off by 14+ from WR

5K WR off by..............

You make the call
We've been over this. It's easier to be closer to the WR in a shorter race.

[homeless]

the frickin' IAAF has scoring tables for exactly these reasons...5k might be run way more often but when 3k is run by serious guys with a shot, they go after it...Christ, Webb had one chance to run fast with company his senior year and HS...know what? he ran 3:53. These are pros, they don't need 63 different shots. the IAAF takes this into account...subjectively, by raw numbers, the 3k is a better performance. say all you want, but I think everyone is sticking with the 5k because we are so familiar with it and it was his breakthrough performance...it's embedded stronger emotionally...

whatever

all the performances are sick

Teg

FTW :D

[themanontherun]

Teg article: http://www.kimbia.net/newsarticle000113.html . Has some of his training in there.
I call BS on his easy run paces lol. Sounds like his easy runs are never under 7 minutes!

[J_Kerska]

I call BS on his easy run paces lol. Sounds like his easy runs are never under 7 minutes!

yes because they dont have to be and every n00b on here who trains at 6:40 and runs a 5k at 6:00 should read that and go wait what i dont have to train 40 seconds above race pace :mad:

[Iron Man]

the frickin' IAAF has scoring tables for exactly these reasons...5k might be run way more often but when 3k is run by serious guys with a shot, they go after it...Christ, Webb had one chance to run fast with company his senior year and HS...know what? he ran 3:53. These are pros, they don't need 63 different shots. the IAAF takes this into account...subjectively, by raw numbers, the 3k is a better performance. say all you want, but I think everyone is sticking with the 5k because we are so familiar with it and it was his breakthrough performance...it's embedded stronger emotionally...

whatever

all the performances are sick

Teg

FTW :D
I voted 3k!

[miler]

I call BS on his easy run paces lol. Sounds like his easy runs are never under 7 minutes!

Yeah I was thinkin the same thing way too many 7 min/mi runs for a 1304 guy. Oh well.

[Sully 800]

Yeah, he said 5k was better in America, 3k was better in world. Distances were not taken into consideration.

I'm not sure what you aren't understanding. Mrr didn't feel his post needed a full explanation because his meaning was pretty obvious and he was taking the distances into account (he just didn't state it explicitly). Achilles then fully explained the meaning to you multiple times and you still don't get it?

Everyone knows its easier to be closer timewise to a record if the distance is shorter. I don't care what you think of mrr....he definitely understands that concept. And thats the reason he said the 5k was better if you compare it to the AR because it was only 2 more seconds away. So considering the extra 2k and the slower pace (as mrr did) its a better time.

It's tough to be absolutely certain using such a method though, because one can argue that the 3k and 5k records might not be equal...one might be better, or the ratio of which performance is better might be different between the AR's and the WR's (which is why mrr came up with 2 different results). I think the IAAF tables is a fine way to compare, but in any case its obvious they are pretty elite performances. :D

[Sully 800]

Yeah I was thinkin the same thing way too many 7 min/mi runs for a 1304 guy. Oh well.

Or maybe he just understands that you can't run fast all the time, as so many younger and less experiences runners try to do.

I've read of Kenyans doing recovery runs at 8+ minute pace while there race pace is several minutes faster. It doesn't mean that slow paces don't have a place or benefit in their training.

Basically I don't think you can say Teg is doing a lot wrong with this break through season he's been having.

[jacksparrow34313]

Or maybe he just understands that you can't run fast all the time, as so many younger and less experiences runners try to do.

I've read of Kenyans doing recovery runs at 8+ minute pace while there race pace is several minutes faster. It doesn't mean that slow paces don't have a place or benefit in their training.

Basically I don't think you can say Teg is doing a lot wrong with this break through season he's been having.
QFE. I've heard from a guy who ran with them back in the day at the U of F, guys like Jack Bachelor and Frank Shorter used to do all of their easy mileage at 7:30 to 8:00 pace. Peter Snell logged hundred mile weeks, many chunks of it run at a very easy pace, and he was able to run extremely fast at the middle-distances. One of the problems we often see is young kids coming along and doing all of their easy mileage at 6:30 pace. There's no need to do that, scientists have proven that running easy mileage really slow can still help you out. You need the time to recover, and running at an easy pace still helps your body build endurance.

[run]

My guess is that he follows a system known as "Badger Miles"

This was from an interview a few years ago from Chris Solinsky.

RQ: What are 'Badger miles?'
CS: Badger miles are what we use as a system [to count mileage]. Everything is based off of a 7:00 minute pace. So if you run 70 minutes, you only get ten miles out of it. We don't actually run 7:00 pace, so we get probably 12 miles out of a 70-minute run, but we can only count it as 10. It's a system that I think was derived by Coach Martin Smith when he coached here. Jerry [Schumacher], having run for Martin, just carried it over.

RQ: 7:00 pace is rather slow, isn't it?
CS: Yeah, I don't think we ever run at 7:00 pace. I think it's good though, because you underestimate your pace which is a definite positive.

RQ: So if you go 6:00 pace, it still counts as 7:00 pace?
CS: No matter what, it still counts as 7:00 pace. It took a while to get used to because I wanted to count the actual mileage. It's not too bad any more.

RQ: Are you doing long runs?
CS: Yeah, I'm doing 90 minute runs, usually on Sunday. It's 13 Badger miles, but it's probably 15 or 16 actually. I'm doing a longer run than I ever have on a weekly basis. Other than that, I'm doing pretty much what I did in high school. Just higher intensity, better workouts and a longer run at the end of the week.

Seeing as how Tegenkamp was Solinsky's teammate, I believe he still follows this system or else it wouldnt make sense.

[jacksparrow34313]

My guess is that he follows a system known as "Badger Miles"

This was from an interview a few years ago from Chris Solinsky.

RQ: What are 'Badger miles?'
CS: Badger miles are what we use as a system [to count mileage]. Everything is based off of a 7:00 minute pace. So if you run 70 minutes, you only get ten miles out of it. We don't actually run 7:00 pace, so we get probably 12 miles out of a 70-minute run, but we can only count it as 10. It's a system that I think was derived by Coach Martin Smith when he coached here. Jerry [Schumacher], having run for Martin, just carried it over.

RQ: 7:00 pace is rather slow, isn't it?
CS: Yeah, I don't think we ever run at 7:00 pace. I think it's good though, because you underestimate your pace which is a definite positive.

RQ: So if you go 6:00 pace, it still counts as 7:00 pace?
CS: No matter what, it still counts as 7:00 pace. It took a while to get used to because I wanted to count the actual mileage. It's not too bad any more.

RQ: Are you doing long runs?
CS: Yeah, I'm doing 90 minute runs, usually on Sunday. It's 13 Badger miles, but it's probably 15 or 16 actually. I'm doing a longer run than I ever have on a weekly basis. Other than that, I'm doing pretty much what I did in high school. Just higher intensity, better workouts and a longer run at the end of the week.

Seeing as how Tegenkamp was Solinsky's teammate, I believe he still follows this system or else it wouldnt make sense.
Well that tears my theory to shreds.

[themanontherun]

There is a difference between a recovery run and an endurance run that is meant to improve your aerobic fitness and running economy. The idea behind an endurance run is to get your heart rate up to a certain level, usually between 65% and 75% of the maximum heart rate, then to keep it there so as to stress the heart, which is then rested to it can adapt. I guess I am just curious as to whether or not he is getting his HR up to that level going 7:30 pace, given his fitness. Yes, the Africans do recovery runs at 8 minute pace, but they still do their endurance runs at fast paces, usually using the first half of the run to get up to pace, then running faster and faster each mile in the second half.

[Iron Man]

I'm not sure what you aren't understanding. Mrr didn't feel his post needed a full explanation because his meaning was pretty obvious and he was taking the distances into account (he just didn't state it explicitly). Achilles then fully explained the meaning to you multiple times and you still don't get it?

Everyone knows its easier to be closer timewise to a record if the distance is shorter. I don't care what you think of mrr....he definitely understands that concept. And thats the reason he said the 5k was better if you compare it to the AR because it was only 2 more seconds away. So considering the extra 2k and the slower pace (as mrr did) its a better time.

It's tough to be absolutely certain using such a method though, because one can argue that the 3k and 5k records might not be equal...one might be better, or the ratio of which performance is better might be different between the AR's and the WR's (which is why mrr came up with 2 different results). I think the IAAF tables is a fine way to compare, but in any case its obvious they are pretty elite performances. :D
Ok, ok, but he never once said the 5k was better. Well, he did, but he also said the 3k was better.

3k is more impressive.

That's what through me off. I guess I never once, until now, read his post the whole way. I still, however, disagree with using WR/AR times to compare, for the exact reasons that you stated.

[jacksparrow34313]

There is a difference between a recovery run and an endurance run that is meant to improve your aerobic fitness and running economy. The idea behind an endurance run is to get your heart rate up to a certain level, usually between 65% and 75% of the maximum heart rate, then to keep it there so as to stress the heart, which is then rested to it can adapt. I guess I am just curious as to whether or not he is getting his HR up to that level going 7:30 pace, given his fitness. Yes, the Africans do recovery runs at 8 minute pace, but they still do their endurance runs at fast paces, usually using the first half of the run to get up to pace, then running faster and faster each mile in the second half.
I was under the impression that these were recovery runs, because he was running them after hard workouts. If he's running them at a faster pace like he said, I'd be wrong.

[Jolly Farm]

I guess I never once, until now, read his post the whole way.

That explains a lot.

[Iron Man]

That explains a lot.
I wasn't the only one who made a mistake in this very thread. :rolleyes:

[Mrr82]

I'm not sure what you aren't understanding. Mrr didn't feel his post needed a full explanation because his meaning was pretty obvious and he was taking the distances into account (he just didn't state it explicitly). Achilles then fully explained the meaning to you multiple times and you still don't get it?

Everyone knows its easier to be closer timewise to a record if the distance is shorter. I don't care what you think of mrr....he definitely understands that concept. And thats the reason he said the 5k was better if you compare it to the AR because it was only 2 more seconds away. So considering the extra 2k and the slower pace (as mrr did) its a better time.


Exactly....I didn't realize my post would create such confusion....With some simple math and just reading what I wrote it should have been obvious.....If I didn't understand the concept i would have said he's better at the 3k in both cases!!! duh....Glad there are a few voices of reason

[Matt]

Teg is still coached by Schumacher and runs with the Wisco guys and still follows the Badger miles system. It makes sense because he told us at a camp that hw was running around '60' miles per week around the time he ran 13:04. In reality the mileage would be higher but its always counted as lower mileage.

[homeless]

I wanna know what noob voted 1500

show yourself!!!

you're off the island

[Mrr82]

you're wrong, Mrr82 did that. He specifically said 5k in terms of America and 3k in terms of world. I tend to disagree though. 3k is just run way way less and even though he did it by time the 3k record can be approached much easier than the 5k record.

I agree with what you're saying. I was just talking in relation to both record, not determining which is more impressive.

And for Iron Man...

WR
14 seconds compared to 27 seconds...14*1.72 aprox to account for the extra distance and slow down. 24 seconds...1301 would be aprox the WR equiv of the 3k WR making his 3k time slightly more impressive

AR
4 seconds compared to 6.....4*1.73=6.92 giving you just over 1305 making tis 3k time almost equiv in comapison but slightly slower.

AR 450*1.73=12:58.5
WR 440*1.72=12:36.8

[jacksparrow34313]

I agree with what you're saying. I was just talking in relation to both record, not determining which is more impressive.

And for Iron Man...

WR
14 seconds compared to 27 seconds...14*1.72 aprox to account for the extra distance and slow down. 24 seconds...1301 would be aprox the WR equiv of the 3k WR making his 3k time slightly more impressive

AR
4 seconds compared to 6.....4*1.73=6.92 giving you just over 1305 making tis 3k time almost equiv in comapison but slightly slower.

AR 450*1.73=12:58.5
WR 440*1.72=12:36.8
Hahahaha, what's funny is I noticed that this math would work a long time ago, right at the beginning actually, but I was too lazy to pick up a calculator and prove it.