Gisborough Moors 2006 09-Apr-06
Posns/splits at major checkpoints  
             
    C.Cooks R.Top H.cliff Finish % time
Pos.   Name pos/time pos/time pos/time time to Cooks
1   Charles Stead 1/37.30 1/57.40 1/75 86.38 43.3%
2   Dan Middlemas 2/38.07 2/58.40 2/76 87.25 43.6%
3   Andrew Minister 3/40.23 5/61.39 6/80 90.42 44.5%
4   Will Horsley 6/40.32 4/61.36 5/80 90.48 44.6%
5   Joe Blackett 4/40.26 3/61.33 3/80 90.50 44.5%
6   Alan Harland 5/40.29 6/61.42 4/80 91.01 44.5%
7   Paul Figg 9/41.48 7/63.25 7/82 93.32 44.7%
8   Andy Hauser 8/41.40 9/63.32 8/83 93.58 44.3%
9   Syd Coxon 7/41.14 8/63.30 9/83 94.22 43.7%
10   Andy Carruthers 14/42.48 13/65.17 10/85 95.55 44.6%
11   Barry Atkinson 10/41.56 10/64.15 11/85 96.04 43.7%
12   Gordon Brown 11/42.27 12/64.58 12/85 96.32 44.0%
13   Ben Adams 16/43.03 15/65.36 13/85 96.47 44.5%
14   Rich. Waterton 19/43.20 16/65.38 17/85 97.16 44.6%
15   Paul Crabtree 13/42.47 14/65.33 16/85 97.28 43.9%
16   Andy Hardy 12/42.33 11/64.55 14/85 97.41 43.6%
17   Ian Ellmore 18/43.10 17/65.48 15/85 97.52 44.1%
18   Julian Barwick 21/43.52 20/66.25 18/87 98.13 44.7%
19   Aen. McCullough 24/44.15 23/67.06 20/87 98.30 44.9%
20   Ben Grant 17/43.10 19/66.15 19/87 99.05 43.6%
21   Brendan Anglim 30/45.20 26/68.07 21/88 99.23 45.6%
22   Martin Dietrich 26/44.28 25/67.32 22/88 99.42 44.6%
23   Martin Clements 22/43.57 21/66.51 23/88 99.55 44.0%
24   Stuart Backhouse 23/44.09 24/67.23 25/88 100.14 44.0%
25   Jo Buckley 20/43.45 22/67.00 24/88 100.27 43.6%
26   Giles Hawking 15/42.49 18/65.57 26/89 101.33 42.2%
27   Simon Deakin 27/45.13 27/68.26 27/89 102.08 44.3%
28   Jeff Winder 32/45.35 30/69.20 30/90 102.18 44.6%
29   David Eiser 38/46.25 33/69.35 29/90 102.32 45.3%
30   Peter Milburn 33/45.45 29/69.07 28/90 102.44 44.5%
31   Michael Jeffrey 28/45.18 31/69.24 31/90 103.12 43.9%
32   Mark Walker 31/45.30 32/69.28 33/91 103.34 43.9%
33   Michael Winter 34/45.59 34/69.44 34/91 103.35 44.4%
34   Colin Knapp 25/44.26 28/68.51 32/91 103.58 42.7%
35   John Metson 35/46.04 37/70.14 36/92 104.00 44.3%
36   John Price 36/46.08 36/70.12 35/92 104.25 44.2%
37   Gary Thoms 39/46.26 40/70.52 39/93 105.09 44.2%
38   Jonathan Parker 40/46.31 39/70.25 38/93 105.30 44.1%
39   Mark K-Lansell 47/47.24 48/72.44 42/94 106.05 44.7%
40   Robert Stephens 41/46.39 42/71.26 43/94 106.12 43.9%
41   Paul Hainsworth 48/47.43 43/71.56 41/94 106.18 44.9%
42   Jack Mason 29/45.19 35/69.57 37/92 106.50 42.4%
43   Kevin McLoughlin 37/46.10 38/70.16 40/94 107.26 43.0%
44   John Somers 43/47.06 41/71.23 44/94 107.54 43.7%
45   John Burghope 50/48.09 50/73.24 46/95 108.49 44.2%
46   Steve Libby 64/50.04 60/75.11 51/98 110.05 45.5%
47   David Robinson 58/49.11 55/74.33 52/98 110.15 44.6%
48   Alison Raw 46/47.17 47/72.43 48/96 110.16 42.9%
49   Paul Kelly 45/47.14 46/72.41 49/96 110.17 42.8%
50   David Spence 56/49.04 54/74.08 50/97 110.22 44.5%
51   Simon Watson 44/47.12 44/72.13 45/95 110.34 42.7%
52   Vince Rutland 51/48.27 53/74.06 55/98 110.42 43.8%
53   Derek Donohue 54/48.54 59/75.09 58/98 110.56 44.1%
54   Mike Baxter 52/48.29 52/74.03 54/98 111.12 43.6%
55   Mark Ludiman 59/49.16 56/74.35 56/98 111.16 44.3%
56   Thomas Edwards 68/50.36 65/76.15 63/99 111.24 45.4%
57   Stuart Walker 55/49.00 51/73.46 53/98 111.28 44.0%
58   Dave Bond 53/48.48 57/74.39 59/99 111.42 43.7%
59   Paul Morley 42/47.02 45/72.18 47/96 111.53 42.0%
60   Mark Bevan 49/47.57 49/72.59 57/98 112.03 42.8%
61   Chris Wright 84/52.12 71/76.54 62/99 112.19 46.5%
62   Tony Wilkinson 62/49.54 62/75.24 60/99 112.28 44.4%
63   Jean Shotter 60/49.18 61/75.14 61/99 112.45 43.7%
64   Andy Leon 63/50.03 64/75.45 65/100 113.08 44.2%
65   Mike Hetherton 67/50.30 67/76.25 67/100 113.21 44.6%
66   Sarah Glover 71/50.42 69/76.42 66/100 113.22 44.7%
67   Sam Healy 61/49.36 58/75.07 64/99 113.41 43.6%
68   Michael Wilson 66/50.28 68/76.40 70/101 114.22 44.1%
69   Ronnie Sherwood 76/51.06 70/76.49 68/100 114.28 44.6%
70   Stewart Mechie 93/53.08 88/79.50 74/102 114.38 46.4%
71   Michael Smith 65/50.09 66/76.22 69/100 115.22 43.5%
72   Barry Edwards 80/51.41 72/76.57 71/101 115.38 44.7%
73   Keith Richardson 70/50.40 75/77.26 72/102 116.08 43.6%
74   Stuart Jarrett 75/50.59 76/77.28 73/102 116.31 43.8%
75   Sue Haslam 73/50.45 74/77.25 75/103 116.36 43.5%
76   Alistair Thorpe 69/50.38 77/77.30 76/103 116.51 43.3%
77   Colin Wilberforce 79/51.28 79/78.10 77/103 117.13 43.9%
78   Martin Randall 86/52.16 89/79.54 84/104 117.18 44.6%
79   Malcolm Cox 96/53.30 84/79.14 81/104 117.27 45.6%
80   Simon Rowell 95/53.14 86/79.36 80/103 117.35 45.3%
81   Bill Pennell 78/51.26 81/78.53 82/104 117.55 43.6%
82   Iain Povey 74/50.49 73/77.24 79/103 118.12 43.0%
83   John Telfer 72/50.43 78/78.00 83/104 118.19 42.9%
84   Cath Worth 82/51.45 82/79.00 85/105 118.48 43.6%
85   Claire Haslam 94/53.08 90/80.01 86/105 118.49 44.7%
86   Geoff Wilson 98/53.34 96/80.44 90/106 119.14 44.9%
87   Alex Barlow 103/54.47 100/81.30 89/106 119.19 45.9%
88   Andrew Knox 57/49.09 63/75.38 78/103 120.01 41.0%
89   Brian.Evans 83/51.56 83/79.12 91/106 120.06 43.2%
90   Laura Clark 99/53.38 95/80.43 87/106 120.08 44.6%
91   Angela Hall 81/51.43 85/79.34 88/106 120.56 42.8%
92   Barry O'Sullivan 90/52.41 91/80.22 93/107 121.16 43.4%
93   Phil Connor 77/51.19 80/78.50 92/106 121.41 42.2%
94   Ian Harmer 100/53.40 97/81.05 94/107 122.10 43.9%
95   Kevin Greenall 92/53.06 92/80.40 96/108 122.45 43.3%
96   Trevor Symonds 97/53.31 102/82.08 98/109 123.18 43.4%
97   Rob Eveson 88/52.37 94/80.42 95/108 123.29 42.6%
98   Simon Berry 89/52.39 87/79.47 97/108 123.55 42.5%
99   Nigel Heppell 105/55.22 106/84.12 104/110 124.01 44.6%
100   Katy Rawnsley 85/52.15 99/81.09 101/109 124.07 42.1%
101   Peter Whewell 106/55.44 107/84.24 103/110 124.31 44.8%
102   Steph Slott 91/53.04 98/81.07 100/109 124.35 42.6%
103   Eddie Meehan 102/54.16 101/82.04 111/111 124.50 43.5%
104   Richie Clarke 108/55.52 108/84.28 105/111 125.05 44.7%
105   Faye Parker 120/57.02 114/85.01 108/111 125.24 45.5%
106   Stephen Muir 119/57.00 110/84.53 107/111 125.24 45.5%
107   Paul Lyons 101/54.02 103/82.42 99/109 126.11 42.8%
108   Colin Scollay 115/56.49 113/84.59 110/111 126.25 44.9%
109   Raymond Gray 104/55.00 104/83.41 109/111 126.32 43.5%
110   David Caygill 87/52.33 93/80.41 102/110 126.44 41.5%
111   Denise Tunstall 112/56.22 109/84.51 112/112 126.56 44.4%
112   Kate Woodall 126/57.35 119/85.22 115/113 127.03 45.3%
113   Craig Johnson 109/55.58 105/83.50 106/111 127.13 44.0%
114   Andrew Dunn 111/56.08 111/84.55 113/112 127.40 44.0%
115   Ella Towers 118/56.59 117/85.18 116/113 128.03 44.5%
116   Alan Wikeley 107/55.50 112/84.57 114/112 128.54 43.3%
117   Dave Parke 121/57.04 116/85.12 118/114 129.02 44.2%
118   Andrea Foster 127/57.48 120/85.24 117/113 129.56 44.5%
119   Kenny McCormick 110/55.59 118/85.20 120/115 130.30 42.9%
120   Iain Bowran 114/56.47 121/85.26 121/115 130.57 43.4%
121   Gavin Struthers 117/56.55 115/85.07 119/114 131.22 43.3%
122   Phil H-Narbro. 124/57.23 123/86.30 122/116 132.55 43.2%
123   Paul Haydon 123/57.08 127/87.16 124/118 133.01 43.0%
124   Chris Jamieson 128/57.49 125/87.12 123/117 133.12 43.4%
125   Keith Hildore 135/59.21 131/88.18 128/118 133.24 44.5%
126   Phil Miles 130/58.11 130/88.17 131/119 134.05 43.4%
127   Andrew McRae 116/56.51 128/87.35 129/118 134.07 42.4%
128   Susan Milburn 122/57.06 124/87.10 126/118 134.11 42.6%
129   Lorraine Laycock 125/57.30 126/87.15 127/118 134.11 42.9%
130   Martin White 133/58.30 132/88.46 132/119 136.06 43.0%
131   Ollie Mankowski 129/58.03 129/88.06 130/118 136.25 42.6%
132   Karl Gerhardsen 113/56.45 122/85.28 125/118 136.29 41.6%
133   Caroline Graham 138/61.03 136/90.51 133/121 136.31 44.7%
134   Lydia Dietrich 136/60.27 137/90.52 134/121 136.33 44.3%
135   Ferg. Burtenshaw 132/58.25 134/90.22 137/122 139.29 41.9%
136   Edwina McDowall 131/58.20 135/90.23 136/122 139.29 41.8%
137   Andrea Hend'son 137/60.35 138/91.15 138/123 141.52 42.7%
138   Chris Denley 134/58.45 133/88.55 135/121 142.00 41.4%
139   Barbara Young 139/61.11 139/93.10 139/124 142.18 43.0%
140   Barry Wells 141/65.20 141/98.45 140/131 149.11 43.8%
141   G.Carter 140/64.07 140/97.40 141/132 151.03 42.4%
142   Gary Chatterte 143/67.35 142/100.50 142/137 159.08 42.5%
143   Mark Brownlee 144/67.58 143/102.25 143/138 159.08 42.7%
144   Andrew Carey 142/67.00 144/103.25 144/140 161.22 41.5%
145   Sue K-Lansell 145/70.46 145/107.20 145/143 162.53 43.4%
146   John Walshaw 146/70.46 146/107.21 146/143 162.53 43.4%
147   Peter Braney 148/73.23 147/108.45 147/146 162.55 45.0%
148   Tracy Harmer 147/71.40 148/110.03 148/153 170.00 42.2%
(End)              
             
The "% time to Cooks" is the % of total race time it took competitors to reach Captain Cooks Monument. A higher % than the average of 43.9% implies that the runner took it relatively easy to Captain Cooks Monument (compared with the rest of the field), whilst on the other hand a lower than average % implies the runner slowed (suffered more?) in the latter stages of the race (relative to everyone else). Correct pace judgement in this race pays dividends and it can be quite satisfying passing fellow runners as they struggle on the long grind from Roseberry Topping to Highcliff Nab.

The No.1 early cruiser (i.e. strong finisher) was Chris Wright who spent 46.5% of his time getting to Cooks Monument where he was 84th overall. He then proceeded to overtake 23 runners and finish 61st overall.

The top 12 "early cruisers" were:
             
    % posn change      
1   Chris Wright 46.5% +23      
2   Stewart Mechie 46.4% +23      
3   Alex Barlow 45.9% +16      
4   Brendan Anglim 45.6% +9      
5   Malcolm Cox 45.6% +17      
6   Faye Parker 45.5% +15      
7   Steve Libby 45.5% +18      
8   Stephen Muir 45.5% +13      
9   Thomas Edwards 45.4% +12      
10   Kate Woodall 45.3% +14      
11   Simon Rowell 45.3% +15      
12   David Eiser 45.3% +9      
             
Conversely there are those (optimists?) who may have got caught up in the heat of the moment early on, exceeding their lactic threshold only to spend the rest of the race going backwards, as the early cruisers passed them in the latter half of the race (been there, done that!)

The No.1 runner going backwards was Andrew Knox who spent only 41% of his time getting to Captain Cooks where he was 57th overall but then lost 31 places, finally finishing in 88th place (please accept my apologies Andrew if you picked up an injury during the race!)

The top 12 runners "going backwards" were:
             
    % posn change      
1   Andrew Knox 41.0% -31      
2   Chris Denley 41.4% -4      
3   David Caygill 41.5% -23      
4   Andrew Carey 41.5% -2      
5   Karl Gerhardsen 41.6% -19      
6   Edwina McDowall 41.8% -5      
7   Fergus Burtenshaw 41.9% -3      
8   Paul Morley 42.0% -17      
9   Katy Rawnsley 42.1% -15      
10   Tracy Harmer 42.2% -1      
11   Giles Hawking 42.2% -11      
12   Phil Connor 42.2% -16      
             
             
The difference between Chris Wrights 46.5% and Andrews 41% doesn't seem to be much but if we use their finishing times (although undoubtedly their finish times would be different with different pacing strategies!) then Andrew would have had to run approx. 72 secs a mile slower to Cooks Monument (or faster from Cooks) to obtain the 46.5% value that Chris obtained!

Equally Chris would have had to run approx. 66 secs a mile faster to Cooks Monument to arrive there in 41% of his finishing time! I've used these two extremes to merely illustrate the difference in paces used by Chris and Andrew between the two halves of the race. In a reality a runner who "went backwards" after Cooks Monument should be able to maintain a pace 15-20 secs/mile faster after Cooks Monument (than they achieved) simply by dropping their pace 5-10 secs/mile in the first half of the race.

Out of interest (although it's difficult to compare one year with another due to variability in course and weather conditions) the best result I had in this race and on this course was when I used my heart rate monitor to pace myself. This produced a value of 46.7% i.e. a surprisingly high figure and one that is very close to Chris's value. 

I realise I've simplified the analysis by simply splitting the race in half but clearly there are lessons to be learned here and anyone outside of the optimum pacing strategy (probably between 44.5% to 45.5% to Cooks Monument in this particular race) has room for improvement. Indeed some runners could reduce their Moors Race time by several minutes without having to get any fitter, just by easing back at little on the throttle early on, which can't be a bad thing.

İRob Pollard

P.S. Has anyone got enough time on their hands to analyse the Roseberry Topping and Highcliff Nab splits? If so you're sadder than me....

 


e-mail from John Telfer:

Rob

I was very interested in your piece on the split time analysis for the Gisborough Moors Race. However, as a veteran of 3 fell races I'd like to challenge your theory on the basis of my very limited experience in these races.

I should stay the following comments are made with tongue planted semi-firmly in cheek.

Although I didn't make it into your Going Backwards hall of fame and I should have by virtue of losing 11 places from the CC Monument (some of those poor devils lost less than 5 places !!) this has not caused me too much lost sleep. My theory runs thus. I firmly believe that by starting out at a pace that you will not be able to sustain nevertheless gives you a foothold higher up the pecking order than if you "saved some gas for later" which some of those behind you will never be able to challenge. I base this theory on the fact that any practice run I do over a course come race day (this is based on my run at Carnethy in February) I will beat my best practice time by a mile. At Carnethy the best practice time was 80 minutes whilst I ran it in 73.

In essence I am using the better runners to set me a pace which they being better runners I cannot sustain and hence I go backwards. My further contention is that by starting the Moors race around 60th and ending up 83rd is a better bet than starting say 100th and adopting an "Early Cruiser" stance. My belief is that I would just run at the slower pace and not make the same progress up the way that I made in reverse by starting faster than my limited talent warrants. Does that make sense? Of course what I should do is put it to the test by starting a race near the back and see what progress I make. My hunch is that that the outcome would not be as good.

Anyway you said you were looking for sad people and this is the reply of one !!

Notwithstanding the weather it was a great day (I had walked the course the previous day and got caught in the blizzard which meant given the wind direction I arrived at Gribdale totally covered in snow down the front much to the amusement of the hardy walkers going up to the monument). I finished absolutely knackered (no point in finishing feeling fresh as a daisy) but with a great feeling of satisfaction.

My thanks to all the organising team especially Bob Lille who I met marking the course on the Saturday.

See you next year - probably still going backwards from the Monument but who cares.

Regards

John Telfer

P.S. One point I didn't mention was the 20 minute stop I made at the top of Roseberry Topping to enjoy the picnic my mum had made for me !!!!

 

Comments from Chief Cruiser (First Class):

Rob

Interesting race analysis from the Moors Race, and supporting comments by John Telfer.

Having been officially named as Chief Cruiser, I thought my 'take' on the award might be of interest (to some!).

Based on experience, observation and reading of comments by others, the following might be pertinent:

- in the 800m, the winner is often the runner who is slowing the least in the last 150/200m
- in the 1500m, the third lap is the hardest
- Steve Jones (Wales) suggested (when setting the marathon World Best) that the marathon is a 20mile training run followed by a 10km race

When I used to regularly race on the roads, on a flat course my strategy was to run the first half comfortably, start working harder for the next section, then flat out over the last section. This uneven effort often resulted in an even paced race (min/mile).

In a fell race, I would adapt this strategy to the course and my own strengths and weaknesses - these are (in order, best to worst): steady uphill; flat sections; steep downhill; steep uphill; and steady downhill.

So for the Moors Race, I run steadily to Gribdale, work hard round to Little Roseberry, do my best up and down Roseberry, work hard round to Highcliff Nab, then do my best down to the finish (not getting too uptight about people passing me on the last downhill sections).

I have, in the past, run hard from the start and drifted backwards, run quite hard from the start and maintained my position, started conservatively and gradually worked my way through, and started right at the back and worked my way through. The first and the last seem to cheese other runners off, particularly the last!

My preferred option at the moment is to start conservatively and gradually work my way through, and this is very much based on my Orienteering race strategy - I start steadily in order to make sure I 'spike' the first control cleanly, then start working when I have got into the map and the course and am 'flowing' through the terrain and controls. You need to save something for the latter part of an Orienteering race, as a lot of time can be lost in the latter stages by making navigational errors when tired (and course planners do tend to deliberately throw in some technically tough challenges in the later part of their courses!)

Chris

 

Reply from John Telfer:

Rob

Reading the hallowed words of the Chief Cruiser I now know where I went wrong - I didn't have a proper strategy, in fact I didn't have a strategy at all. In retrospect I think I ran Gisborough as follows.

Start like a madman to impress myself, realise how stupid I was running up that slope of mud in the woods but position myself in the middle of the path so no one can get past - get on to the Moor and feel good again - slow down as soon as there is the slightest incline - speed up again when pride gets severely dented when I get passed by people twice my age - almost gasp my last getting to the top of Roseberry Topping - fill up with oxygen from picnic packed by mother (see previous note) - swim to Highcliff Nab given that that the conditions make it easier than running - slide back down the muddy slope - give it my all on the final stretch to impress myself and the people watching to fool them into thinking I have been running at this pace for all of the race - collapse in a heap - recover - drink copious amounts of beer - collapse in another heap.

Seriously very interesting stuff from the Chief Cruiser and I shall bear it mind when I run the Anniversary Waltz tomorrow.

Anyway thanks again for a great day.

Regards

John Telfer

PS - Up here in Scotland near Edinburgh where I live being a Chief Cruiser can get you arrested and leave you with a lot of explaining to do to your wife.

 

Comment from Andrew Knox:

Rob

Interesting reading-I have to say the statistics in this case don't lie and I can't even claim an injury.

I just got the pace completely wrong-I got to the bottom of Roseberry Topping then fell apart- I think two factors kicked in.

1 ) Looking up at Roseberry Topping
2 ) Seeing the pedigree of the other runners around me and realizing just how wrong I had got my pace !

Regards

Andrew Knox