PRs by IAAF Score

A PR is a basic standard many runners- from world record holders to the back of the pack runners- use to measure and evaluate their race. Generally, if a PR was achieved, it was a pretty good race. After spending some time in the running scene, most runners will rack up a handful of PRs, from the 800 to the 50K. Having PRs in multiple distances is a nice way to change up your race schedule and break from the monotony/difficulty of racing the same event seemingly every week and sometimes coming up frustratingly short. After having raced in numerous competitions and developed most PRs well, one begins to wonder- am I better at ___ event or ____ event? The answer has come from IAAF performance scoring tables. Over each standard distance the IAAF scores athletes based on the time they ran. The scores range from 0-1400, with 1400 being an impossible time (3:40 in the indoor mile) and 0 being a very slow and easily achievable standard for even the most casual runner (9:36 in the indoor mile). Most people's PR will clearly range somewhere in the middle of that. World record holders are usually around 1200. While this is a pretty meaningless score on its own (the numbers mean nothing as few people are familiar with the method of scoring, and its much easier to understand the time), its a nice feature to be able to compare times over different distances. For example, I was shocked to see my best events by far are the 100 and 200. Just kidding, but I scored my PRs and was surprised at some of the results. Here are my PRs (slow) ranked by IAAF score, best to worst.

Note that there are different scoring charts for indoor and outdoor. (i) notes an indoor performance

1. 3000(i)- 828 points

Time- 8:44.64

No surprise on this one. Most of my distance PRs feel as though I could have run somewhat faster if I had done X aspect differently. My 3K felt like a true hard effort, with consistent pacing and a strong finish. While I'm disappointed I still haven't beaten it, it makes sense that it holds up as my strongest PR to date.

2. Mile(i)- 800 points
Time- 4:27.72

Very surprised to find the mile is 2nd strongest PR and not my 5K. This is especially surprising as I ran on UNH's slow 160m oval and didn't feel very strong the entire race. It's almost concerning that if I had run a good mile on a fast track, it would be my best PR by score.

3. 1500- 789 points
Time- 4:05.68

It makes sense that the 1500 and Mile are pretty similar as they're basically the same distance. My 1500 converts about 4 seconds faster, so I'm a little surprised my 1500 isn't higher or at least equal with my indoor time. Obviously, indoor is slower but it seems like a bigger gap than it should be.

4. 1K- 761 points
Time- 2:38.25

My 1000 PR is solid, but really nothing more than that. A pretty middle of the road PR for me, not worst but far from my best. Seems a little high for this ranking.

5. 5K- 758 points
Time- 15:28.60

I've always considered myself to be a 5K runner and it's definitely the distance I've run the most. I think it makes sense that my 5K is weaker than my 3K, as I slow down almost 17s/mile (about 8s/k) even though it's only 2K longer. I haven't had a really great 5K race on the track and out of all PRs, this one really doesn't represent what I'm capable of. However, I'm still really confused why a 2:38 is considered to be better than 15:28. Perhaps there's simply more good middle-distance runners than distance runners so being relatively better at the 5K place-wise doesn't mean my times are better. In my mind, 15:28 feels like a more impressive mark than 2:38.

6. 800- 751 points
Time- 2:00.40

This checks out with me.

7. 2 Mile- 746 points
Time- 9:45.34

My 2 Mile is one of my weaker PRs as its a lesser run event and I never really had a great race in it. I really don't like how you are expected to barely slow down when going up to the 5K to maintain the same IAAF score, as evidenced by being only 12 points behind my 5K PR. My 2 Mile PR pace is 4:52 and my 5K PR pace is 4:58. The 5K time equivalent to 9:45 is 15:32 (4:59 pace). It seems a little ridiculous that if you only slow down 7 seconds/mile despite running 9 more laps that your performance is still equivalent to your shorter one. Questionable.

8. 10 Miles- 682 points
Time- 55:30

At the time, I was really happy with this PR and considered it to be one of my most impressive. After further reflection though, should there really be a 50s/mile difference in pace from my 3K (4:41) to my 10 Mile (5:33)? The answer is probably not. I think I can still justify it as being a strong time for a middle of the summer effort, but on second thought, it's definitely weaker than my 3K PR. As for the rest of my track PRs, its pretty shocking how much worse this is. The time equivalent to my 3K is a 52:16 and my 800 a 53:56. It is seriously not more impressive/stronger of a time to run a 53:56 than a 2:00 800? Is a 52:16 really equivalent to an 8:44 3K? While there's plenty of time I can take off this PR, it seems simply insane how fast I would need to run to have this be my top PR.

9. 10K- 602 points
Time- 34:42

This is hardly even a real PR of mine considering its slower than my 10 mile PR pace.

10. Half- 347
Time- 1:26:14

Overall, this system is clearly designed for the elite runners which makes it hard to seriously consider the values of the longer distance events. The very best runners have small decreases in pace when moving up in distance, something more amateur runners can not produce. I've always spent a lot of time on mile/3k training while not doing a ton of long-distance training. I think another reason why the scores seem so off for me is that I can run a lot faster in some of the distance events. I think if I were to train for each distance and run what I'm actually capable of in each event, this results would look much better. Anyways, this was fun to view and analyze my relative efforts in different distances. It really just goes to show that I have a lot of work to do. I'll link the performance charts here in case you want to look at your own (download required).