Teams & Riders Tom Dumoulin discussion thread

Page 183 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
On the World Athletics points chart, 32:38 for 10 000m scores 744 points.

That is as valuable as
11.51 in 100m
4:12.9 in 1500m
2hr36 marathon

However, it was road rather than track, so we don't know the story in terms of gradients/wind, or the accuracy of the measurement.

Yate's 2h58 marathon is 461 points
12.67 for 100m
4:38.5 1500m
36:52 for 10 000
I don't think the scoring tables are very good to compare times. 11.51s in the 100m is relatively easy to reach with average training. A decent U18 does it without a massive training regime. That kind of times in the 10.000m are rarer.
 
Those race prediction time tables and calculators are a joke. Out of curiosity I've checked a few of them and found that marathon predicted times for Dumo's 10k time span over almost 25m. Yates' time is at the edge of the worst prediction for Dumo.
 
I don't think the scoring tables are very good to compare times. 11.51s in the 100m is relatively easy to reach with average training. A decent U18 does it without a massive training regime. That kind of times in the 10.000m are rarer.
They aren't perfect: they are not bad. Do you know a better algorithm? If so, I am sure World Athletics would be delighted to hear from you.

Comparing the 1000th best male athlete from WA all time lists on the Olympic distances, they are consistently grouped around the same level (1130s, with only the marathon (1000th time = 1168 points) more than 0.5% from the median.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
They aren't perfect: they are not bad. Do you know a better algorythm? If so, I am sure World Athletics would be delighted to hear from you.

Comparing the 1000th best male athlete from WA all time lists on the Olympic distances, they are consistently grouped around the same level (1130s, with only the marathon (1000th time = 1168 points) more than 0.5% from the median.
I don't have a better algorithm but in certain disciplines the performances associated with a certain amount of points can't be truly correlated.

I'm in charge of an Athletics team and tried to implement a selection mechanism for national championships where the cut-off would be a certain amount of points of the IAAF scoring tables. In some disciplines the qualification would be very easy and we would have almost a dozen eligible athletes, in others it would be very hard even considering the national outlook at current times.

Just to say that, at least in my country, a 11.51s time at the 100m wouldn't raise many eyebrows and although the athlete could be useful for some 3rd tier team or some relay of a 2nd tier team in the team championships, the demand for that kind of athlete wouldn't be much as it can be achieved quite easely with a moderate amount of training. The demand for a 32'38'' athlete in the 10.000m otoh would be quite high and he would be useful even for some 1st tier teams.
 
If anything elite level middle and long distance running is even more physiology restricted than cycling, any extra height and weight basically rules you out of being able to compete at that level with very few exceptions.
Agreed. Top level long distance runners are all feather weight guys. OTOH some top climbers haven't been that light at all.

Minimum bike weight being the same for all riders is an additional equalizer in that regard.
Good point. Additional power is needed to lift a bike, which makes smaller, less powerful guys lose more w/kg for this.

Surprised nobody has weighed in with speculation on how much Froome will smash Dumoulin's 10k time by. Once he's recovered from his latest illness setback of course.
Remember Mt Ventoux uphill run? :D Chris would have overtaken most of his competitors if they hadn't delivered him a bike.
 
Last edited:
If anything elite level middle and long distance running is even more physiology restricted than cycling, any extra height and weight basically rules you out of being able to compete at that level with very few exceptions.
I think there’s been plenty of tall rangy Kenyans with a long stride who’ve competed at elite level and held world records, but yes, the trend does seem to be towards little fellas with a low gear.
 
I'm not sure I understand the discussion. Why would you try to translate it into 100m and marathon efforts in the first place? There are enough people running 10,000 meters so the times can be compared?
That was my initial reaction too, although I guess Ricco’s post explains ways it could be useful. But it would make much more sense to use percentile ranks (using a WR or and Olympic qualifying time as the top) to compare the relative value of one performance from another. But trying to convert a 100m time into a marathon time (to use the extremes) and vice-versus seems strange. I don’t think I’ve heard folks trying to equivocate a Cavendish sprint win to a time up l’Alpe d’huez? Maybe it’s a runner’s thing?
 
Reactions: noob and BlueRoads
Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. I just really don't get it. But whatever, obviously there are enough people interested in that if there are even calculators and there is a discussion here.
Calculators make sense as a help to set your target time when you plan to make a race longer than what you have done before, for instance going from 5k to 10k, from 10k to 21k, or from 21k to 42k. Once you have a target time you can follow a training plan tailored for that. Most long distance races open to amatuer runners I entered have organised pace making groups for different target times that anyone can join from the start so you are running all the time next to people who runs at a similar pace.

Calculators stop making sense if there's plenty of them and they give a wide range of predicted results. As I said before, I found a variation of almost 25min for the marathon estimated time from Dumo's 10k time.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
If anything elite level middle and long distance running is even more physiology restricted than cycling, any extra height and weight basically rules you out of being able to compete at that level with very few exceptions.
I specifically said cycling up mountains, where there is a net vertical gain with every pedal stroke. Mountains are the focal point of cycling, a flat track (or relatively flat road course is the focal point of athletics.)

Again, absolute weight. Never do runners have a conversation with their coach to get leaner to change events, say 1500m to 10,000m. Compare that with the Geraint Thomas, Wout, types constantly shifting kilos to contend in one event or another.
My point is that being as tall as TD is not as big of a disadvantage to running performance, as say being as heavy as Peter Sagan to compete on mountains.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I specifically said cycling up mountains, where there is a net vertical gain with every pedal stroke. Mountains are the focal point of cycling, a flat track (or relatively flat road course is the focal point of athletics.)

Again, absolute weight. Never do runners have a conversation with their coach to get leaner to change events, say 1500m to 10,000m. Compare that with the Geraint Thomas, Wout, types constantly shifting kilos to contend in one event or another.
My point is that being as tall as TD is not as big of a disadvantage to running performance, as say being as heavy as Peter Sagan to compete on mountains.
Wouldn't that weight tradeoff happen when going from like 400 to 800 or something?
 
I specifically said cycling up mountains, where there is a net vertical gain with every pedal stroke. Mountains are the focal point of cycling, a flat track (or relatively flat road course is the focal point of athletics.)

Again, absolute weight. Never do runners have a conversation with their coach to get leaner to change events, say 1500m to 10,000m. Compare that with the Geraint Thomas, Wout, types constantly shifting kilos to contend in one event or another.
My point is that being as tall as TD is not as big of a disadvantage to running performance, as say being as heavy as Peter Sagan to compete on mountains.
You said “cycling up and down mountains,” tbf.

Nobody loses weight to move from running 10,000 to marathon because a 10,000m runner is already as skinny as they can be. As said, it’s really the transition from 800/1500, where a sprint finish might come into play, to 5,000m and longer that the difference in weight might be an element. And I don’t know enough about athletics to know how often that transition is made at the elite level. I know of some women runners (Paula Radcliffe, Caitriona McKiernan) who went from longer track distances to marathon, and my recollection is that their main change was just a different focus in training.
 
How else would you assess whether his or Yates' performance was the most impressive which was the origin of the discussion?
I didn’t and wouldn’t try to make that assessment. Since it’s the off season I was briefly interested that Dumoulin chose to run in a 10k (not a normal thing for a pro cyclist); I was likewise interested to see posts about Pogacar’s wedding, Roglic’s honeymoon, and Uran’s bike shop (or whatever isn’t it as I read about him). There’s no reason you folks shouldn’t be interested in making that comparison for your interest/entertainment, it just isn’t for me.
If they were both competitive runners and the discussion was about one moving up to run the marathon or dropping down to compete in the 10k, then it would seem to have some relevance.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
How else would you assess whether his or Yates' performance was the most impressive which was the origin of the discussion?
I thought it was pretty clear that Dumoulin's time was better? I mean, his time isn't too far from the best German women on that distance. Yates' time is pretty far away from the best German women. That's how I'd measure it. ;) Honestly, simply by looking at it and comparing to the times of each discipline I know.

Anyway, in my eyes a comparison doesn't make that much sense because those were different events and we don't have a clue how much effort they put into it (Dumoulin doesn't seem super-prepared or caring) and a marathon, I think requires more specific preparation if you want to do well than a 10k run, which can be done with a decent time by pretty much everyone who's well trained "along the way" (Don't mean that anyone can run Dumoulin's time, just that for a similar result you need less specific preperation.) And, more importantly, maybe you can try and compare a 10.000 meter effort to a marathon because some runners switch to marathon in the long run... but no elite athlete switches from 100m to the long distance runs, the physiology is simply totally different. So the only thing that could be measured is "where would that leave you in terms of placings in the world" - but I don't think the amount of people who run 10km and marathons is the same, so you would have to adjust it accordingly when for instance, like in recent times, the number of marathon runners has become stellar or when it goes down.

Basically, in my eyes it's pretty clear from the first eye test that Dumoulin's time is better in comparison, but to do a marathon "in between" is just a lot harder, so I'd just say those are both very good runs and more cannot be determined at this point.
And to be honest I sometimes think that this forum is a bit obsessed with ranking and comparing things that simply cannot be decently compared because we are lacking parameters, factors and simply quantity of material to make it significant.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan and noob
And I thought long distance was Portugal's main strength in athletics...
Not anymore. It used to be the most prolific area in the past but nowadays not so big. We usually had medal prospects in international competitions in that races (thinking of Fernanda Ribeiro, Carla Sacramento, Rui Silva, more recently) but in the past decade or so the level has declined abruptly (we have Sara Moreira and Jessica Augusto but they are not at the same level and in middle distance Marta Pen hasn't really made the jump - let's see what Isaac Nader and Mariana Machado can do in the future).

I come from the sprinting and jumps area but I hear several old long distance athletes saying that they achieved better results in the past with worse conditions to train and that the athletes were more willing to sacrifice themselves in training back then.

And in part it's true, I checked recently some results from the 70s, 80s and 90s, focused more in my region, and even in a period with only dirt tracks and not many advances in nutrition, equipment and general wealth (Portugal still is but was back then much more poorer), the depth of results in middle and long distances was way deeper back then than now.

And, at least for me it's not strange since a lot of the formation and recruiting of athletes is done in schools (I myself start practicing in schools) and the focus is mainly in sprinting. And being a country focused in football and with a huge differential in financial conditions between sports (I believe that 3rd division football teams offer better conditions than 1st division athletics teams here - my team is trying to fight for a good place 3rd division this year and we don't have the finances to pay any wage - even 20€ or 30€/month as is practice with some teams - to our athletes), there is no incentive for anyone with good endurance to sacrifice a place in football for something more precarious in athletics.
 
I specifically said cycling up mountains, where there is a net vertical gain with every pedal stroke. Mountains are the focal point of cycling, a flat track (or relatively flat road course is the focal point of athletics.)

Again, absolute weight. Never do runners have a conversation with their coach to get leaner to change events, say 1500m to 10,000m. Compare that with the Geraint Thomas, Wout, types constantly shifting kilos to contend in one event or another.
My point is that being as tall as TD is not as big of a disadvantage to running performance, as say being as heavy as Peter Sagan to compete on mountains.
I think you're comparing apples with oranges here. Cyclists can alter their muscle and body fat compositions to suit certain events or goals whereas taller or bigger framed runners are always at a disadvantage and can basically only hope to compete at elite level in sprint or ultra distance events unless they're extreme outliers.
 
Reactions: Red Rick
I think you're comparing apples with oranges here. Cyclists can alter their muscle and body fat compositions to suit certain events or goals whereas taller or bigger framed runners are always at a disadvantage and can basically only hope to compete at elite level in sprint or ultra distance events unless they're extreme outliers.
Yeah, I think you’re all right. I was either splitting hairs or comparing apples and oranges. Hardly anyone understands running or cycling enough to know for certain who will or won’t excel, let alone who will when crossing across sports.

Big ups to TD. Smaller but still big ups to Yates.
 
Wouldn't that weight tradeoff happen when going from like 400 to 800 or something?
Yes, there'se a tradeoff between those distances but I don't think anyone thinks about losing weight specifically for a change of event, I think it's more a result in change of training then of specifically thinking about losing weight first and then thinking of the training needed to the event.

400m is a border event as it can be disputed by two types of runners: the ones with sprinter builds and the progression is normally from 100 to 200 to 400 as they build endurance (not great change of body weight, I did this progression and was way faster at 400m - and the other two distances - with 75kg then when I had 70) and the one with skinny builds where normally they start in lower distances and go up with age, usually when natural speed and fast twitching fibers start decaying. The training gets you there, if you train for 800m you have to put more long distance intervals (thinking of 1k or more fast repetitions more frequently - as a sprinter the most I do is about 600m at low pace in the preseason with the bulk of the work mostly in the 200m-300m zone) than if you train for 400 and if you do that at the level required you will lose top speed.

In the same event you can have runners with very low endurance for long efforts (I have a PB of 50s in 400m and can't sustain more than 5 to 8 minutes running at a pace around 4'00/km) and with high endurance (I race against guys with the same PB who can do runs of 30 or more minutes at that pace).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY