Dive into this athlete’s performance at 2022 Amsterdam using our in-depth report. By comparing their results to those of similar athletes, we identify key strengths and areas in need of improvement. For this specific race, our analysis is based on the performance of 1000 similar athletes.
We stack your running times against athletes with similar finish times to see how you measure up. This chart breaks it down, showing whether you were blazing fast, cruising steady, or losing pace.
It’s all about finding out if your running strategy matched your overall finish time!
We pit your station times against athletes with similar finish times to see how you stack up. This chart shows if you crushed it, coasted, or found that sweet spot for your overall finish time.
Here’s the full breakdown of the race, station by station and run by run, stacked against the average of athletes with similar finish times.
In HYROX, pacing is the name of the game. The pacing line shows where you hit the gas, tapped the brakes, or nailed it perfectly—guiding the way to a more balanced and dominant race strategy.
With the RoxCoach Simulation machine, you can see how your predicted finish time evolves as you power through your race. This next-level tech recalculates your estimated finish time after every run and every station. Crushing the sled pull? Gaining ground on the row? Or holding strong in the Wall Balls? RoxCoach tracks it all, giving you the inside scoop on where you shined and where there’s room to level up.
This chart breaks down the splits for every athlete in the division, giving you a clear look at how times are distributed across the pack.
Compare performance to the competition, spotting where they dominated and where there’s room to improve.
You’ll see how they stack up against the Top 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and beyond. Outliers are out—so the focus stays on the real competition.
Based on our analysis, here are the focus areas for improvement. The goal is to determine how quickly the athlete could improve on some stations and where is the path of least resistance to improve his time.
The percentile rank is the current position of the athlete compared to the competition. It goes from 0 to 100, where 0 is the best and 100 is the worst. It show the potential improvement for each station. The athlete should focus on the stations with the highest potential improvement and the biggest duration.
A big improvement in the Farmer's carry station will not be as impactful as a small improvement in the wall ball station for instance. Just click on a station to see how easy it will be to improve and how important it is to focus on it during training.
For this athlete we identified a possible improvement of 04:03. Check the detail of the improvement plan below.
| Splits | Potential Improvement | Focus During Training |
|---|---|---|
| Run Total | 01:32 (From 41:39 to 40:07) | 37.9% |
| Sled Pull | 00:50 (From 05:13 to 04:23) | 20.6% |
| Farmers Carry | 00:50 (From 02:46 to 01:56) | 20.6% |
| Wall Balls | 00:24 (From 06:04 to 05:40) | 9.9% |
| Ski Erg | 00:14 (From 04:32 to 04:18) | 5.8% |
| Sandbag Lunges | 00:08 (From 04:41 to 04:33) | 3.3% |
| BBJ | 00:05 (From 04:44 to 04:39) | 2.1% |
| Sled Push | 00:00 (From 02:30 to 02:30) | 0.0% |
| Rowing | 00:00 (From 04:20 to 04:20) | 0.0% |
| Hoogenboom Thijs | Perfect Race | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Splits | Total | Average | Total | |
| Running 1 | 04:34 | 00:00 | 04:30 +00:04 | 00:00 +00:00 |
| Ski Erg | 04:32 | 04:34 | 04:23 +00:09 | 04:30 +00:04 |
| Running 2 | 04:50 | 09:06 | 04:49 +00:01 | 08:53 +00:13 |
| Sled Push | 02:30 | 13:56 | 02:47 -00:17 | 13:42 +00:14 |
| Running 3 | 05:17 | 16:26 | 05:13 +00:04 | 16:29 -00:03 |
| Sled Pull | 05:13 | 21:43 | 04:42 +00:31 | 21:42 +00:01 |
| Running 4 | 05:18 | 26:56 | 05:10 +00:08 | 26:24 +00:32 |
| Burpees Broad Jump | 04:44 | 32:14 | 05:00 -00:16 | 31:34 +00:40 |
| Running 5 | 05:18 | 36:58 | 05:21 -00:03 | 36:34 +00:24 |
| Rowing | 04:20 | 42:16 | 04:44 -00:24 | 41:55 +00:21 |
| Running 6 | 05:31 | 46:36 | 05:13 +00:18 | 46:39 -00:03 |
| Farmers Carry | 02:46 | 52:07 | 02:07 +00:39 | 51:52 +00:15 |
| Running 7 | 05:10 | 54:53 | 05:12 -00:02 | 53:59 +00:54 |
| Sandbag Lunges | 04:41 | 01:00:03 | 04:51 -00:10 | 59:11 +00:52 |
| Running 8 | 05:44 | 01:04:44 | 05:42 +00:02 | 01:04:02 +00:42 |
| Wall Balls | 06:04 | 01:10:28 | 06:11 -00:07 | 01:09:44 +00:44 |
| Roxzone | 05:55 | 01:22:19 | 06:24 -00:29 | 01:22:19 |
In terms of his splits, Thijs performed well in some segments but struggled in others. His total running time was 00:41:39, which was 02:08 slower than the average. This suggests that he could benefit from improving his overall fitness and reducing his transition time. His best running lap was 00:04:34, indicating that he has the potential to excel in running if he focuses on specific training strategies.
In conclusion, Thijs Hoogenboom had a strong performance in the Hyrox race. To improve his overall performance, he should focus on areas of improvement such as his running endurance and speed, as well as his upper body and grip strength. By implementing specific training strategies, incorporating targeted exercises, and working on his pacing and transition times, Thijs can further enhance his performance in future races.
| Similar Athletes | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Braun Fabian | 2022 Hamburg | 01:22:01 | |
| Van Bruggen Mathijs | 2024 Rotterdam | 01:22:41 | |
| Noack Eric | 2018 Leipzig | 01:22:10 | |
| Swaak Evan | 2024 Rotterdam | 01:22:00 | |
| Dunne Brendan | 2023 London | 01:22:41 | |
| Pergolini Federico | 2023 Rimini | 01:22:44 | |
| Gurrutxaga Rekarte Mikel | 2023 Bilbao | 01:22:14 | |
| Linehan Kevin | 2024 Dublin | 01:22:14 | |
| Kelderman Jacob | 2024 Chicago Navy Pier | 01:22:38 | |
| Male Darren | 2024 Brisbane | 01:22:48 | |
| Other Results from this athlete | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2023 Rotterdam Hoogenboom Thijs | 01:30:34 | |
| 2024 Maastricht Hoogenboom Thijs, Meulenhoff Jil | 01:23:11 | |
Unlock your potential with our pace calculator tool, designed to help you craft your ideal race splits and propel yourself to new heights.
Pace Calculator
Hoogenboom Thijs
